|
|
Post by DryCreek on Jun 3, 2020 12:47:17 GMT -5
Flying solo, what does “screwed financially mean?” Would you be living in a barren rented room and having to buy clothes at goodwill or would your lifestyle simply be reduced? Would being single be worth the price? Respectfully, I think you trivialize the financial burden. While it may not amount to destitution, it’s far from just a lifestyle inconvenience. At 25-30 years, a typical scenario looks like this for the wage-earner... Alimony approaches 50% of after-tax earnings, plus paying for her health insurance and a life insurance policy in the range of $1M with her as the beneficiary (which will get quite expensive as time goes on). This amount is reduced by her earning potential, which the court doesn’t count for much given the lack of job experience. Alimony lasts “for life”, but practically you can request relief after reaching retirement age. So, “only” 15 years or so. That 50% figure is based on your demonstrated earning potential, not your actual earnings - so, you can’t elect to take a less stressful job for less money or even live lean and retire early, because the alimony amount is fixed. If your earning potential truly is reduced, it requires going back to court for a re-calculation. And lest I forget child support, that’s still a factor for some guys, even after 25 years. That’s in addition to the alimony. Of course, all of this is independent of splitting the joint assets, which should be 50/50. At less than 50% income, there is a very material effect on lifestyle, for sure. But it also destroys the ability to keep building retirement savings. The tail on this is very, very long. Unless you live in a state without alimony like Texas, in which case you split assets and part ways like shamwow. ironhamster - how does this compare to the deal you ended up with? |
|
|
|
Post by flyingsolo on Jun 3, 2020 14:51:27 GMT -5
Checks with lots of zeros (add at least six probably in total) after them leaving my possession = "screwed financially". So no, I won't be destitute, but all the hard work I have put in to provide a comfortable life for my family and a nice retirement where we can go where we please and stay if we like it would need to be drastically overhauled. Frankly, to me, it doesn't seem fair given how much grief my wife has given me over starting a business and my career. So ya, right now, it isn't worth it to me to take the financial and emotional hit to my family.
|
|
|
|
Post by saarinista on Jun 3, 2020 18:12:47 GMT -5
Lots of things aren't fair. It might not be "fair" to "lose" all that money you earned.
This feeling assumes that you WILL, in FACT, control your money or your happiness in your marriage if your marital difficulties are not resolved.
Few refuser women I've heard about let their husbands control the money during the marriage.
After you divorce, you control your remaining assets and your life.You might end up with a better life all around.
Remember, many people live on very little money. I personally have found that beyond a certain basic income level, money can be as much of a hassle as a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by baza on Jun 3, 2020 19:39:31 GMT -5
This position of "staying so I can continue to draw on the financial resources of the partnership" is predicated on the basis that you have access to the joint assets now, and that they will remain accessible to you for the indefinite future.
That, is a dangerous assumption.
There are about half a dozen members here who were considering mebbe divorcing their refuser spouse but didn't like the financial picture that would emerge, only to have the refuser spouse pre-emptively initiate divorce themselves.
You don't get the sole rights to deciding whether the marriage continues (or ends).
It's as well to keep that in mind.
If your spouse is aware of what a supposedly sweet deal it would be for them to divorce you, a helluva lot of refuser spouses would do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by saarinista on Jun 3, 2020 20:03:08 GMT -5
Either spouse can drain a joint account at any time can't they? Until you file divorce, I think you can't do anything about it. Same for debt. Until you file divorce debts belong to both of you regardless. Just saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Jun 3, 2020 20:48:20 GMT -5
You make a good point that the autonomy and control over one’s money are pluses. I’ll also observe that no matter your wishes, your spouse can pull the trigger anyway. Maybe more likely if the threat of divorce has triggered them to get legal advice, and they’ve learned their outlook might be better than expected. Remember, many people live on very little money. I personally have found that beyond a certain basic income level, money can be as much of a hassle as a good thing. It sounds good to be free of the burdens of money, but you’re very much a slave to it when you owe a large monthly debt. Instead, you’re stuck working much harder for what you keep - and the debt doesn’t go away if you take a lesser job, so you become trapped in your career options too. For some couples, the split can be very simple, especially if both have had similar career trajectories - that’s mostly about splitting assets. Sole breadwinners are at the opposite end of the spectrum. It’s not learning to survive on one income instead of two - it’s like committing to work forever for half as much salary as your peers, and never being able to quit. |
|
|
|
Post by saarinista on Jun 3, 2020 23:07:23 GMT -5
DryCreek That's why I can't understand why any man marries a non working woman.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handy on Jun 3, 2020 23:28:30 GMT -5
Saarinista
DryCreek That's why I can't understand why any man marries a non working woman.
Old school said the man worked and the woman took care of the home and children.
Later it became, if the woman worked her income was hers to do with as SHE saw fit. Her working meant the H didn't have to pay for all of her monetary needs/wants.
|
|
|
|
Post by saarinista on Jun 3, 2020 23:35:56 GMT -5
Saarinista
DryCreek That's why I can't understand why any man marries a non working woman. Old school said the man worked and the woman took care of the home and children. Later it became, if the woman worked her income was hers to do with as SHE saw fit. Her working meant the H didn't have to pay for all of her monetary needs/wants. That's only true if men allow it. Don't put up with shit! I realize things change and we learn many lessons too late but.... Sadly I think maybe refuser women are more likely to be financial slackers too. I honestly think all the men on this forum should realize that plenty of women just stay married for money. If your wife won't fuck you but she claims to be working on it.... Be suspicious. And don't automatically blame it in menopause, either. If there's no effort there, she's a slacker. |
|
|
|
Post by Handy on Jun 4, 2020 0:42:54 GMT -5
Saarinista, some women and men take the easy way in life. My W is one of the "easy way" people.
Me learning lessons too late? Yes, I fit into the learned my lessons too late group.
|
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Jun 4, 2020 1:25:46 GMT -5
DryCreek That's why I can't understand why any man marries a non working woman. Yeah, that was not the case at first. And was not the plan with kids. But plans got changed on me after the first child was born. I could keep us afloat without her income, it was the model I’d been trained was traditional, and it seemed the responsible / honorable / manly thing to be the breadwinner. There was zero awareness of the long-term implications. Trust me, my kids will learn better. But yes, I’ve got friends that don’t have kids and only one works. I don’t get that. |
|
|
|
Post by Handy on Jun 4, 2020 9:48:06 GMT -5
DryCreek
....., I’ve got friends that don’t have kids and only one works.
That was common 40-50 years ago
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhamster on Jun 5, 2020 15:11:08 GMT -5
Flying solo, what does “screwed financially mean?” Would you be living in a barren rented room and having to buy clothes at goodwill or would your lifestyle simply be reduced? Would being single be worth the price? Respectfully, I think you trivialize the financial burden. While it may not amount to destitution, it’s far from just a lifestyle inconvenience. At 25-30 years, a typical scenario looks like this for the wage-earner... Alimony approaches 50% of after-tax earnings, plus paying for her health insurance and a life insurance policy in the range of $1M with her as the beneficiary (which will get quite expensive as time goes on). This amount is reduced by her earning potential, which the court doesn’t count for much given the lack of job experience. Alimony lasts “for life”, but practically you can request relief after reaching retirement age. So, “only” 15 years or so. That 50% figure is based on your demonstrated earning potential, not your actual earnings - so, you can’t elect to take a less stressful job for less money or even live lean and retire early, because the alimony amount is fixed. If your earning potential truly is reduced, it requires going back to court for a re-calculation. And lest I forget child support, that’s still a factor for some guys, even after 25 years. That’s in addition to the alimony. Of course, all of this is independent of splitting the joint assets, which should be 50/50. At less than 50% income, there is a very material effect on lifestyle, for sure. But it also destroys the ability to keep building retirement savings. The tail on this is very, very long. Unless you live in a state without alimony like Texas, in which case you split assets and part ways like shamwow. ironhamster - how does this compare to the deal you ended up with? I was generous and I still got nickel-dimed. First off, I was giving my ex $1000 a week when I left, because I did not want her to be a hardship case. This was about what I was making, but I had reserves to fall back on temporarily. I knew my wife's spending habits, so this would get her by until she got a job, which she was still sandbagging on. Omfg. Judge Cusack set my temporary mandatory support at $1000 a week!!! Now, his generosity with my money put me under duress to accept the settlement. My wife's haul of shared property was 75% of our assets. I wanted her to have the house, because that would make it easier on our youngest. I split everything else evenly, but gave her cash in lieu of the Roth IRA because the cash was more valuable to her and the retirement account more valuable to me. Then the nickel-diming started and Judge Cusack shut me down so there was little I could do but sign the deal or keep overpaying for "temporary" support. My ex got a cool half million dollars if I die, so she is not inconvenienced by my early demise, both children insured on my dime until the age of 26, and my youngest, homeschooled, she gets child support until she "graduates" and I don't know if she actually will, but we will see next spring. My alimony payment is a set amount, based on 30% of my gross less 20% of her gross. With her Master's Degree that I paid for, she took what amounts to a retail job, so at least I get some deduction but she could do better for herself. Every three years it is supposed to be readjusted. We will see what happens. If you know you are divorcing, even if it is three years away, there are things you may be able to do to put yourself in a better position. Send the spouse back to work. Limit your income. And, spend the money up front on a lawyer to know what works in your jurisdiction. $1000 might sound crazy for a two or three hour talk, but it will save you in the long run. |
|
|
|
Post by flyingsolo on Jun 5, 2020 16:26:26 GMT -5
DryCreek That's why I can't understand why any man marries a non working woman. I would never marry a non-working woman, but my wife was working at the time we got married. She stopped when we started having kids and hasn't gone back as our kids are homeschooled. I'm curious what she plans to do with her life once are youngest kid is off to college. I hope she doesn't think she is going to sit around and just hang out with friends and do fun stuff all day. |
|
|
|
Post by Handy on Jun 5, 2020 17:21:54 GMT -5
Flyingsolo, didn't you hear, a Wife that stays home works more than the H when he has a job that produces an income. One of Gloria Steinem's friends said so, so it must be true. :eye roll:
I am not saying your W has it easy. Home schooling sounds like a lot of work.
|
|
