Your thoughts on Pre-Nups?

[Fudgie]

But then it's not the prenup weakening the marriage. The pre-existing conflicting viewpoints are present with or without the prenup. Opening the conversation about a prenup may expose an existing weakness in the relationship then, but it does not cause it.

 

I agree with this. And I think pre-nups work when BOTH parties are in agreement and on the same page. Like should marry like, esp when it comes to this. It's good to discuss everything with your partner that is important because even if it's hard to talk about, you need to come to an agreement when it comes to important matters.

[DN]

I guess that is true. It is how someone views it. People should share the same deep values if they are going to marry.

However, I don't think there should be an implication that people who prefer prenups have shallow or less meaningful values.

 

My wife and I never had one and we share everything including bank accounts. But then we haven't faced divorce so the fact it worked for us doesn't mean it will work that way for everyone.

[superfox]

i've posted and deleted so many replies of my own to this. My bf wants a pre-nup but only to protect my children's inheritance, no other reason. I was shocked and stunned when he mentioned it (pre-nup whether we marry or not - long story!) but there is nothing he can gain from one. I trust him 100% and know that he'll insist when we do cohabit so it has taken me a lot of getting used to. I'm not rich by anyone's standards but for him it protects their money should we split and second, he'll have a roof over his head if something happens to me before they are of an age.

 

Basically we are covering our arses so any cash goes to who matters and not solicitors, not the most romantic thing in the world but hey, we've both been bitten!

[Seraphim]

However, I don't think there should be an implication that people who prefer prenups have shallow or less meaningful values.

 

My wife and I never had one and we share everything including bank accounts. But then we haven't faced divorce so the fact it worked for us doesn't mean it will work that way for everyone.

 

I know it does not work that way for everyone. I am only saying that kind of arrangement is something I would never personally myself get involved in. It does not matter to me what other people do. I am only presenting my own experience as other people are. If they are pro pre nup that is fine and I bet it works for them I am just not.

[DN]

John Cleese claims that, because he didn't get a prenup, if he dies his most recent ex's children from her previous relationships will get more money from him than his own children from his previous relationships.

[Blue Spiral]

If there's one constant in life, it's that things change--situations change, people change, etc. This is true when the things involved are stable and static, and it's even more true when the things involved are fluid, like emotion. I view pre-nups as insurance against that.

[OptomisticGirl]

Because in this particular case, at least so far, your own experience which you describe as being successful and having joint bank accounts is not the "norm".

 

Most marriages fail and having joint accounts muddies the waters.

 

Actually were I'm from it's rare NOT to mesh the accounts. Marriages can work with joint accounts and no prenup. Shocker, I know.

[Seraphim]

^^ I do not know too many people with separate accounts either actually.

[OptomisticGirl]

Depends on the couple though. L makes a fair amount - more than my 12,000 a year for sure - but we aren't getting one.

 

Joint accounts breed resentment when the situation isn't talked about beforehand, yes. L and I know we are free to buy whatever we want as long as bills are paid and us and the kids have food. That's the only stipulation we have to the whole joint account thing.

[Fudgie]

OG, I think with your set-up (buy what you want as long as household bills are taken care of first) is a good one. The problem is that with many people who own joint accounts, they want to be held accountable for almost everything that is taken out of there because it's no longer his/her money, but THEIR money so THEY must decide together how it is spent. So that means small/medium purchases will be scrutinised. I believe that scrutiny is what breeds resentment ("Hey. I make almost 3k MORE than her, why do I have to consult with her everytime I want to buy a $50 videogame?") and if there's a way to avoid that and the whole "let me see all of your discretionary spending" then I think that's the best thing.

[OptomisticGirl]

I agree Fudgie. Joint accounts work when you view it like separate accounts. As long as the basics are taken care of and you aren't being an idiot with the money, you can do whatever you want with the money you get. L will always make more than me but has no problem with me buying myself scrapbook stuff as long as I don't complain sbout his airplane hobby.

[Seraphim]

I agree Fudgie. Joint accounts work when you view it like separate accounts. As long as the basics are taken care of and you aren't being an idiot with the money, you can do whatever you want with the money you get. L will always make more than me but has no problem with me buying myself scrapbook stuff as long as I don't complain sbout his airplane hobby.

 

The thing too with separate accounts where I can see contention is someone making far far more than the other and then the one that makes less is now spending vastly more of their income on "survival" and have little to none as discretionary expenditure and they get to watch their partner have all the fun.

[Fudgie]

The thing too with separate accounts where I can see contention is someone making far far more than the other and then the one that makes less is now spending vastly more of their income on "survival" and have little to none as discretionary expenditure and they get to watch their partner have all the fun.

 

This can be resolved if one person transferred X amount automatically each month into the other's account if they so wished for it.

 

I know a family friend couple. Woman makes a lot more and she does with her husband. She still can keep her money for personal usage but her husband has a little more discretionary spending power in exchange for doing more around the house.

 

If I marry someone who makes less than I do (which is quite possible given what I plan to do) then this is what I would do.

[Seraphim]

This can be resolved if one person transferred X amount automatically each month into the other's account if they so wished for it.

 

I know a family friend couple. Woman makes a lot more and she does with her husband. She still can keep her money for personal usage but her husband has a little more discretionary spending power in exchange for doing more around the house.

 

If I marry someone who makes less than I do (which is quite possible given what I plan to do) then this is what I would do.

 

I would not like that though because that implies I am "paid for" or like a child receiving their allowance.

[FarthestEdge]

All of this underscores why it is so critical for couples to have long and serious conversations about money before getting married, to be sure that there are no false assumptions about what it "means" to be married from a financial perspective and to ensure you both feel that whatever you do, you both feel it's fair and right.

 

As long as you both agree, it doesn't matter what that approach is.

[OptomisticGirl]

I would not like that though because that implies I am "paid for" or like a child receiving their allowance.

 

Same here. I'm a wife, not a child.

[Seraphim]

All of this underscores why it is so critical for couples to have long and serious conversations about money before getting married, to be sure that there are no false assumptions about what it "means" to be married from a financial perspective and to ensure you both feel that whatever you do, you both feel it's fair and right.

 

As long as you both agree, it doesn't matter what that approach is.

 

That is it, you both have to value the same thing.

[Fudgie]

I would not like that though because that implies I am "paid for" or like a child receiving their allowance.

 

That's essentially what happens when you mix incomes, just not as overtly. You put it all in and call it "ours" but you're essentially still being funded by your husband if you make much less because you couldn't afford to buy whatever it is on your own.

 

Not a bad thing. I just would rather do the same thing with separate accounts and without the inherent risk to my wallet.

[Seraphim]

I think though handing someone some money smacks of the 1950's. Not so happy with that. I would be truly insulted, but that is just the way I see it.

[Fudgie]

Maybe. My g-parents did it. My grandmother never worked a day in her life and stayed home all day so she needed my grandfather's money to do anything that required, well, money.

 

I believe they agreed upon a set amount well in advance and automatically, it was deposited into her account. Without any further thought. She was a spend-aholic when it came to clothes anyway and while she got lots a month, she could easily spend it on clothes. I couldn't IMAGINE what she would do if they had a joint account, bye bye money! Lol. My g-father would have had a fit. He loved to save.

 

Oh well, I guess I just don't see it as such a bad thing. I wouldn't be with someone who demanded that we pool it all. I don't know anyone personally who that has worked out for so I want to stick with what I know how to manage.

[Seraphim]

My grandmothers had their money dolled out too, Mind you they did work sometimes. My mother's mother did not marry till she was 38 so she worked for her own money before that and she did work when her husband was sick during different times. My father's mother was married at 15 and she did work before my dad was born for 10 years and sometimes when they struggled. But I would hate for someone to hand me money kind of like "pat pat there you go dear now do not spend it all in one place" Married people are supposed to be equals.

[tresqua]

Actually were I'm from it's rare NOT to mesh the accounts. Marriages can work with joint accounts and no prenup. Shocker, I know.

 

I think you missed my point, the part about it being rare to have joint (or meshed, as you put it) bank accounts AND a successful marriage.

 

To further clarify at the risk of being repetitive: More marriages fail than are successful. In other words the odds of a marriage failing are greater than that of the marriage lasting for the rest of the lives of the spouses. Those failed marriages and the subsequent divorce could be a lot faster and smoother and more fair, especially in the case where one spouse entered the marriage with more assets if they had maintained their premarital assets in separate names (accounts, property titles, etc). Of course a prenuptual agreement would be even better.

[OptomisticGirl]

Most of the failed marriages I know had separate accounts.

 

I think you missed my point, the part about it being rare to have joint (or meshed, as you put it) bank accounts AND a successful marriage.

 

To further clarify at the risk of being repetitive: More marriages fail than are successful. In other words the odds of a marriage failing are greater than that of the marriage lasting for the rest of the lives of the spouses. Those failed marriages and the subsequent divorce could be a lot faster and smoother and more fair, especially in the case where one spouse entered the marriage with more assets if they had maintained their premarital assets in separate names (accounts, property titles, etc). Of course a prenuptual agreement would be even better.

[blackhawks1287]

Most of the failed marriages I know had separate accounts.

 

Which is fine, and good for you and the people you surround yourself with.

 

Big picture though more fail than last, and it has nothing to do with join checking, saving, pre-nup or lack there of. Dynamics change, people change and you cannot control that.

 

We are not justifying right and wrong here, but we are arguing the facts based on statistics and our own personal knowledge.

 

More marriages fail than last so the safer play is to have a pre-nup, whether you think it is morally or ethically correct.

 

Call it being selfish, but if someone is willing to marry you in the attempt to be with your and share his or her life you with, how can than be so selfish?

[tresqua]

Most of the failed marriages I know had separate accounts.

 

You're suggesting a connection? Even if you could determine that there was a statistical link and accurately say that more marriages fail that have separate accounts than those where the spouses just mix everything together, it cannot be concluded that by separating the funds it caused the marriage to fail, you can't even say with any certainty that the separation of the funds implies a pre-existing problem that eventually was exposed years later. Along the same lines you can't even say with any conviction that people who have separate accounts are more prone to bail because they can make a clean break. It could be any of the above, none of the above, some of the above, or all of the above..