Damage Plan/Marriage Plan -Whats the Cost Benefit Analysis for Blokes

CDfm

The idea for this thread came from the wife and kids thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65999767#post65999767

A single guy said -well I am on great money but I couldn't afford it.So he has the concept straight in his head that this is the lifestyle I want and its how I pay for it.

In the 70s you often had places with different pay rates for married and single guys. Now everyone gets the single guy rate:eek:

Pre-marriage courses used to be a big thing a kind of a pre-nup course where they would put together plans on marriage and finances. The were run mainly by the churches. They werent religious retreats.

I knew a couple neither religious and did the course for the laugh and church wedding and they didnt survive the course and didnt marry.


Nowadays most people have been in a long term relationship of some sort

Some people now use books and check lists for this. Dont be put off by the title as I posted it on PI on a few occassions where women were asking questions on their relationships

http://www.thatbitchbook.com/due_diligence.html

So with stay at home Mums families must be around 50% or so of families -if not more that means 50% plus of the guys reading will find themselves in this situation.

So.....

PK2008

Im not really follwoing the question, is it how much a man has to pay for a wedding/divorce?

CDfm

It isn't a question as such.

You have permutations of different situations but this really is about marriage/relationships and not divorce.

So you get people and a couple of kids the pie gets shared.

So what slice does the guy -the giver of life, the bringer home of the bacon get.

What are the variables - two incomes vs one income vs escallating costs.

So this is about disposable income for him???? and of course the cost of his duties and obligations?

EDIT : PK2008 -yup I imagine if you split off and started a cost of divorce thread as a cost benefit analysis -it could be interesting and bitter

So lets see where this goes from a guys eye view first.

No theory just approximates.

The Corinthian

Marriage is great, so long as it lasts, however statistically marriages do end. Some countries have divorce rates of up to 50%, while Ireland is much lower at around 17%, AFAIK. Those, ironically are the odds of losing in a round of Russian Roulette.

And if it is and you are the one earning the money in a single income family, then the price can often be severe and long-lasting. As a result, and combined with the change in attitudes towards cohabitation and having children out of wedlock, I think many have chosen not to marry as evidenced by the move towards cohabitation in recent years.

As an aside, this is almost certainly why the new proposed civil partnership law is 'opt out' - so as to force as many into the same 'net' as married couples (partners maintenance is pegged at the same level as spousal maintenance according to my reading of the bill, btw). In such a case, partners maintenance would be deducted from LPA payments or even make them ineligible, for example, thus decreasing the cost to the state.

If you have children our society discourages men from caring for them, with the presumption that it is a 'woman's job', which means that if you have children you are more likely, as a man, to end up the breadwinner - which means you are more likely to lose out significantly in the event of divorce. For bonus points, you won't get custody of your children either, because you were out supporting the family.

What do you lose out as a man if you're not married? Automatic guardianship of your children. Given this, an unmarried man can go to court for this already and soon it likely to be automatic anyway - for what it's worth, because the same proposed changes will dilute the rights afforded to the role significantly.

And you lose some tax breaks. Keeping the parents happy. Religious and/or traditional considerations. That's about it.

So to answer the question, no. The cost benefit analysis does not make sense for blokes. I thought that was obvious.

CDfm

What I would like to do here is evaluate first and look at the financials "duties,obligations & responsibilities" -just say a couple with 1 child after all the overheads are calculated a couple are left with 1000 for themselves

That kind of stuff -so guys can get a feel for it.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

What I would like to do here is evaluate first and look at the financials "duties,obligations & responsibilities" -just say a couple with 1 child after all the overheads are calculated a couple are left with 1000 for themselves

That kind of stuff -so guys can get a feel for it.

I don't follow. The obligations to a spouse and an ex-spouse are different, in that in marriage there is often an exchange of financial for labour - that is if only one is working the other will take care of the home/children. Where a couple is divorced, the financial obligations remain, but all others (with the exception of child care) vanish.

Additionally, overheads are only one aspect of the cost of divorce as assets are also included. For example one spouse may have bought the family and paid for it, but the other will automatically gain a claim to half of it.

If you were to calculate a divorce settlement, even ignoring assets, net income is probably what one would have to start with. In principle everything is 50-50, but add a child to the mix and the breadwinner could easily see the majority of his paycheck going to his ex and child every month.

Could you be more specific with what you're looking for?

CDfm

Aha, Mr Corinthian -this is not a divorce thread.

This is a LUV thread.

People organising their lives together and budgeting.

The costs of relationships when they are working for boys
there is a rumour that we may give away some social constructs

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

People organising their lives together and budgeting.

The title is a little confusing then. I would suggest that when assessing something like this, even with a couple with one child, there are numerous considerations to take into account, such as who earns more, is better at child care, the work hours they do, teleworking/home office, future career prospects, etc. when deciding what to do. I've seen various models:

• Both work full time and hire childcare.
• Both work part time (one 80% and the other 40% and the child is in care one day per week).
• One works full time and stays at home as a homemaker/child carer.

Then there is the question of pooling of income. Some pool everything earned, others keep finances separate and take charge of different bills, and others again use hybrid models.

Horses for courses.

Pherekydes

CDfm wrote: »

So what slice does the guy -the giver of life, the bringer home of the bacon get.

Is the "wife's" input so inconsequential? Is "her" input worthless, in terms of fiscal worth?

I put wife's and her in inverted commas because men can be homemakers, too.

I never thought of my marriages in terms of cost benefit analysis. I should have done a SWOT analysis before marrying the first time: it never would have happened.

CDfm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Is the "wife's" input so inconsequential? Is "her" input worthless, in terms of fiscal worth?

I put wife's and her in inverted commas because men can be homemakers, too.

It isn't but its tGC and the name is CDfm not PCfm.

And the smell of rasher sandwiches is making me hungry.

I never thought of my marriages in terms of cost benefit analysis. I should have done a SWOT analysis before marrying the first time: it never would have happened.

So yes - you get the concept - marriage involves sacrifices so lets work out the financials.

GUCCI loafers - have you tried Tesco's

@ the Corinthian -well its up to whoever has a model

Start of with a couple no kids and their lifestyle and throw in a few variables.

Lets have fun with this -its le Weekend

CDfm

I am finding it hard to find articles which are neutral, moderate and ordinary. Even in feminism you have a debate on Stay at Home Mums vs Stay in Work.

Anyway, here is an article from the UK Telegraph

The real cost of giving up work



Published: 12:01AM GMT 05 Mar 2008

Taking time off to have children means a loss of salary


Thinking of giving up work to raise children or dreaming of a Good Life-style downshift to that country farm? Julia Whittle explains why you might want to think again as giving up work could cost you more than you think

• www.telegraph.co.uk/savings
• www.telegraph.co.uk/retirement

If you stopped work to take a career break for 10 years, how much would that cost you? Sounds simple: 10 times your salary – right? Wrong!



Many of us who take time off to raise a family or take a substantial reduction in pay to downshift do exactly this kind of calculation but end up vastly underestimating the real loss of income.
If you are going to stop work, for any period of time, it is vital to enter into this period of your life fully aware of how much it is really going to cost you.
For instance, have you considered the loss of extra income you might gain from any career progression and how long it could take you to catch up when you do return to work?
Or the loss of pension contributions and how this will affect your income in retirement?

Or even the loss of employee benefits such as health insurance or life insurance, which you may never even have noticed before?
Consider a solicitor who has taken 10 years out of work from the age of 38 to 48 to bring up her children.
First, on returning to work she may be disappointed by the professional level at which she is able to re-enter her career after a decade off.
There could be little chance of being appointed as a partner to supplement her earnings – which, in effect, could mean a career loss of up to £3m equity income.
Now let's look at her pension loss. Her income when she left was £120,000 and she had a money purchase pension scheme with total contributions equal to 15pc of pay.
Her pension benefits were, after her break, a pension starting at £59,700 per annum at retirement rather than £82,500 per annum she was anticipating previously.
That would be a loss, assuming she lives for 20 years after retirement, of £460,000. This was assuming she carried on after 10 years in a similar role on a similar equivalent salary – probably very unlikely.
The 10 years' loss of income would have amounted to a net income loss of just under £1.3m. Childcare, assuming a full-time nanny for five years and some part-time care, could have amounted to £300,000.
So, including the pension loss, this is a total loss in simple terms of £1.56m (again, not including the loss of salary increases from career progression). All without considering growth in any savings she may have made while she was working.
Punter Southall estimates that in total, including the loss of not making partner in her law firm, such a woman could be facing a loss of £4.56m or more.
Here we have assumed healthcare benefits would have been paid for her from her partner's company scheme – but what if the partner is self-employed or doesn't get healthcare at work?
Not all of us are high flyers and the temptation might be that as you're on a lower income, the cost of childcare might be prohibitive anyway. But the impact can be just as hard in relative terms.
Think of a manager in the National Health Service who started work at 18 but decided to stop work at 30 to bring up her children and ended up not going back to work.
Her salary when she left was £28,000. She did a little part-time work when the children were older but never had enough spare for pension contributions or savings, while assuming that her husband was accumulating enough savings for both of them in retirement.
The loss of her net income would have equated to around £1.1m, and if you allow for perhaps up to £60,000 that might have been used for childcare, then the net income loss over 35 years would still be just over £1m.
Once again, we are not factoring in promotions and salary increases, which, if they were averaging 4pc, we could estimate as a loss of over £2m in earnings alone.
With the NHS final salary pension scheme she would have retired on around £36,900 index linked pension with 50pc widower's benefit, had she continued working.
But, as she stopped working, she will only get £5,600 a year – that would be a total of about £760,000 less if she lives to be 85.
Without including career promotions and pay rises, overall that's a total loss of £1.76m – and including them that's a loss of £2.76m.

• Julia Whittle is a principal at Punter Southall Financial Management. To learn more about the company go to www.psfm.com

Things to be aware of

• Less family income affects your ability to borrow.

• Remember the real cost of replacing corporate benefits such as health insurance and life cover could be much higher than you thought – you were likely to receive a discount on the real cost as employers bulk-buy policies and you might not even be able to get cover on your own for medical reasons.

• Don’t forget benefits like childcare vouchers and gym membership can all add up.

• Do you have a company car – what’s the cost of replacing that?

• Consider what would happen if you were to divorce during this time – have you enough put by to manage?

• You might have done the sums, but has your spouse?

• Pensions may seem replaceable but gradual savings over many years along with employers' contributions can amount to significant sums.

People with final salary scheme membership who have a salary of £50,000 with long service might get an index linked pension of £33,000 with 50pc or even higher widow's benefits.
The lump sum you would need to save up on your own to provide that would be around £800,000 at today's annuity rates. Could you really do that on your own?
To achieve that goal, you would need to save about £2,000 per month for 20 years, assuming 5pc per annum investment returns.

• If you have a final salary scheme and don't go back to work – get advice, it may be better to transfer to a personal pension plan.

• Don't forget the effects on improving and maintaining your home – couples who both work are likely to upgrade their house between three and five times during their lifetime. This maximises their exposure to house price rises which, despite recent setbacks, have more than doubled on average over the last decade.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

Even in feminism you have a debate on Stay at Home Mums vs Stay in Work.

As much as I have heard that being a stay and home mum is good for a child, I'll have to admit that in most families I've witnessed (warning: anecdotal evidence) it generally boils down to a lifestyle choice. Where the mother either loves her work and has a successful career, she will tend to continue working - I even know a barrister who had an elective cesarean, so as to minimize time out of work, and was back at work a month later. While most of those who do give up their careers are often unhappy in them to begin with or their careers are otherwise lackluster.

I would also question the premise that a stay and home mum (or dad) is better for a child - or at least better compared to the financial benefits that a two income family would bring. Once a child has reached school-age, however, I find it difficult to accept any reason for a stay and home mum (or dad) not to return to the workplace - yet many, if not most, just don't bother.

Honestly, my opinion is that male and female roles have changed in the last fifty years, as has the job market. We retrain and change career much later in life, often several times. Unless we are in the civil service, we can forget the 'job for life'. Where once a married man was paid more than a woman on the basis that he had "a family to support", it is now illegal to do this. So why do we continue to choose this model when even its benefits to children are in question?

So unless one partner is bringing home as significantly high income than the other, I think this has become a luxury that we can ill afford, and even then it has become an indulgence that we probably should not allow.

CDfm

I am trying to avoid a gender debate but here is a calculator " Can you afford to Quit"

http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/managing/afford.html

So when people move from 2 to 1 income their lifestyles change and with it not only cars, holidays, and moving house etc are casualties but also stuff like hobbies, lunch, clothes.

These are things that should be openly discussed at the getgo.

Getting into the mindset of existing vs subsitance living

Start Living on a Budget Today
7 Steps to Smart Money Decisions
By Apryl Duncan, About.com Guide
.See More About:family budgetssaving moneymanaging your moneyfrugal living
Start living on a budget that works for you and your family. Make healthy financial choices to eliminate debt, decrease costs and stretch a paycheck without constantly crunching numbers.
1. Create a Budget
The first step to living on a budget is to track your family's income and expenses. Gather all of your bills, paycheck stubs, bank statements -- everything you have that shows money coming in or going out. Write a frugal budget to manage your money. When you wing it every month without a budget in mind, you're passing up opportunities to slash unnecessary costs and save money.

Reduce Household Costs
You Won't Need To Make Any Changes To Your Home To Make The Big Switch
www.TheBigSwitch.ie
2. Set Financial Goals
When you're struggling month to month just to pay the bills, saving money seems like a long-term goal that's always out of reach. Whether you want to save money for your child's college fund or you'd like to tuck money away for your retirement, setting financial goals is an important step in protecting your family's future.
3. Get Out of Debt
While being in debt can feel overwhelming, managing your debt is easy when you set realistic goals. A debt management plan can be built into your budget so you can pay off your credit cards, mortgage and eliminate your overall debt.
4. Lower Your Taxes
Stop dreading the April 15 tax deadline every year. Simple tweaks can reduce your taxes and add money to your family's bottom line. Choosing the right filing status, studying current tax rules on claiming dependents, using the child tax credit and taking advantage of child care and dependent care expenses are a few of the tax rules you should be aware of every year when it's time to file.
5. Plan for Financial Emergencies
The stress of a financial crisis can put a strain on the wealthiest families. Establishing an emergency fund helps you build up savings for unexpected expenses. Life insurance and a last will and testament can also shield your family from a financial hardship if something should happen to you or your spouse.
6. Control Spending on Food
Cut the costs of feeding your family with a well-planned food budget. Save money on groceries with a ready-made shopping list of your family's favorite recipes. You'll always know what you need and can spot a sale on your staples. This keeps your kitchen pantry stocked without having to pay full price. Think outside the grocery store to find even more savings. Kids eat free deals at restaurants are also budget-friendly options that give you a break from the kitchen without draining your bank account.
7. Budget for Travel
Many families think a vacation is an automatic budget buster. Stretching your travel dollars can make your dream trip a reality, though. With a few extra steps, you can save money on your vacation to make a getaway a part of your budget. If you discover your budget just won't allow your family to travel, plan a staycation that keeps everyone close to home but still has room for day trips and fun activities to fit any budget.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

I am trying to avoid a gender debate but here is a calculator " Can you afford to Quit"

Well given the grotesque imbalance between the genders with regard to child care and homemaking, it is difficult not to bring genders into it.

However, 'quitting' is a rather final term and should not be confused with a temporary hiatus. This may be because of child care (until the children are going to school), or to return to education or so as to start a business. In this regard, a couple could afford to do this even if they are living beyond their means during the hiatus, as it will not last forever.

This should not be confused with the traditional concept where one leaves their job never to return to the workforce.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well given the grotesque imbalance between the genders with regard to child care and homemaking, it is difficult not to bring genders into it.

No Mr C - I know you cant resist the gender debate but please try.

This is not about any of that -this is about money - filthy lucre -green backs -spondoolicks -pieces of eight - brass -money and will you have enough of it.