Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

[jennypenny]

@spartan--why are they two separate issues? If people with greater financial means are morally obligated to bear a larger financially responsibility for society, why wouldn't "society" include their own children?

[Spartan_Warrior]

@Jenny: I really didn't anticipate this to become yet another taxation discussion, but in principle I believe the wealthy have a greater responsibility to pay for the benefits of society because 1) they derive a disproportionately higher benefit from, and incur a disproportionately higher cost on the public structures of society (e.g. Wal-Mart's trucks gets more financial benefit from and do more damage to the public highways than my passenger car), 2) the natural tendency of money to aggregate at the top leads to social unrest and inequity, and a progressive tax slows the natural tendency of money to pool, and 3) the pragmatic reality that you can't tax the poor because they don't have money.

(Note that my reasoning has nothing to do with moral obligation.)

I ask you--in what way does any of this relate to a man, by virtue of his gender, being expected to pay more for a child?

[SilverElephant]

The fact that you see financially supporting your own children as "getting nailed for child support" shows why it's necessary for courts to favor women even though we should be past this issue.

The difference lies in the fact that I wouldn't get to see them as much as I'd want to if custody was awarded to the mother, as it is in the majority of cases. Even worse if the mother uses the kids as leverage of elects to turn them against you, in which case you end up being forced to pay money for people who hate you. I'm not saying this happens all the time, but rather often, and the mere possibility is enough for me-

In the US, over 60% of all women work. It would seem that more than half of all women feel an obligation to provide for their families as well.

That seems to be a broad generalization. Quite a number of families simply need that second income (admittedly because things like cable TV eat up the first wage). I also know some women get a job after the kids reach a certain age because they get bored at home. Note that these are almost always part-time jobs held for the purpose of having some social interaction. The big difference here is the pressure on the man vs. the pressure on the woman. For him, people depend on him. For her, it's a hobby.

This was my point about how women were raised. If your family treats your sister that way, is it her fault that she grows up thinking that way? I would say not completely.

I don't see it as women's "fault" per se. Although I don't see many of them starting groups to protest against men being under a very different kind of pressure...

For me, the "who's at fault" doesn't matter (although it's interesting to understand how this works), what matters is how things are and how to deal with them.

If the issue for everyone is really that they can't find someone who's financially independent, or at least financially savvy, then they should separate the two issues. Throwing marriage and women under the bus when the issue is a financial one, not a gender-related one, is wrong and perpetuates the stereotype.

But the issue is gender-related... women turn out thinking differently about these subjects than men, and I mean think not only in the conscious-thinking way but in the way they are, what expectations they feel and what they look for in a partner.

[Ego]

I agree that this is the ideal. Unfortunately, no matter how financially savvy/independent my wife would be I'm taking a much bigger financial risk getting married than her. This isn't necessarily women's fault, but it's still a factor for me.

Why is that? Why are you ruling out the possibility that you may fall in love with someone who makes/has more than you?

I'm not ruling it out. I'm suggesting her salary, whether higher or lower, has little bearing on if the courts screw me or not. My assets are at greater risk than hers in a divorce. Obviously, if hers are $50 million then I'm probably not paying alimony, but the wealth makes that an outlier.

Agreed. Both members of a relationship come into it with various "assets". Some are more measurable than others. It is the intangibles and synergies that take it out of the realm of spreadsheets where the assets and liabilities can be neatly calculated.

Perhaps going into it with one eye on what will happen in court may cause a few problems. A few ideas:

1) Attention dictates direction. Looking in a particular direction (court) may inadvertently take you in that direction.
2) Summing up relationship assets & liabilities tends to kill the intangibles and synergies which are the exponential functions of relationships. Things get really good when two people are working in sync. Greater than the sum of their parts....

[JohnnyH]

So is there any legal way to buffer what you've accumulated from being taken by your wife you married after you had them?

House into a LLC?... Prenup (I hear mixed things on if these are actually respected by courts), million dollar coin collection in Zurich?

I've known retired PhD's who were told they'd basically be forced to work at Taco Bell until they died to continue making payments.
_____________
Have a wedding ceremony, stay unmarried, have kids and name them after father, don't elaborate to the kids on the complex situation. Live together as married, but claim 2 heads of household (yay vacation house), move the children deduction claims around for max benefit... Food stamps times 2x, medicaid 2x.

??

Tax law has made it clear; the government wants two poorer single parent households than one better off one.

[Spartan_Warrior]

Things get really good when two people are working in sync. Greater than the sum of their parts....

No disagreement there. A successful marriage is a great thing. A married couple will be better off financially (usually) than two single people, and will (usually) achieve FI faster/easier. It can be a good "investment". But like any investment, there is risk. And it strikes me as disingenuous to ignore the fact that, given U.S. family law, the majority of that risk is usually borne by the man.

[jennypenny]

I also know some women get a job after the kids reach a certain age because they get bored at home. Note that these are almost always part-time jobs held for the purpose of having some social interaction. The big difference here is the pressure on the man vs. the pressure on the woman. For him, people depend on him. For her, it's a hobby.

Your experience is very different from mine.

I find all of the anecdotal generalizations from the men about how "women" feel very amusing. Have any of you actually asked women how they feel about this?

[Spartan_Warrior]

As far as having kids while not getting married, that's pretty interesting. How many women would be willing to do this? I'm guessing not many. Why is that? Could it be because suddenly they would be sharing some of the risk that's otherwise mostly on the man?

[Ego]

But like any investment, there is risk. And it strikes me as disingenuous to ignore the fact that, given U.S. family law, the majority of that risk is usually borne by the man.

1) Looking at it as an investment may not be the best way to create a successful outcome.
2) You and I are not going to change US family law. The system is what it is. Going into a relationship angry (or unhappy) about the power dynamics of the system also may not be the best way to create a successful outcome.

[jennypenny]

@Jenny: I really didn't anticipate this to become yet another taxation discussion, but in principle I believe the wealthy have a greater responsibility to pay for the benefits of society because 1) they derive a disproportionately higher benefit from, and incur a disproportionately higher cost on the public structures of society (e.g. Wal-Mart's trucks gets more financial benefit from and do more damage to the public highways than my passenger car), 2) the natural tendency of money to aggregate at the top leads to social unrest and inequity, and a progressive tax slows the natural tendency of money to pool, and 3) the pragmatic reality that you can't tax the poor because they don't have money.

(Note that my reasoning has nothing to do with moral obligation.)

I ask you--in what way does any of this relate to a man, by virtue of his gender, being expected to pay more for a child?

I don't mean for this to be another tax discussion either, but using your reasons above...
Does a spouse have a greater responsibility to pay for the benefits of children if 1) they derived a greater financial benefit and greater income opportunities if they had a spouse at home to care for their children, 2) that money tends to aggregate at the top with men and spousal and child support slows the natural tendency of money to pool, and 3) the pragmatic reality that a spouse that has been un- or underemployed while staying home to raise children won't have the money to pay 50% of expenses?

Just something to think about

[Chad]

I also know some women get a job after the kids reach a certain age because they get bored at home. Note that these are almost always part-time jobs held for the purpose of having some social interaction. The big difference here is the pressure on the man vs. the pressure on the woman. For him, people depend on him. For her, it's a hobby.

Your experience is very different from mine.

I find all of the anecdotal generalizations from the men about how "women" feel very amusing. Have any of you actually asked women how they feel about this?

I'm missing something, as I'm not quite sure what you are asking. I'm sure it's just in how I'm reading it.

[JohnnyH]

My girlfriend's base salary is higher than mine, and her benefits better... Also, I work fewer hours and be with the kids more.

Despite all that I just cannot see me ever being awarded the kids, MY house and have her make child support payments to me... System is based on gender, not facts or figures.
_________
Reading about common law marriage now, if you make it known to the community you are married (ie: have a ceremony) congrats, you are married... I might be able to sell them on not being married, but haven't met a woman yet who doesn't crave a wedding.
_________
... Implement a nuclear option. Family vacation to a muslim country before it all blows up, claim asylum!

[Spartan_Warrior]

@Jenny: I really didn't anticipate this to become yet another taxation discussion, but in principle I believe the wealthy have a greater responsibility to pay for the benefits of society because 1) they derive a disproportionately higher benefit from, and incur a disproportionately higher cost on the public structures of society (e.g. Wal-Mart's trucks gets more financial benefit from and do more damage to the public highways than my passenger car), 2) the natural tendency of money to aggregate at the top leads to social unrest and inequity, and a progressive tax slows the natural tendency of money to pool, and 3) the pragmatic reality that you can't tax the poor because they don't have money.

(Note that my reasoning has nothing to do with moral obligation.)

I ask you--in what way does any of this relate to a man, by virtue of his gender, being expected to pay more for a child?

I don't mean for this to be another tax discussion either, but using your reasons above...
Does a spouse have a greater responsibility to pay for the benefits of children if 1) they derived a greater financial benefit and greater income opportunities if they had a spouse at home to care for their children, 2) that money tends to aggregate at the top with men and spousal and child support slows the natural tendency of money to pool, and 3) the pragmatic reality that a spouse that has been un- or underemployed while staying home to raise children won't have the money to pay 50% of expenses?

Just something to think about

Okay, fair enough. Now put it in the reverse and assume all that's true, but it's the woman who benefited while the man was staying at home. Would a court make the woman pay the man alimony in such circumstances? Would the man be awarded the child custody or any child support?

The reason it's a different issue is--for the courts--one of, if not the deciding factor is NOT income or resources, but gender.

[Spartan_Warrior]

But like any investment, there is risk. And it strikes me as disingenuous to ignore the fact that, given U.S. family law, the majority of that risk is usually borne by the man.

1) Looking at it as an investment may not be the best way to create a successful outcome.
2) You and I are not going to change US family law. The system is what it is. Going into a relationship angry (or unhappy) about the power dynamics of the system also may not be the best way to create a successful outcome.

I agree on both points, but it doesn't really change what I'm saying--that the risk is born by the man.

The increasingly common reaction is not to try to change the family law, but simply for young men to avoid marriage:

<LINK> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2977246/posts

[jennypenny]

@Chad--I find it amusing that you guys assume women go back to work because they're bored and that they see work as a "hobby." And also that you all have a problem with that.

Don't you see the irony in it? That men on a forum about retiring early are complaining that women aren't as serious about their careers??

[jennypenny]

The reason it's a different issue is--for the courts--one of, if not the deciding factor is NOT income or resources, but gender.

This is changing (as it should)...
http://nation.time.com/2013/05/16/is-th ... e-know-it/

(I'm trying to find a copy of the full article for those who don't subscribe.)

[Chad]

Perhaps going into it with one eye on what will happen in court may cause a few problems. A few ideas:

1) Attention dictates direction. Looking in a particular direction (court) may inadvertently take you in that direction.
2) Summing up relationship assets & liabilities tends to kill the intangibles and synergies which are the exponential functions of relationships. Things get really good when two people are working in sync. Greater than the sum of their parts....

1) I don't disagree that focus can influence the outcome, but I'm not going put blinders on just for love.

2) I agree with most of that, but ignoring money (assets and liabilities) is ignoring risk. Depending on what stat you look at you have a 20-50% (50% is a little high as it's a rather specific set of criteria) chance of getting divorced. This is rather risky for the guy considering he loses in divorce court far more often (I'm always arguing about alimony, not child support).

[Chad]

@Chad--I find it amusing that you guys assume women go back to work because they're bored and that they see work as a "hobby." And also that you all have a problem with that.

Don't you see the irony in it? That men on a forum about retiring early are complaining that women aren't as serious about their careers??

Not ironic from my view point. I don't have a problem with my wife viewing work as a hobby, as long as I get to view it as a hobby too. Though, this isn't very common.

A good example is a couple I'm very good friends with. They both work for the same accounting firm that is either #1 or #2 in the world. He is about a year away from making partner. She is about 7 years younger, but according to other people at the firm I have talked with, she is definitely on the partner track too. She is very goal oriented and driven. Yet, she has mentioned about being a stay at home wife when he becomes partner. I'm not sure how serious she is, but no one says too much. I'm not sure that would be the case if roles were reversed.

[Chad]

The reason it's a different issue is--for the courts--one of, if not the deciding factor is NOT income or resources, but gender.

This is changing (as it should)...
http://nation.time.com/2013/05/16/is-th ... e-know-it/

(I'm trying to find a copy of the full article for those who don't subscribe.)

The full article would be great.

I agree the courts gender bias is changing, but it's changing very slowly.

[jennypenny]

I agree the courts gender bias is changing, but it's changing very slowly.

About as fast as the pay inequality women face