5 ms·

Nobody wants to bet 50% of their stuff that they will love someone forever, while paying the government more tax money yearly for the privilege? I do wonder why

Nobody wants to bet 50% of their stuff that they will love someone forever, while paying the government more tax money yearly for the privilege? I do wonder why…

s5300 4y ago
Caring about potential loss of material objects over deep human connection sounds like an absolutely miserable way to live your one short life in this universe!
- pengaru 4y ago
  > Caring about potential loss of material objects over deep human connection sounds like an absolutely miserable way to live your one short life in this universe! Then fix the outdated laws so people can enjoy those human connections without all the risky loss/gain baggage.
  - boring_twenties 4y ago
    You can already do that by simply not getting married? I have friends that have lived together for 10+ years and have multiple children that don't plan to ever marry... seems to be working for them.
    - pengaru 4y ago
      I don't know where you live, but that's a problematic approach in many US states having common-law marriages. Your friends anecdata is entirely irrelevant until they've separated and we hear about how that plays out, before it's even remotely worth hearing as still meaningless anecdata.
      - boring_twenties 4y ago
        Seven[0] out of fifty is not "many" by any stretch of the imagination. Even in those seven, it's not something that happens automatically. For example, in Utah, it only applies to those "who hold themselves out as and have acquired a uniform and general reputation as husband and wife."[1] If my meaningless anecdata isn't remotely worth hearing about, then what's to be said about your intentionally misleading irrelevant statement? *Oops: [0] https://www.ncsl.org/human-services/common-law-marriage-by-state https://www.ncsl.org/human-services/common-law-marriage-by-s... [1] https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title30/Chapter1/30-1-S4.5.html?v=C30-1-S4.5_1800010118000101 https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title30/Chapter1/30-1-S4.5.html?v=...
      - fps 4y ago
        Common law marriages are not as easy to happen by accident as many people assume. Living together doesn't matter. Common law marriage, in every state I've checked, requires that you have a ceremony and present yourself as a "married couple" publicly. You have to go around telling people you're married for it to matter.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Common law marriage, in every state I've checked, requires that you have a ceremony and present yourself as a "married couple" publicly. You have to go around telling people you're married for it to matter. It generally does not require a ceremony (but it does usually require an explicit mutual agreement), and living together does matter (cohabitation is commonly a requirement or evidence of common law marriage), but other than that you are right that publicly presenting as married is often a requirement (and otherwise is evidence). Here’s info from Texas as an example, which is more required-elements-based and includes cohabitation: https://guides.sll.texas.gov/common-law-marriage#:~:text=Texas%20law%20states%20that%20a,others%20that%20they%20were%20married%E2%80%9D https://guides.sll.texas.gov/common-law-marriage#:~:text=Tex... And here is Colorado, which is more evidence based and does not identify cohabitation as even a form of evidence (though it does have joint ownership of property): https://pitkincounty.com/288/Common-Law-Marriage https://pitkincounty.com/288/Common-Law-Marriage Utah is more specific requirements, and includes both cohabitation and how the couple presents publicly, but no ceremony: https://www.utcourts.gov/en/self-help/case-categories/family/marriage/common-law.html https://www.utcourts.gov/en/self-help/case-categories/family...
  - adoxyz 4y ago
    Prenups are a thing you know?
    - pengaru 4y ago
      I'm replying to someone saying don't care about these things and you're saying bring in lawyers to mitigate the awful legal defaults! I'm pretty sure that's also in disagreement with the comment I'm replying to.
  - s5300 4y ago
    >> Then fix the outdated laws so people can enjoy those human connections without all the risky loss/gain baggage. In a country that celebrates sociopathy, manipulation of others, & psychopathy to such a high degree, I think the laws are perfectly fine as they protect exceptionally vulnerable people. What sort of resources do you actually think there are for a spouse that is able to escape after having been isolated and abused for years, that oftentimes becomes responsible for not only their own well-being, but also childrens? The answer is practically nothing aside from maybe your very basic necessities to sustain life. I also think you’re really missing a major point but that’s a tangent I’m not going to go on. [edit]: Revised “What sort of resources do you actually think there are for a spouse that’s been isolated and abused for years” to “What sort of resources do you actually think there are for a spouse that is able to escape after having been isolated and abused for years”
    - pengaru 4y ago
      The lack of a social safety net in the US is not something antiquated marriage laws should be misused to insufficiently provide. We need better general solutions in this area, a lot of the separation-related problems would vanish. Job-separation and spouse-separation overlap substantially, and it's rather harmful as-is when spouses are incentivized to stay in abusive relationships if they wouldn't even receive significant support separated from an abusive deadbeat anyways. They become trapped.
- sidlls 4y ago
  Humans change. A deep human connection at age 30 might not last through age 40.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    But objects are forever?
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      Looks around room at 120ish-year-old desk, hundreds of books with an average age of probably 30 years with some as old as 160 years, 50-year-old record player and receiver, 60-year-old lamp, 20+ year old guitars that will likely last decades more with minimal maintenance, wood floors that should last literally a lifetime, and decade-old shoes that I expect to still be wearing in 20 years I mean... kinda? The ones that don't involve microelectronics and aren't mostly fabric, yeah, lots of them may as well last forever, from the perspective of a human lifetime.
      - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
        Well, I guess if you want to prioritize shoes over a relationship, good on you?
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        Well, I'm not doing that, though, so... bad on me, I guess? But I have LEGOs that are probably way, way older than the average length of a romantic relationship. Hell, they're probably quite a bit older than the average length of a marriage. That's just true. My kids have some metal trucks made a decade before I was born and with hundreds of hours of kid-play-time on them, that they still play with. And those are just kids' toys, not things made for use by adults who will be careful with them! Lots of stuff does last a really long time. Quite a bit of stuff does indeed get a ton closer to lasting "forever" (say, an entire human lifespan) than most serious relationships do. Normal consumer shit, too, not, like, gothic cathedrals or something. Treating things as less-disposable than a serious partner is probably not a great idea, but, in actual fact, they... kinda are.
- outime 4y ago
  I'm not aware of the specifics OP talk about (I'm not from the US) but any mature adult should of course care about the unfair loss of wealth. If you look at US marriage/divorce statistics, it'd not be paranoid to think that it could also happen to you. In fact, I bet most of the people who got to lose "material objects" unfairly never thought they'd be in that situation - which then makes them get to experience the miserable way of life you mentioned, at least for a while. So yeah, I'd suggest to be mature and consider that things can go wrong, which shouldn't affect the depthness of the connection while things work (hopefully forever).
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
"Or partner". This isn't just about people being afraid to marry. They're not finding romantic partners to live with, either. And, about the taxes: Married filing separately is a thing.
- soperj 4y ago
  At least where I live, there is no distinction. As soon as you've lived with someone for 6 months, you're considered common law. If you separate they're legally entitled to half the stuff you've accumulated while together.
  - nivenkos 4y ago
    While together is much more reasonable than absolutely all of your assets as with marriage though.
    - soperj 4y ago
      That's not how it works with marriage here either. It's only assets acquired during the marriage that is split. There are some exceptions, I'm not a lawyer.
- ed_balls 4y ago
  but if more men don't want to get married, women may not be able to find a suitable partner. Also, there is a gender disparity in location (more men in small towns and SV, more women in NY, LA)
_vbnz 4y ago
Yeah, feminism has gone completely insane. At the moment of marriage all assets are divided equally in most countries, regardless of when they were obtained. And in many countries a man can even be liable for child support if his wife cheats on him. That said a lot of countries actually have lower taxes for married couples like Germany, or separate it entirely like in Sweden.
- jemmyw 4y ago
  > a man can even be liable for child support if his wife cheats on him. I mean, yeah you should support your offspring regardless of what your wife does.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  >At the moment of marriage all assets are divided equally in most countries, regardless of when they were obtained. Is this correct for European countries, UK, Australia, NZ, or Canada? I have never heard of it for any state in the US. Typically, everything before the marriage contract is signed is not part of the community property in the marriage. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/communityproperty.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/communityproperty.asp
  - bluefirebrand 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure this is accurate in Canada. Actually it's slightly worse because asset split might skew more towards the person with lesser income to make it more equitable. So it's entirely possible you could be the primary earner for a marriage and then when the divorce happens you actually leave with less than half of what you provided. Happened to my Dad.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Child support is an obligation to the child, the transgressions of the other parent are not a factor in it. It's not punishment it's support.
  - Clubber 4y ago
fullshark 4y ago
At least among the single people I know, nobody wants to compromise and they have an inflated sense of themselves. In addition they are using apps that are basically just about sexual interaction and not romantic connection. They aren't even reaching like a 3rd-5th date with most of their prospective partners, let alone thinking about the costs of divorce.
- tivert 4y ago
  > In addition they are using apps that are basically just about sexual interaction and not romantic connection. "Wouldn't it be great if finding a partner was exactly like shopping, where you hunt around until you find a thing meets all your fussy requirements?", said a disturbingly large percentage of society.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    The dating (or mating) market is a great example of a market where agents provide huge value. Both sellers are unable to objectively value what they are selling (themselves), and so agents familiar with them and willing to vouch for them (family, friends, coworkers' spouses, etc) are in prime position to communicate with other agents and come up with reasonable valuations. However, this works as long as the networks remain broad and active, and people participate in them (you need at least some "busybodies"). I can see this being hampered if people frequently move, and move away from friends/family.
    - tivert 4y ago
      If it wasn't clear enough, I was mocking the attitude of viewing it like a market and the people as products. Talking about "sellers" and "reasonable valuations" is taking that attitude to a whole different level. If course, our society is so brain dead it has trouble understanding anything that isn't modeled on shopping in a market. So everything must be converted into "shopping in a market."
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
zoolily 4y ago
Being married doesn't necessarily increase your income tax in the US. Some couples pay more, while others pay less, depending on how incomes differ between the two spouses both in amounts and in kind. Being married does give you more options--a good tax preparer will have their software compute both the taxes for filing jointly and for filing separately.
- dmitrygr 4y ago
  If you both make over 400k, no matter how you file, you pay more if married. Go look at brackets. Most people don’t know it. But “married filing separately” brackets are LOWER than “single”
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
actuator 4y ago
Wait, I thought US essentially doubles the tax slabs if you are married and file as a couple. So it works out well for couples with income skew
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  No, it is not double. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduced the marriage penalty quite a bit due to broadening the tax brackets. It is still there, especially for very high earners, but not noticeable for the vast majority. https://www.bakerinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/import/bi-report-032619-cpf-marriagepenalty.pdf https://www.bakerinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/i...
  - actuator 4y ago
    Surely $600K as a couple income is even on the top endz even in tech. So, for most normal couples like where one earns $300K and the other $100K, filing as a married couple is better, no? Or am I misunderstanding something
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      I think I misunderstood you, and did not realize tax slab meant tax bracket, as assumed you meant the US doubles the tax liability if you are filling married joint.
      - philsnow 4y ago
        [assuming United States for everything here, in case it wasn't obvious] In addition to the brackets, there's tons of other deductions, exemptions, etc that are higher or double for married-filing-jointly tax returns. Just one example is the capital gains on selling your home: if you're filing singly you get an exemption on the first $250k of capital gains, but if you're married and filing jointly that exemption is on the first $500k of gains.
        4y ago
vkou 4y ago
Then go sign an equitable and enforceable pre-nup. Jesus. PS. A "I keep all my stuff forever while I earn all the money, and you cook, clean, have sex with me, and raise my children" pre-nup is not equitable, and is, in many jurisdictions, thereby not enforceable. You're building a life together. If your partner doesn't meaningfully support you in it, you're with the wrong partner. If they are meaningfully supporting you in it, they are entitled to a share in your family's fortunes. PPS. This isn't some feminism boogieman, this is a direct consequence of 'men are the breadwinners, women's livelyhood is utterly dependent on them.' If you're earning similar amounts to your partner, that default 50/50 split is a non-factor. If you aren't, see above. Lewis' law is out in full swing today.

Nobody wants to bet 50% of their stuff that they will love someone forever, while paying the government more tax money yearly for the privilege? I do wonder why…

s5300 4y ago

Caring about potential loss of material objects over deep human connection sounds like an absolutely miserable way to live your one short life in this universe!

pengaru 4y ago
> Caring about potential loss of material objects over deep human connection sounds like an absolutely miserable way to live your one short life in this universe! Then fix the outdated laws so people can enjoy those human connections without all the risky loss/gain baggage.
- boring_twenties 4y ago
  You can already do that by simply not getting married? I have friends that have lived together for 10+ years and have multiple children that don't plan to ever marry... seems to be working for them.
  - pengaru 4y ago
    I don't know where you live, but that's a problematic approach in many US states having common-law marriages. Your friends anecdata is entirely irrelevant until they've separated and we hear about how that plays out, before it's even remotely worth hearing as still meaningless anecdata.
    - boring_twenties 4y ago
      Seven[0] out of fifty is not "many" by any stretch of the imagination. Even in those seven, it's not something that happens automatically. For example, in Utah, it only applies to those "who hold themselves out as and have acquired a uniform and general reputation as husband and wife."[1] If my meaningless anecdata isn't remotely worth hearing about, then what's to be said about your intentionally misleading irrelevant statement? *Oops: [0] https://www.ncsl.org/human-services/common-law-marriage-by-state https://www.ncsl.org/human-services/common-law-marriage-by-s... [1] https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title30/Chapter1/30-1-S4.5.html?v=C30-1-S4.5_1800010118000101 https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title30/Chapter1/30-1-S4.5.html?v=...
    - fps 4y ago
      Common law marriages are not as easy to happen by accident as many people assume. Living together doesn't matter. Common law marriage, in every state I've checked, requires that you have a ceremony and present yourself as a "married couple" publicly. You have to go around telling people you're married for it to matter.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Common law marriage, in every state I've checked, requires that you have a ceremony and present yourself as a "married couple" publicly. You have to go around telling people you're married for it to matter. It generally does not require a ceremony (but it does usually require an explicit mutual agreement), and living together does matter (cohabitation is commonly a requirement or evidence of common law marriage), but other than that you are right that publicly presenting as married is often a requirement (and otherwise is evidence). Here’s info from Texas as an example, which is more required-elements-based and includes cohabitation: https://guides.sll.texas.gov/common-law-marriage#:~:text=Texas%20law%20states%20that%20a,others%20that%20they%20were%20married%E2%80%9D https://guides.sll.texas.gov/common-law-marriage#:~:text=Tex... And here is Colorado, which is more evidence based and does not identify cohabitation as even a form of evidence (though it does have joint ownership of property): https://pitkincounty.com/288/Common-Law-Marriage https://pitkincounty.com/288/Common-Law-Marriage Utah is more specific requirements, and includes both cohabitation and how the couple presents publicly, but no ceremony: https://www.utcourts.gov/en/self-help/case-categories/family/marriage/common-law.html https://www.utcourts.gov/en/self-help/case-categories/family...
- adoxyz 4y ago
  Prenups are a thing you know?
  - pengaru 4y ago
    I'm replying to someone saying don't care about these things and you're saying bring in lawyers to mitigate the awful legal defaults! I'm pretty sure that's also in disagreement with the comment I'm replying to.
- s5300 4y ago
  >> Then fix the outdated laws so people can enjoy those human connections without all the risky loss/gain baggage. In a country that celebrates sociopathy, manipulation of others, & psychopathy to such a high degree, I think the laws are perfectly fine as they protect exceptionally vulnerable people. What sort of resources do you actually think there are for a spouse that is able to escape after having been isolated and abused for years, that oftentimes becomes responsible for not only their own well-being, but also childrens? The answer is practically nothing aside from maybe your very basic necessities to sustain life. I also think you’re really missing a major point but that’s a tangent I’m not going to go on. [edit]: Revised “What sort of resources do you actually think there are for a spouse that’s been isolated and abused for years” to “What sort of resources do you actually think there are for a spouse that is able to escape after having been isolated and abused for years”
  - pengaru 4y ago
    The lack of a social safety net in the US is not something antiquated marriage laws should be misused to insufficiently provide. We need better general solutions in this area, a lot of the separation-related problems would vanish. Job-separation and spouse-separation overlap substantially, and it's rather harmful as-is when spouses are incentivized to stay in abusive relationships if they wouldn't even receive significant support separated from an abusive deadbeat anyways. They become trapped.
sidlls 4y ago
Humans change. A deep human connection at age 30 might not last through age 40.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  But objects are forever?
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Looks around room at 120ish-year-old desk, hundreds of books with an average age of probably 30 years with some as old as 160 years, 50-year-old record player and receiver, 60-year-old lamp, 20+ year old guitars that will likely last decades more with minimal maintenance, wood floors that should last literally a lifetime, and decade-old shoes that I expect to still be wearing in 20 years I mean... kinda? The ones that don't involve microelectronics and aren't mostly fabric, yeah, lots of them may as well last forever, from the perspective of a human lifetime.
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      Well, I guess if you want to prioritize shoes over a relationship, good on you?
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        Well, I'm not doing that, though, so... bad on me, I guess? But I have LEGOs that are probably way, way older than the average length of a romantic relationship. Hell, they're probably quite a bit older than the average length of a marriage. That's just true. My kids have some metal trucks made a decade before I was born and with hundreds of hours of kid-play-time on them, that they still play with. And those are just kids' toys, not things made for use by adults who will be careful with them! Lots of stuff does last a really long time. Quite a bit of stuff does indeed get a ton closer to lasting "forever" (say, an entire human lifespan) than most serious relationships do. Normal consumer shit, too, not, like, gothic cathedrals or something. Treating things as less-disposable than a serious partner is probably not a great idea, but, in actual fact, they... kinda are.
outime 4y ago
I'm not aware of the specifics OP talk about (I'm not from the US) but any mature adult should of course care about the unfair loss of wealth. If you look at US marriage/divorce statistics, it'd not be paranoid to think that it could also happen to you. In fact, I bet most of the people who got to lose "material objects" unfairly never thought they'd be in that situation - which then makes them get to experience the miserable way of life you mentioned, at least for a while. So yeah, I'd suggest to be mature and consider that things can go wrong, which shouldn't affect the depthness of the connection while things work (hopefully forever).

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

"Or partner". This isn't just about people being afraid to marry. They're not finding romantic partners to live with, either. And, about the taxes: Married filing separately is a thing.

soperj 4y ago
At least where I live, there is no distinction. As soon as you've lived with someone for 6 months, you're considered common law. If you separate they're legally entitled to half the stuff you've accumulated while together.
- nivenkos 4y ago
  While together is much more reasonable than absolutely all of your assets as with marriage though.
  - soperj 4y ago
    That's not how it works with marriage here either. It's only assets acquired during the marriage that is split. There are some exceptions, I'm not a lawyer.
ed_balls 4y ago
but if more men don't want to get married, women may not be able to find a suitable partner. Also, there is a gender disparity in location (more men in small towns and SV, more women in NY, LA)

_vbnz 4y ago

Yeah, feminism has gone completely insane. At the moment of marriage all assets are divided equally in most countries, regardless of when they were obtained. And in many countries a man can even be liable for child support if his wife cheats on him. That said a lot of countries actually have lower taxes for married couples like Germany, or separate it entirely like in Sweden.

jemmyw 4y ago
> a man can even be liable for child support if his wife cheats on him. I mean, yeah you should support your offspring regardless of what your wife does.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
>At the moment of marriage all assets are divided equally in most countries, regardless of when they were obtained. Is this correct for European countries, UK, Australia, NZ, or Canada? I have never heard of it for any state in the US. Typically, everything before the marriage contract is signed is not part of the community property in the marriage. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/communityproperty.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/communityproperty.asp
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure this is accurate in Canada. Actually it's slightly worse because asset split might skew more towards the person with lesser income to make it more equitable. So it's entirely possible you could be the primary earner for a marriage and then when the divorce happens you actually leave with less than half of what you provided. Happened to my Dad.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
Child support is an obligation to the child, the transgressions of the other parent are not a factor in it. It's not punishment it's support.
- Clubber 4y ago

fullshark 4y ago

At least among the single people I know, nobody wants to compromise and they have an inflated sense of themselves. In addition they are using apps that are basically just about sexual interaction and not romantic connection. They aren't even reaching like a 3rd-5th date with most of their prospective partners, let alone thinking about the costs of divorce.

tivert 4y ago
> In addition they are using apps that are basically just about sexual interaction and not romantic connection. "Wouldn't it be great if finding a partner was exactly like shopping, where you hunt around until you find a thing meets all your fussy requirements?", said a disturbingly large percentage of society.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  The dating (or mating) market is a great example of a market where agents provide huge value. Both sellers are unable to objectively value what they are selling (themselves), and so agents familiar with them and willing to vouch for them (family, friends, coworkers' spouses, etc) are in prime position to communicate with other agents and come up with reasonable valuations. However, this works as long as the networks remain broad and active, and people participate in them (you need at least some "busybodies"). I can see this being hampered if people frequently move, and move away from friends/family.
  - tivert 4y ago
    If it wasn't clear enough, I was mocking the attitude of viewing it like a market and the people as products. Talking about "sellers" and "reasonable valuations" is taking that attitude to a whole different level. If course, our society is so brain dead it has trouble understanding anything that isn't modeled on shopping in a market. So everything must be converted into "shopping in a market."
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago

zoolily 4y ago

Being married doesn't necessarily increase your income tax in the US. Some couples pay more, while others pay less, depending on how incomes differ between the two spouses both in amounts and in kind. Being married does give you more options--a good tax preparer will have their software compute both the taxes for filing jointly and for filing separately.

dmitrygr 4y ago
If you both make over 400k, no matter how you file, you pay more if married. Go look at brackets. Most people don’t know it. But “married filing separately” brackets are LOWER than “single”
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

actuator 4y ago

Wait, I thought US essentially doubles the tax slabs if you are married and file as a couple. So it works out well for couples with income skew

lotsofpulp 4y ago
No, it is not double. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduced the marriage penalty quite a bit due to broadening the tax brackets. It is still there, especially for very high earners, but not noticeable for the vast majority. https://www.bakerinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/import/bi-report-032619-cpf-marriagepenalty.pdf https://www.bakerinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/i...
- actuator 4y ago
  Surely $600K as a couple income is even on the top endz even in tech. So, for most normal couples like where one earns $300K and the other $100K, filing as a married couple is better, no? Or am I misunderstanding something
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    I think I misunderstood you, and did not realize tax slab meant tax bracket, as assumed you meant the US doubles the tax liability if you are filling married joint.
    - philsnow 4y ago
      [assuming United States for everything here, in case it wasn't obvious] In addition to the brackets, there's tons of other deductions, exemptions, etc that are higher or double for married-filing-jointly tax returns. Just one example is the capital gains on selling your home: if you're filing singly you get an exemption on the first $250k of capital gains, but if you're married and filing jointly that exemption is on the first $500k of gains.
      - 4y ago

vkou 4y ago

Then go sign an equitable and enforceable pre-nup. Jesus. PS. A "I keep all my stuff forever while I earn all the money, and you cook, clean, have sex with me, and raise my children" pre-nup is not equitable, and is, in many jurisdictions, thereby not enforceable. You're building a life together. If your partner doesn't meaningfully support you in it, you're with the wrong partner. If they are meaningfully supporting you in it, they are entitled to a share in your family's fortunes. PPS. This isn't some feminism boogieman, this is a direct consequence of 'men are the breadwinners, women's livelyhood is utterly dependent on them.' If you're earning similar amounts to your partner, that default 50/50 split is a non-factor. If you aren't, see above. Lewis' law is out in full swing today.