Mitigating the risk of losing 50% in divorce

How to explain ERE, arranging family matters
2Birds1Stone
Posts: 714
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 11:20 am

Re: Mitigating the risk of losing 50% in divorce

Post by 2Birds1Stone » Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:04 pm

Ego wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:13 pm
Are you sure about that?
This is America, so anything can be an exception, but generally in NY State pre-marital assets are not included in the equitable division of marital property. *buyer beware*
unemployable wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:49 pm
It's incorrect. Ask Jeff Bezos.
I guess it depends on where you live, get married, and ultimately get divorced. This is one of those issues that varies wildly based on state, circumstance, and which side of the bed the judge woke up on.

bigato
Posts: 2112
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:43 pm

Re: Mitigating the risk of losing 50% in divorce

Post by bigato » Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:43 pm

Around here in Brazil, the law is such that you don't even need to live in the same house to be considered a couple, legally married for all purposes. It's really complicated, almost like marrying with a prenup is a defensive and necessary move if your relationship starts to last a bit more.

User avatar
Dream of Freedom
Posts: 397
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Nebraska, US

Re: Mitigating the risk of losing 50% in divorce

Post by Dream of Freedom » Tue Sep 10, 2019 6:57 pm

If you are interested in listening to someone who has been through the prenup process before you make a decision there is a interview you can listen to:
https://podcastnotes.org/2019/05/22/sethi-4/
Relevant part starts at 1:02:20

7Wannabe5
Posts: 5003
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Mitigating the risk of losing 50% in divorce

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:44 am

bigato wrote:Around here in Brazil, the law is such that you don't even need to live in the same house to be considered a couple, legally married for all purposes. It's really complicated, almost like marrying with a prenup is a defensive and necessary move if your relationship starts to last a bit more.
It's the opposite in the U.S. since the big palimony cases of the last century set precedent. This makes for some interesting tax situations, because your live-in is always a separate household and never your de facto employee. So, any funds/goods transferred are tax free for recipient, because either gift or "ghost" status.

@fiby41:

Unless you hire a surrogate and choose to solo-father, having children is going to be the risk, not marriage. What I see as the primary problem for the divorced Dads I have dated and several of the members of this forum is their own internal strife in deciding what constitutes providing a reasonable upbringing for their kids within their class structure. So, for instance, one of my friends has to pay maximum child support due to high income, but that doesn't mean that his ex doesn't call him up once a week to ask him to chip in or outright pay for summer soccer camp, orthodontics, or next size up shoes. My BIL, who was never married to mother of his teenage child being raised in NYC, voluntarily pays more than courts would demand because that's what it costs to raise kid in the city. Married or not, you really have to be on the same page/team with your partner if you are going to fight against the growing stream of "have" and "have not" children in modern day 2- tier class system America.

LookingInward
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:51 am

Re: Mitigating the risk of losing 50% in divorce

Post by LookingInward » Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:58 am

To @Seppia and others who haves this view of "all or nothing" with regards to marriage: what exactly do you mean by this (Specially when it comes to finances)? To me it sounds like a poor plan, but I want to know more.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 4208
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Mitigating the risk of losing 50% in divorce

Post by Ego » Sun Sep 15, 2019 1:24 pm

@lookinginward, two committed people can nurture a relationship into something that they each value far more than anything else. More than money or power or freedom or status or autonomy.

For this to work they must both be absolutely committed. All in.

If you've found a good, kind, decent human being to partner with then why wouldn't you go all in?

User avatar
Bankai
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:28 am

Re: Mitigating the risk of losing 50% in divorce

Post by Bankai » Sun Sep 15, 2019 1:36 pm

Because people change? I think it's a mistake to assume that you can somehow 'lock in' the wonderful thing you have going (the honeymoon period of relationship) by getting married.

Consider that probably most if not all people who get married think at that point that they marry an amazing person. But what happens later? Half get divorced. Half of the other half live in misery because they have no guts to leave. Half of the other quarter have an OK/average relationship. That leaves what, 12.5% of good to great relationships? 1 in 8 odds don't strike me as particularly great to put half of my money on.

Post Reply