Protecting wealth before marriage ?

[Venturist]

El stovey said:

I pretty much disagree with you entirely, I suppose everyone has a different view of marriage and what it means and what's important to them.

The gain is being in an equal relationship and sharing stuff. To me that's entirely what a marriage actually is. What you're describing sounds like some kind of financial contract. What's important to me is not having money influence the balance in the relationship. Share it and if you've married the right person, they will have the same kind of outlook as you.

I fully understand my point but you're not seeing mine - the things you've quoted as benefits of being married, what you stand to gain, are things that are perfectly possible without getting married. You can "be in an equal relationship" and "share stuff" without being married.

Literally the only thing that actually, materially changes as a result of marriage is the financial tying together. Any nice feelings that go along with being married are because you now feel more secure and established together, for example; but if you look at that rationally there's no reason that those feelings were impossible without marriage. Marriage is not, and does not have to be, a required eventual outcome of a relationship - especially in modern society. So why?

Edited by Venturist on Thursday 27th April 11:21

[anonymous-user]

Amateurish said:

El stovey said:

Its not about not being prepared. I have stuff insured, I try and mitigate against bad things happening to me and my family. It's the mindset. If you go into a marriage thinking that there is a wealth disparity and that you want some recognition of this or some kind of acknowledgement of having more money than your partner, you're simply not entering into an equal relationship. Money is affecting you and your relationships.

You're saying, lets go through life together but I'm not sharing this money here, it's mine not yours. It might work out for you, it might not but I bet people who go into marriage thinking about wealth disparity and worried about their belongings are much more likely to have a failed result.

No, I'm not saying that. While they are together, they will share the wealth, be it in terms of living in a nice property, or enjoying the finer things together. If they stay together until death, all the better. The question is about what happens to wealth if the relationship ends.

Actually, what I am saying is, why get married at all? Prenups have very limited value especially if, as is often the case, there is a change of circumstances e.g. the arrival of children. Personally, I've been with my partner for 20 years and unmarried. Many of my friends have long lasting, committed relationships outside of marriage. For OP's friend I would say he has little to gain but lots to potentially lose.

For me, i suppose it's the sharing everything that makes us in a marriage, that's the gain. The feeling I get from sharing everything. It feels very different to me to long term relationships I've had in the past. Where I know if it didn't work, I could just bugger off. Now I'm in the new world with my boats burned.

I've probably been a bit preachy and evangelical about this so apologies and as I said before,if what people do works for them then great.

[Shnozz]

El stovey said:

xjay1337 said:

The only issue is where you have someone earning £250k a year and someone else earning £12k a year. But in reality how often does this really happen?

People tend to be partnered with similar levels, not very often a high flying businessman ends up in a relationship with a council flat dropout who does part time work at Co-op.

I know loads of blokes who have good jobs and their wives don't work. My mum and dad were exactly like this.

I think xjay is way off the mark to be honest. Ironically it is most of my mates that do earn the big money who have wives that don't work, or work in voluntary jobs or low paid but enjoyable work because they don't need to chase the ££s.

Closer to home, my other half is far more qualified than me and an expert in her field, but academia and research pays moderately at best and always will. Salary doesn't always reflect effort or intelligence. Similarly, I have met some folk with the IQ of a jar of mayonnaise who work in sales and make vast quantities of money.

[anonymous-user]

Venturist said:

El stovey said:

I pretty much disagree with you entirely, I suppose everyone has a different view of marriage and what it means and what's important to them.

The gain is being in an equal relationship and sharing stuff. To me that's entirely what a marriage actually is. What you're describing sounds like some kind of financial contract. What's important to me is not having money influence the balance in the relationship. Share it and if you've married the right person, they will have the same kind of outlook as you.

I fully understand my point but you're not seeing mine - the things you've quoted as benefits of being married, what you stand to gain, are things that are perfectly possible without getting married. You can "be in an equal relationship" and "share stuff" without being married.

Literally the only thing that actually, materially changes as a result of marriage is the financial tying together. Any nice feelings that go along with being married are because you now feel more secure and established together, for example; but if you look at that rationally there's no reason that those feelings were impossible without marriage. Marriage is not, and does not have to be, a required eventual outcome of a relationship - especially in modern society. So why?

Yes that's the big bit, you're then in an equal relationship. If you're making arrangements and holding back money or possessions, then to me, you're not fully in an equal relationship.

It's not actually about marriage or not, it's about whether you share all your stuff or just some of it,

[Amateurish]

El stovey said:

Yes that's the big bit, you're then in an equal relationship. If you're making arrangements and holding back money or possessions, then to me, you're not fully in an equal relationship.

It's not actually about marriage or not, it's about whether you share all your stuff or just some of it,

You can do that anyway. Put the house in joint names, put the money into a joint bank account, set up a family trust, whatever. If you want to gift half of your £4m to your partner in order to make your relationship feel stronger - just go ahead!

[amare32]

Don't get married period if you want to protect your finances/assets.

I've not been married and never will nor do I want children - 101% sure even I'm 39.

Saw something on YouTube the other day where a judge has ruled that a woman sued a guy for money for breaking their off engagement. WTF.

[Venturist]

Amateurish said:

You can do that anyway. Put the house in joint names, put the money into a joint bank account, set up a family trust, whatever. If you want to gift half of your £4m to your partner in order to make your relationship feel stronger - just go ahead!

Precisely my point. The only difference between that situation and being married is that the courts will forcefully do it on your behalf if you divorce.

[anonymous-user]

Amateurish said:

El stovey said:

Yes that's the big bit, you're then in an equal relationship. If you're making arrangements and holding back money or possessions, then to me, you're not fully in an equal relationship.

It's not actually about marriage or not, it's about whether you share all your stuff or just some of it,

You can do that anyway. Put the house in joint names, put the money into a joint bank account, set up a family trust, whatever. If you want to gift half of your £4m to your partner in order to make your relationship feel stronger - just go ahead!

Right but that's what the threads about?

Whether you share all your stuff when you get married/have a long term partner or whether you only share some of your stuff in case it doesn't work out.

Sharing some of your stuff, doesn't sound very equal.

It's like if me and you are in a plane crash and we end up in the Pacific, in a raft. I have some food in my bag and you've got nothing, we're going to have to work together to paddle to an island miles away. We might not make it.

I say "don't worry amateurish, were in it together, we'll split the food evenly and work together and make it to that island with all the fresh water and shelter and sexy naked native chicks" then I get the food. Put a third of it in my bag (in case we fall out) and then divide what's left between us.

Do you feel like we're in it together?

[xjay1337]

Shnozz said:

El stovey said:

xjay1337 said:

The only issue is where you have someone earning £250k a year and someone else earning £12k a year. But in reality how often does this really happen?

People tend to be partnered with similar levels, not very often a high flying businessman ends up in a relationship with a council flat dropout who does part time work at Co-op.

I know loads of blokes who have good jobs and their wives don't work. My mum and dad were exactly like this.

I think xjay is way off the mark to be honest. Ironically it is most of my mates that do earn the big money who have wives that don't work, or work in voluntary jobs or low paid but enjoyable work because they don't need to chase the ££s.

Closer to home, my other half is far more qualified than me and an expert in her field, but academia and research pays moderately at best and always will. Salary doesn't always reflect effort or intelligence. Similarly, I have met some folk with the IQ of a jar of mayonnaise who work in sales and make vast quantities of money.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but generally you get into long term relationships with people of similar intelligence. Rather than the "job" itself.

It's not very often you see a powerfully built company director on Jeremy Kyle show is it?
Of course if you have kids then one parent generally stops work for a while or maybe at least until the child is at school.

Certainly for me at the moment contributing together for the greater success of both of us (me and my partner) is important - If she wasn't contributing towards the rent then it wouldn't work. Mainly because I couldn't afford it!

I wouldn't be very happy if my wife had no job (without having a child) by choice. Simply because financially I cannot support 2 people on my current salary.
In my case where my Mrs has been waiting for a start date for her new job, I've been subsidising her, paying for days out, dinners etc, giving her money for fuel and reduced her contribution to the rent last month.
That's fine because it's not really her fault and she is trying hard to work lots of hours on her 0 hours care contract.

When we have children, then the goalposts change, and we would be able to manage financially. But I know she would go back to work as soon as she can because she wants to contribute to our collective house.

[Venturist]

El stovey said:

Right but that's what the threads about?

Whether you share all your stuff when you get married/have a long term partner or whether you only share some of your stuff in case it doesn't work out.

Sharing some of your stuff, doesn't sound very equal.

It's like if me and you are in a plane crash and we end up in the Pacific, in a raft. I have some food in my bag and you've got nothing, we're going to have to work together to paddle to an island miles away. We might not make it.

I say "don't worry amateurish, were in it together, we'll split the food evenly and work together and make it to that island with all the fresh water and shelter and sexy naked native chicks" then I get the food. Put a third of it in my bag (in case we fall out) and then divide what's left between us.

Do you feel like we're in it together?

This is fun, let's run with it!
So you split everything equally despite the fact that you showed up in the raft with plenty of food and amateurish for whatever reason contributed nothing.
Then let's say halfway to the island you've had a bit of a falling out, because raft life is hard and not always fun. Whilst you're asleep one night and amateurish takes watch: he spots himself a passing ship, and hops out of the raft (with his half of the stuff) and is rescued to safety! "Stuff you", he thinks, "you never treated me fairly anyway".
You wake up in the morning to find amateurish is gone and you don't have enough food left to stay alive long enough to get to the island. But at least you *felt like you were in it together*, which is your only consolation as you slowly starve to death, whilst amateurish enjoys cold mojitos and the company of some flirty 20 year old islander girls

[Colonial]

I can see why some of you lot are divorced.

[stargazer30]

The problem with threads like this is marriage has two very different meanings.

The emotional/relationship side- sharing your life with a partner, forsaking all others, raising kids in a stable environment, being there for one another through thick and thin, the old biblical side of marriage. I'm 100% behind this. I also think when women "want" to marry this is what they are after.
I'd even go as far to say where kids come into it, it better to be in a good healthy marriage.

Then there's the legal side of it, which by the way has F**k all to do with what marriage was supposed to be about and has messed the game up for every guy in the UK (and America as well). Folks saying if you go into marriage worried about assets more fool you, its not about that etc.. Are half right but there's no getting around the fact that legally and statistically marriage is massive, simply massive risk to a mans financial health and even freedom and human rights. That's no exaggeration either. In the eyes of the law, men are guilty until proven innocent when it comes to the common stuff that's thrown up in an ugly divorce, he hit me, he's emotionally abusive etc...

As for pick the right girl, only works if you and her are older, wiser and have seen through the BS. I mean seriously how many folks on here can say they feel and think the exact same way in there 40s as they did in there 20's? People change. It didn't used to be a problem when marriage was something that was taboo to break, you were forced to change and grow together. Now our culture and legal system are pushing women to divorce for cash and prizes and its all okay, its always the guys fault.

Sorry chaps, the game is rigged, the only option is to not play it. Or wait until you're old enough to not care anymore.

Edited by stargazer30 on Thursday 27th April 12:44

[anonymous-user]

Venturist said:

El stovey said:

Right but that's what the threads about?

Whether you share all your stuff when you get married/have a long term partner or whether you only share some of your stuff in case it doesn't work out.

Sharing some of your stuff, doesn't sound very equal.

It's like if me and you are in a plane crash and we end up in the Pacific, in a raft. I have some food in my bag and you've got nothing, we're going to have to work together to paddle to an island miles away. We might not make it.

I say "don't worry amateurish, were in it together, we'll split the food evenly and work together and make it to that island with all the fresh water and shelter and sexy naked native chicks" then I get the food. Put a third of it in my bag (in case we fall out) and then divide what's left between us.

Do you feel like we're in it together?

This is fun, let's run with it!
So you split everything equally despite the fact that you showed up in the raft with plenty of food and amateurish for whatever reason contributed nothing.
Then let's say halfway to the island you've had a bit of a falling out, because raft life is hard and not always fun. Whilst you're asleep one night and amateurish takes watch: he spots himself a passing ship, and hops out of the raft (with his half of the stuff) and is rescued to safety! "Stuff you", he thinks, "you never treated me fairly anyway".
You wake up in the morning to find amateurish is gone and you don't have enough food left to stay alive long enough to get to the island. But at least you *felt like you were in it together*, which is your only consolation as you slowly starve to death, whilst amateurish enjoys cold mojitos and the company of some flirty 20 year old islander girls

The raft analogy would be more like a marriage if I could select who came on the raft with me. In the scenario, amateurish and I have somehow randomly ended up together.

A marriage would be more like if you could pick who you went on the raft with. You would no doubt select someone with similar eating habits, ability to row, health, positive attitude etc etc.

I still say that then if you split your food evenly with your chum, you would have a much better chance of a successful outcome than if you held some food back and then split the rest.

I expect amateurish, although undoubtedly a great rower and raft mate would be more likely to bugger off to a ship in the night if he knew I'd held some food back for myself in the first place.

[xjay1337]

Venturist said:

This is fun, let's run with it!
So you split everything equally despite the fact that you showed up in the raft with plenty of food and amateurish for whatever reason contributed nothing.
Then let's say halfway to the island you've had a bit of a falling out, because raft life is hard and not always fun. Whilst you're asleep one night and amateurish takes watch: he spots himself a passing ship, and hops out of the raft (with his half of the stuff) and is rescued to safety! "Stuff you", he thinks, "you never treated me fairly anyway".
You wake up in the morning to find amateurish is gone and you don't have enough food left to stay alive long enough to get to the island. But at least you *felt like you were in it together*, which is your only consolation as you slowly starve to death, whilst amateurish enjoys cold mojitos and the company of some flirty 20 year old islander girls

amazing

[Ari]

El stovey said:

Yes that's the big bit, you're then in an equal relationship. If you're making arrangements and holding back money or possessions, then to me, you're not fully in an equal relationship.

It's not actually about marriage or not, it's about whether you share all your stuff or just some of it,

Some absolutely massive missing of the point in this thread, of which this is but one example (so apologies for picking this one out but it's a good example).

No one has an issue with two people getting together, living equally and sharing whatever the union has brought together.

The issue comes when, one year in, the new wife who came in with nothing and contributed nothing, has the affair with the tennis coach and pisses off with a seven figure sum for the pleasure.

If it doesn't happen, brilliant. But to criticise a man who has accrued a significant sum for considering this outcome (which isn't exactly a chance in a million) is just plain dumb.

I'm certainly not a millionaire but I've worked very hard to amass my meagre amount, which mostly amounts to a small (but paid for) house and a few quid in savings and a couple of nice toys. I actually couldn't marry someone with nothing because if it went wrong, I could lose that house and with property prices where they are and a limited working life left, be effectively homeless and forced to rent (and therefore work full time) for ever!

Seriously, would that be a smart thing to risk? You might think that you can guarantee how you will feel in 5 years time (you'd be wrong, but you might think it). But can you guarantee how she will feel about things?

[Ari]

El stovey said:

It's like if me and you are in a plane crash and we end up in the Pacific, in a raft. I have some food in my bag and you've got nothing, we're going to have to work together to paddle to an island miles away. We might not make it.

I say "don't worry amateurish, were in it together, we'll split the food evenly and work together and make it to that island with all the fresh water and shelter and sexy naked native chicks" then I get the food. Put a third of it in my bag (in case we fall out) and then divide what's left between us.

Do you feel like we're in it together?

Very poor analogy, sorry.

As per my previous post, yet again you're talking about whilst in the relationship, what this thread is about is what happens AFTER the relationship ends, and the ending of it could be completely out of your control.

Plus we're talking about someone with £4M and someone with nothing.

So if you want to use this analogy, you have to talk about someone with a massive yacht plucking someone out of the sea with nothing. The yacht owner happily shares his yacht, and everything on it, the food, the beer, it's hers as much as his because he loves her very much.

Brilliant, but then they put into port one day and she decides she doesn't want to be on the yacht anymore. She's bored of yachts, and she's met a bloke with a jet.

Fine, can't odds that, very sad, bye bye.

The question is, is it reasonable for the bloke with the yacht be forced to saw it in half at that point and hand one half to her?

And crucially, would he be sensible to try and make sure that if she does leave the yacht, he can keep it, since it was his to begin with?

That's what this thread is about, not about what you share or how you divide things whilst together.

[Venturist]

El stovey said:

The raft analogy would be more like a marriage if I could select who came on the raft with me. In the scenario, amateurish and I have somehow randomly ended up together.

A marriage would be more like if you could pick who you went on the raft with. You would no doubt select someone with similar eating habits, ability to row, health, positive attitude etc etc.

I still say that then if you split your food evenly with your chum, you would have a much better chance of a successful outcome than if you held some food back and then split the rest.

I expect amateurish, although undoubtedly a great rower and raft mate would be more likely to bugger off to a ship in the night if he knew I'd held some food back for myself in the first place.

That all sounds perfectly sensible and logical on paper and I think everyone on the planet would prefer it to work that way. In practice though you're not dealing with logical decisions, you're dealing with the nebulous world of feelings and male:female attraction, and the simple truth is that the vast majority of divorces are at the root causes by a loss of attraction to the husband - not necessarily in the physical sense but mainly in his character.

In practice this manifests as "I love him but I'm not IN love with him" or gets twisted into "he was abusive/controlling" or by the wife never sharing those feelings but behaving in such a way that the husband chooses to divorce her himself, or a thousand other things. By the way, I'm not calling divorcing women liars - I firmly believe they genuinely feel those things, whether or not they would appear true to an impartial observer.
In my own experience and that of all those relationships I see around me, successful and unsuccessful, it's the men who would do absolutely anything for their wives who got burned. A lack of backbone in a man and a failure to look after his own self-interest, which we are led to believe as being noble, is the slow cause of death for his wife's attraction to him.

In practice in the raft analogy, if you made it clear upfront that you would share some of your food but would also be keeping some back for your own ensured survival in case of problems, (hypothetically female) amateurish would possibly rant and rave at the injustice BUT subconsciously she would respect that decision, your backbone, and would prove a far more engaged and loyal companion than someone who proactively handed over his stuff in the hopes that that generosity would be reciprocated and repaid.

[anonymous-user]

Venturist said:

In my own experience and that of all those relationships I see around me, successful and unsuccessful, it's the men who would do absolutely anything for their wives who got burned. A lack of backbone in a man and a failure to look after his own self-interest, which we are led to believe as being noble, is the slow cause of death for his wife's attraction to him.

Extraordinary. That someone who shares their wealth is seen as weak and infact so weak that the wife goes off him?

I'm beginning to see why you think you shouldn't share. Is it that by having more wealth than your partner. You have more power and she'll respect you more (and remain attracted to you) as a result.

It's basically about retaining wealth to have control and more respect?

[Venturist]

El stovey said:

Extraordinary. That someone who shares their wealth is seen as weak and infact so weak that the wife goes off him?

I'm beginning to see why you think you shouldn't share. Is it that by having more wealth than your partner. You have more power and she'll respect you more (and remain attracted to you) as a result.

It's basically about retaining wealth to have control and more respect?

You're not quite there yet, you're still thinking too shallow. Think along the lines of something being earned vs something gifted.

Pop the question to your girlfriend after five years of dating and she'll (hopefully) be over the moon. Pop the question on the first date and she'll probably leg it. Why? It's not about the thing that's being given itself, because arguably if her only goal was to one day be married then she'd jump on that easy opportunity. It's because if you just give something away unconditionally then clearly even you don't value it much, and therefore it's evidently not very valuable.
After five years of dating, though, she knows you've thought about it a long time, weighed up your options at length, and decided that it's something you want to do. (Unless you're doing it because she nagged you )

In another analogy, we all know that bloke in the office who's DESPERATE to be everyone's mate. Meanwhile there's a bloke who's a really interesting, friendly, funny chap who'll have a great chat when you've got a common subject and he's got time, but you also appreciate that when he's busy, he's not to be bothered.
Which one do you prefer to make a cuppa with?

Looking out for yourself and your own interests we are always told is selfish, but in reality garners respect. Being selfless actually shows you value yourself below others, and if you don't even think much of yourself, why would anybody else?



Lead with "what's mine is yours forever, no questions asked, no conditions" and initially she'll be thrilled because who doesn't like free stuff? But long-term that sacrifice you made means nothing because it cost her nothing.

Lead with "what's mine is yours and yours is mine, whilst we are together, but let's be pragmatic and take steps to ensure that if things don't work out, nobody is worse off" you establish that things have value to you therefore are seen as valuable, you will always take care of yourself because you have a spine, and that while you are more than happy to share - this is not just a signing-over.

Edited by Venturist on Thursday 27th April 14:31

[otolith]

Ari said:

That's what this thread is about, not about what you share or how you divide things whilst together.

Yes, but it's about planning for that eventuality before the marriage has even started and making clear that you have no intention of pooling your assets, rather that they remain yours and your partner will merely be allowed to have use of them while you remain married. I'm very much in favour of couples negotiating whatever kind of relationship suits them both, though, so if both parties are happy with that, fine by me.