LTR'S, Marriage and Debt

[speed dawg]

You shouldn't enter into a marriage with trust issues. If you can't trust your bank account with your prospective life-long partner, who you will likely raise children with, and wake up to every day......well, you probably should look long and hard at WHY you are marrying her in the first place.

When you get married, you become ONE. Some of you fellas need to redefine the nature of your associations it seems.

A good rule of thumb is like RT says about living together. Don't do it until you are completely committed. Don't do it out of convenience.

 

[speed dawg]

I can agree with that theory on a basic level. If the thought of opening up a joint account makes me spit out my gum at the very thought of it, you might be a bad relationship.

but with that said, you still didn't give any good reason WHY to open up a bank account. Back to my point... the day they offer joint account rewards or 7 percent interest rates on joint accounts or I get a tax break for havinga joint account or anything.. you will have to beat me to the front of the line. But there is no logical or fiseable reason to, so screw it.

On the same token, if I am with a girl and she is hell bent on having a joint account, and wont' leave the issue alone, that's a red flag.

You aren't living 2 independent lives anymore. You are one independent relationship. The two people are still independent in their own personal interests per se, but marriage is all about sharing your life and everything in it with your partner.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Assets that either party generates during marriage become marital property in the absence of a prior, binding agreement, which in and of itself ought to be enough to make any guy with some sense of ambition hesitant with regards to marriage, regardless of his present financial status, but did you know that prior debt from either party also becomes marital, community property?

You see the state doesn't care that you "just know she's the ONE for you". As far as the they're concerned you are simply instating a corporate merger between two formerly independent entities into one conglomerate.

This works both ways of course, but as the primary consumer of western culture, single women carry as much as 6 times the debt load that single men do. Meaning that when your future wife was putting that spring break trip to Cancun on her Visa card in college to go clubing with her girlfriends in search of hot guys to ƒuck, you as the second half of the marriage agreement will be held responsible for paying that debt in marriage. It's no secret that credit card companies actively pursue freshmen uniiversity students and statistically it is women between the ages of 18 and 26 that carry the highest debt loads in America after graduation. Even after divorce, without a pre-nup to counter this, a guy in effect will be paying for half of the trip to Victoria's Secret his former wife made in college to buy the lingerie to turn on the Jerk Ex-Boyfriend she used to complain about so much.

The popular argument is to accept the path of least resistance and not even mention a pre-nup so as not to upset your 'poor girlffriend' by having her think you're so 'superficial' as to even consider your long term financial stability in the harsh light of a potential break up later in life. Afterall if she's the ONE why would it matter? That, and if you're foolish enough to marry a woman before you have any considerable assets to mention, you're probably foolish enough to accept that your net worth will never amount to anything substantial.

Always bear in mind that alimony/spousal support is very real and entitles (virtually in every case) the woman to not only half of what you (collectively or not) have earned, but half of everything you will earn in the future for a set period of time. In most cases this is half a year for every year of marriage, but it varies from state to state. I've counseled (and worked for) very successful men in their 50s & 60s who are trapped in a marriage of convenience because when they married their wives they were poor and had a scarcity mentality with regards to women and never thought it would be necessary to even consider a pre-nup. After 30 or so years of marriage they find that they are beholden to their wives and cannot escape the situation because in doing so half of their assets in the companies they started after their marriages would be transffered to her and thus necessitate either a buy out, a dissolution of the company or a serious deficiency in revenue for the company leaving it (and him) vulnerable to competitiors, shareholder sell off and expensive bankruptcy settlements.

You may think this is an extreme illustration, but so did a lot of 20 y.o. guys marrying their "dream girl" who went on to be business successes. The prospect is worse in small businesses where the man may not have the resources to rebound from an added financial burden, whereas the highly successful business man may have the insulation to weather an ugly divorce.

This of course says nothing of the guy who doesn't own a business, who's met with some career success post-marriage. The terrific medical intern who married his college girlfriend, makes substantially more in his career as a doctor after 20 years. At time of divorce he then owes (depending on state) up to 10 years of spousal support to her. To add insult to injury, in most settlements, she's also entitled to more financial support if his ability to earn it improves in that 10 year period. So for sake of example, lets say our divorced doctor is promoted to chief of staff for surgery in 5 years - when he gets a raise, she gets a raise.

Nowadays we have this extension of the utility of the ONEitis, soulmate myth that tells young men that pre-nups are only for the 'shallow' likes of Donald Trump or Michael Douglas who have considerable sums of money to wager on (another) marriage, yet for a young man to consider one it likens him to these 'superficial' celebrities, proves he has a bloated sense of self and means he'd consider money over "true love". Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[speed dawg]

RT, I understand you to be happily married. I find it sad that you consider marriage nothing more than

a corporate merger between two formerly independent entities into one conglomerate.

I know it's the government that sees it that way, not you, but you're entire post reads from that perspective.

I've never seen a non-AFC get dragged through the mud in a divorce. Again, it comes back to knowing exactly what you're doing when you get married.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

^^^^^^

I didn't say I did. I said the state does.

People seem to get the impression that I'm "anti-marriage", I'm not. I'm anti- uninformed, pollyanna, shoulda saw it coming, ONEitis fueled, shame induced, bound for bankruptcy, marriage.

 

[backbreaker]

^^^^^^

I didn't say I did. I said the state does.

People seem to get the impression that I'm "anti-marriage", I'm not. I'm anti- uninformed, pollyanna, shoulda saw it coming, ONEitis fueled, shame induced, bound for bankruptcy, marriage.

ding ding ding we have a winner!

all of that and the posters FOR joint accounts have STILL not given me ONE REAL LOGICAL FISCAL REASON to do it!! all you are doing is spewing crap you hear from women or on TV

the top 3 responses I have heard so far are "you arent' living as two, you are living as one", humm.. "if you trust her it shouldn't be an issue" and " you must be planning to divorce her anyway"

that's crap I expect to hear on lifetime, not here.

Fuuny enough, if you find a woman who likes YOU, do you thinks he is going to leave you becuause you won't open up a joint account? But i guarantee you that one tha tis in it for the money /prestitge/whatever else will.

It's funny, women who LIKE you ACCECPT the things about you that you are hardline about.I think my GF is actually scared to ask me to have a joint account.. I don't know why, but still she knows better in that it's a waste of time to even ask. if it's being single or having to have a joint account, she can go, newborn and all.

the same guys that buy gifts on the first date becasue "real man do it" the same guys who talk on the phone for 10 hours a day with a woman they aren't ****ing because "real men have feelings and have no problem talking about them with a woman" (funny enough the one real feeling they have they don't talk about, the feeling of wanting to **** the woman on the other end of the phone)

NO JOINT ACCOUNT!

 

[speed dawg]

ONE REAL LOGICAL FISCAL REASON

1) Everything is equal in a marriage. My bills are her bills, and her bills are my bills. Pay the bills from one account, no fighting involved.
2) You discuss big purchases (or all purchases for that matter). You operate as a unit in a marriage, especially financially.
3) More money, which can in turn make more money.

All marriages are different. What if you want you wife to stay home and take care of kids all day? She wouldn't have any money would she? If she didn't work, and you didn't have a joint account? Yeah that makes sense.

 

[STR8UP]

Why even get married?

I knew a couple who always talked about "his and her" money. I thought it was the most ridiculous sounding thing I had ever heard.

The second you get married the law sees your sh!t as half hers anyway.

If I'm hesitant about putting my wife's name on a bank account, I won't be marrying her in the first place, that's for sure.

 

[backbreaker]

1. you did not (ovbiously) read my post where I said, very clearly, my GF DOES live with me, she had my first born child almost a month ago. Couldn't get along any better. She hasn't had a job since she was 4 months preganant, and before then she basically worked for me. Now she just follows me around and make sure I'm not hungry.

We both have Bank of America Bank Accounts. Every Wednesday I put X amount of money in her account. It's more than enough to do whatever in the hell she needs to do, execpt I stopped putting grocery money in there becuase i have been buying the groceries the last month becuase of the baby. I have always paid bills myself.

I still put money in her account so she can not be so dependant on me. if she wants to take her girlfriends out to eat she has the money to. Get her nails done? go right head. get a massage while she is at it. She is not sitting here begging me for money I promise you.

And if there is something she wants, like a very nice dress that she doesn't have the money for, I will put MORE in her account. I understand that becuase she can't work she needs money, I won't let that be a problem, becuase I am the one that asked her not to go get another job. A mom is more important to me than any amount of money she can bring in.

She sucks with savings, so I have been working with her on that as well, showing her how to put money back, how to save, how to invest. how to build her credit up.

BUT SHE IS NOT GETTING HER NAME ON MY BANK ACCOUNT.

she has literarly called me from the store one day and asked me while she was line to buy something to put x amount of money in her account, and it it was done ,and she knew I would do it and she knew it wouldnt' be a concern.

the MONEY itself is not the concern. the WHAT THE HELL ARE WE REALLY DOING THIS FOR is.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

1) Everything is equal in a marriage. My bills are her bills, and her bills are my bills. Pay the bills from one account, no fighting involved.

Exactly. And her bills prior to marriage are your bills, and your bills prior to marriage are her bills - something you may want to take into consideration before you put a ring on her finger and sign a legally binding contract that makes you responsible for paying off debt she incurred prior to her epiphany that you really were the ONE all along.

Look, I too have a joint account with my own wife, I'm also debt free, but I don't believe for a second that an attorney wouldn't expect me to pony up for half my credit debt in the event of a divorce, irrespective of who was responsible for the debt. One thing a good attorney will tell a man thinking of divorce is to separate finances and IMMEDIATELY cancel, clear or otherwise transfer credit cards to another line of credit in his name. The reason for this is because women have a marked tendency to "prepare' for divorce by making credit purchases before official papers are drawn. In fact, women are largely responsible for initiating (90%) of divorces after having made such preparations. Why? Because everything she'll need to get on without you will be half price until then.

I also own an LLC for my freelance business and keep this money separate from our joint account. I do pay bills from it of course, but it's protected. Not because I don't trust Mrs. Tomassi, but because it makes better financial sense.

SPEED, I understand your position, and I think in principle you're right, but does it strike you at all odd that other women would be advising unmarried women to prepare themselves to negotiate finances prior to marriage? Why do you think they would do this?

 

[TheHumanist]

Assets that either party generates during marriage become marital property in the absence of a prior, binding agreement, which in and of itself ought to be enough to make any guy with some sense of ambition hesitant with regards to marriage, regardless of his present financial status, but did you know that prior debt from either party also becomes marital, community property?

You see the state doesn't care that you "just know she's the ONE for you". As far as the they're concerned you are simply instating a corporate merger between two formerly independent entities into one conglomerate.

This works both ways of course, but as the primary consumer of western culture, single women carry as much as 6 times the debt load that single men do. Meaning that when your future wife was putting that spring break trip to Cancun on her Visa card in college to go clubing with her girlfriends in search of hot guys to ƒuck, you as the second half of the marriage agreement will be held responsible for paying that debt in marriage. It's no secret that credit card companies actively pursue freshmen uniiversity students and statistically it is women between the ages of 18 and 26 that carry the highest debt loads in America after graduation. Even after divorce, without a pre-nup to counter this, a guy in effect will be paying for half of the trip to Victoria's Secret his former wife made in college to buy the lingerie to turn on the Jerk Ex-Boyfriend she used to complain about so much.

The popular argument is to accept the path of least resistance and not even mention a pre-nup so as not to upset your 'poor girlffriend' by having her think you're so 'superficial' as to even consider your long term financial stability in the harsh light of a potential break up later in life. Afterall if she's the ONE why would it matter? That, and if you're foolish enough to marry a woman before you have any considerable assets to mention, you're probably foolish enough to accept that your net worth will never amount to anything substantial.

Always bear in mind that alimony/spousal support is very real and entitles (virtually in every case) the woman to not only half of what you (collectively or not) have earned, but half of everything you will earn in the future for a set period of time. In most cases this is half a year for every year of marriage, but it varies from state to state. I've counseled (and worked for) very successful men in their 50s & 60s who are trapped in a marriage of convenience because when they married their wives they were poor and had a scarcity mentality with regards to women and never thought it would be necessary to even consider a pre-nup. After 30 or so years of marriage they find that they are beholden to their wives and cannot escape the situation because in doing so half of their assets in the companies they started after their marriages would be transffered to her and thus necessitate either a buy out, a dissolution of the company or a serious deficiency in revenue for the company leaving it (and him) vulnerable to competitiors, shareholder sell off and expensive bankruptcy settlements.

You may think this is an extreme illustration, but so did a lot of 20 y.o. guys marrying their "dream girl" who went on to be business successes. The prospect is worse in small businesses where the man may not have the resources to rebound from an added financial burden, whereas the highly successful business man may have the insulation to weather an ugly divorce.

This is not so much of a question of joint accounts or even a pre-nup, you pointed out a good point that part of the reason to exercise caution in finances is today's culture have create an imbalance. Despite the idea of equality, it is common that the women side is just not equal financially with more debt and less cautious spending. While the example is extreme, there are those who choose to marry the women who mounted debt from the trip to Cancun. My question is choosing to go for the woman who in that position anyway. While it is good to take precaution, is it also good idea that a girl have enough self-control is not be wildly in debt in the first place? Sure some make mistakes and reformed, but most of the time, a person that much in debt and spends will continue. There are exceptions, BB's shows an example of a girl who just never learned before and is learning now and she likely have other qualities that outweight the negative, but in marriage, as you said that too many set too low standards in choose to marry, a girl with financial self-control (or even a girl who haven't put energies in going to Cancun as well) should also be considered a factor in the choice?

 

[Kerpal]

Reading this thread has just strengthened my resolve to never get married/have kids.

 

[mpimpin]

Strengthened mine not to get married

 

[penkitten]

i find it better to have separate accounts, as long as each are doing their share to maintain the bills and get them paid.
instead of establishing one line of credit, i find it better to establish two lines.

somehow, if you have separate accounts, it gives both married partners a sense of independence. in case of an emergency, the other party is not going to have to worry about assets being frozen during a time period.

i once heard some graduation / life speech a long time ago... right before my ex husband drained our account and scrammed, and i never will forget it... "never trust your spouse or your bank account, you never know which one will run out." at the time, i never saw either coming, and never would have guessed it would be at the same time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfq_A8nXMsQ&feature=related

 

[TheHumanist]

How ironic that is discussion argued back and forth is avoidance of joint account and even stated the argument is not anti-marriage but anti-misinformation-etc. and it take to strengthen to just avoid marriage altogether..

 

[backbreaker]

i never was a fan of marriage... but if someone does get married I see no need for the joint account

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

From a "legal" perspective, if you are marrying, assets become property of the marriage anyways. Not conjoining assets while being married has more drawbacks than joining them. Truly, if you are concerned about joining a bank account, then there's bigger fish to fry, because she will have access to also destroy your credit, which is more damaging than blowing cash that you can electronically move.

1) If you don't conjoin accounts, then if you're unconscious, disabled, or not of a mental state in which to conduct business or personal financial affairs, without a Durable Power of Attorney, nobody can. From there, if you don't recover fast enough or need money in pinch, no one, not even your wife to whom you made various pledges CAN gain access to that money. So, through your mistrust and perhaps inability to find a suitable mate, you screw yourself.

2) Should you get a Durable Power of Attorney, which you need once you're married anyways, she has FULL control and access to do WHATEVER she wants. She's in effect a complete COPY with the full rights and priviledges that you possess. She can enter agreements, take out loans, buy cars, or even sell your home right out from under you.

Don't believe me?

I just finished a basic Legal package for an uncle who came down with colon cancer and feared for this survival post-op. He had no wife to put down as his durable power of attorney, beneficiary, and healthcare proxy, so he put my aunt (his sister) down. My aunt will have copies of The Will and Healthcare proxy BUT NOT the DPoA. Why?

Because even as his sister, she can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, however she wants. Most courts won't recognize any DPoA that doesn't embrace such an attitude of complete power.

There's really no option. If you opt to be married and own property in the US, unless you choose to become SO widely voiced in all aspects of law, you must choose their system or become a victim and suffer the consequences.

Sure, you can be a hippy, and try to be a non-conformist, but good luck owning property, disposing of that property, and controlling that property/wealth without knowing and adhereing to the laws. Your other option is to move to another country.

-----------------------------------

Guys, drop the act. The solution here is to become a BETTER man who can handle such problems. I know LOADS of guys who were divorced. Know what?
Three of the ones I know, at least, went on to make more, do more, and become more. They didn't let the fact they "took a shot" beat them down. They didn't bemoan circumstances, because like life, women can and will change, though we hope they won't. They went with the flow, acted, and planned.

You can say IF YOU MARRY, DONT GET JOINT accounts, but it's truly foolish. Why in the heck are you marrying this woman?

Redefine your definition of marriage and love and committment and relationships. It's funny, because Tucker Max has a post on his forums mentioning that if you're under 27, or 25, just shut up and live. Don't make assumptions or pretend to know it all. I'd wager many of the guys worrying here are at that age break and younger, and you're only making more problems than good.

It's ignorant to suggest NO combination of bank accounts, for instance. IF YOU MARRY, as the laws state across most if not all of the states, you are also seceding your laws. At least under the law, TWO BECOME ONE, even if it's mushy crap.

FIND BETTER WOMEN.
BE A BETTER MAN.
Don't bemoan the environment we are in when it calls for better man. A man won't RUN from his duties. A man rises and challenges them and challenges them until he wins.

This is also why you marry ONE woman. Not ALL women. If you're a better guy, and focus on that ONE woman that would make you committ to such a marriage, you're likely to find her, or least improve so much that you have a whole **** ton of women to choose from. Morever, you'll be a more pleasant person.

If you're this BITTER guy who bemoans who women have eroded over time into vapid bags of jizz, then you're just a guy with baggage who may never have a chance to get to know any woman in his life, or turns away the great ones by your oh-so-magnetic personality. Women can flip the switch and say how men have become more WOMENLY (metro, gay, weak, afraid, etc), and they wouldn't be wrong. Just look at half these boards in which they require approval from other members BEFORE they act and confirmation of opinions and agreements in many regards of what they do.

LIVE.LOVE.FAIL.SUCCEED.BREATHE.FEEL.

There's the legal aspect that porks you anyways, just by the virtue that your crap comes together anyways. And there's the philosophical aspect where you shouldn't be marrying a woman with whom you can't conjoin accounts, when there's far worse financial mistakes she could make.

 

[backbreaker]

talk about a blast from the past. hey A-unit!

1. I'm not a fan of marriage anyway so I'm NOT getting married.

2. I get "it". what you are trying to say. that marriage is built on trust and if you can't trust your woman with your bank account, why ar eyou getting married. And it's a good arguement, but not a rational one.

I get that my GF who lives with me now, and doesn't work, could probably have a damn good case for getting some type of supplmentary support from me via court system if we were to break up, even if we weren't married. might as well be. she lives here, I don't **** anyone else and neither does she.


I even give my GF my debit card from time to time. It's not that i don't TRUST her. actually she has it now going grocery shopping.

But there is a difference, big difference between trusting a woman not to "run off all your money or to buy anything very very very stupid" whcih I know her well enough to know that isn't going to happen, and "trust that when I put her name on my account and we get into a arugenment, she doesn't ruin my life by going to the bank account and drawing out everythnig I have" which is a pretty penny.

you can't even begin to compare the two and to be frank I'm suprised at how many people are so caviler when it comes to their LIFE. I'm willing to say I even love my GF, I think I do. But I love myself more and I wouldn't forgive myself if something happened and she decided she was going to start her new life, with my bank account and take my son away from me. I don't think she would do something like that, but I don't make life altering decisions on "think"


think about this.. all relationships you will have with a woman will fail execpt 1. that is a fact unless you are a polygomist or your wife dies before you and you get another.

Okay, with that said, you keep playing russian rollette with your bank account, giving all of the woman you decide to shack up with access to your account, and one of those reltionshiops, if not more than one, is goign to end with her having a bitter taste in her moutn and she takes you to the cleaners.

How do I look I have done all I have t make my life what it is, and we get into an arguement and I can't pay for a damn attorney because MY GF (OR WIFE, WHATEVER) HAS CLEANED MY BANK ACCOUNT?

I refuse to let that happen, and there is no coxing me off of that decision

 

[STR8UP]

I see your point BB.

Your situation is unique and besides that I wouldn't be running out to put a g/f's name on my bank account anyway.

The issue I have is people who go into a marriage somewhat equal finance-wise, but choose to maintain separate finances, paying bills and such like roommates instead of husband and wife.

Point blank- if you get a divorce, chances are good you're gonna get screwed. So if you are brave enough to tie the knot in the first place, you shouldn't be all paranoid about combining money (in a normal situation). To me this is almost bad juju that could actually CAUSE a marriage to fail. If you're already planning for your exit, what do you have, really?

I'm just sayin....

 

[speed dawg]

Point blank- if you get a divorce, chances are good you're gonna get screwed. So if you are brave enough to tie the knot in the first place, you shouldn't be all paranoid about combining money (in a normal situation). To me this is almost bad juju that could actually CAUSE a marriage to fail. If you're already planning for your exit, what do you have, really?

Same with a prenup.