3 ms·

Strongly disagree on "do not want children there is no point in getting married." There's an emotional reason to get married, formalizing a life long commitmen

by RijilV 9y ago

Strongly disagree on "do not want children there is no point in getting married." There's an emotional reason to get married, formalizing a life long commitment. That's a big one for a lot of folks (citation: my marriage). But lets say you're not a feelings type of person, and those arguments fall on deaf ears. If you live in a community property state marriage makes inheriting assets ridiculously easy and avoids all sorts of taxes. (otherwise you're down the road of setting up trusts which will incur lawyer and trust management fees). Taxes are another one - if there's an income disparity. Filing jointly with a single income does wonders for what you don't have to pay. Your spouse can also not be compelled to testify against you, which depending on how paranoid you want to be might make you sleep better at night. To say there's no point is missing the point though - as much as marriage is enshrined in legal rights which are unavailable to those who do not marry, the institution of marriage is centuries old and exists in many religions. There's an emotional reason to do so, and that's point enough.

dpark 9y ago
> Filing jointly with a single income does wonders for what you don't have to pay. Filing singly with a single income does even more assuming you have no dependents. Marrying someone with no income definitely doesn't result in a net increase in free cash flow. Taxes don't offset the cost of supporting an adult. To be clear, I'm not opposed to marriage nor to the concept of a stay-at-home spouse (of either gender), but it's not a net gain financially if the spouse doesn't work. It's not a guaranteed net gain even in the case where both work.
- RijilV 9y ago
  This is a good misconception and undervaluing of what work means. Just because someone lacks a paycheck does not mean they do not work. Since my spouse retired we eat out half as much, we are both in better shape, we grow a non-negligible amount of our own food, have organic eggs from our own chickens, etc etc. our weekends are no longer packed with house work, small and medium sized home improvement projects happen at cost without paying someone else. We have a fanancial planner and have gone through multi excersizes tracking our spending. The end result is the work my spouse does saves around $50k a year in expenditure alone, not to mention the physical and mental health improvements. I think we often forget what work means.
  - dpark 9y ago
    Replace "work" with "work for a paycheck". Obviously there is a lot of work to be done at the house (though not every stay-at-home spouse does this), and I don't think I really implied otherwise. The context of "work" was pretty clear. I'll be honest, though, I think your financial planner is telling you what you want to hear. $50k reduction in expenses is huge, especially given that you didn't even mention childcare. You essentially listed food, cleaning, and labor for small home projects. And you only reduced your eating out by 50%. I'd be interested in seeing the numbers because I can't imagine how you're saving the equivalent of a ~$70k salary every year by cleaning your own house, doing your own small home projects (Is your wife really hanging drywall during the day while you're at work? If you're doing these home projects on nights/weekends, you're double counting.), and cutting your eating out budget by 50%. Do you eat at Michelin star restaurants multiple times per week?

by RijilV 9y ago

dpark 9y ago

> Filing jointly with a single income does wonders for what you don't have to pay. Filing singly with a single income does even more assuming you have no dependents. Marrying someone with no income definitely doesn't result in a net increase in free cash flow. Taxes don't offset the cost of supporting an adult. To be clear, I'm not opposed to marriage nor to the concept of a stay-at-home spouse (of either gender), but it's not a net gain financially if the spouse doesn't work. It's not a guaranteed net gain even in the case where both work.

RijilV 9y ago
This is a good misconception and undervaluing of what work means. Just because someone lacks a paycheck does not mean they do not work. Since my spouse retired we eat out half as much, we are both in better shape, we grow a non-negligible amount of our own food, have organic eggs from our own chickens, etc etc. our weekends are no longer packed with house work, small and medium sized home improvement projects happen at cost without paying someone else. We have a fanancial planner and have gone through multi excersizes tracking our spending. The end result is the work my spouse does saves around $50k a year in expenditure alone, not to mention the physical and mental health improvements. I think we often forget what work means.
- dpark 9y ago
  Replace "work" with "work for a paycheck". Obviously there is a lot of work to be done at the house (though not every stay-at-home spouse does this), and I don't think I really implied otherwise. The context of "work" was pretty clear. I'll be honest, though, I think your financial planner is telling you what you want to hear. $50k reduction in expenses is huge, especially given that you didn't even mention childcare. You essentially listed food, cleaning, and labor for small home projects. And you only reduced your eating out by 50%. I'd be interested in seeing the numbers because I can't imagine how you're saving the equivalent of a ~$70k salary every year by cleaning your own house, doing your own small home projects (Is your wife really hanging drywall during the day while you're at work? If you're doing these home projects on nights/weekends, you're double counting.), and cutting your eating out budget by 50%. Do you eat at Michelin star restaurants multiple times per week?