Marriage: is it worth it?

jelem

government and its departments WILL claim it is both partners property\money\shares\investments etc.,
whether married or not.
in unlucky event you unemployed and seek benefits you have paid tax for,
They will count yours as joint and hers as joint.
Forget data protection act, they immune and you will not get away with hiding anything (maybe for a while).
They use the term "means" to override privacy.
i refused to give bank details of other half and was cut off and denied benefit.
just end up walk away from the government cretins and let them play their games.
What is yours is only if you single and live alone with no legal liabilities,
but the revenue etc . will know
unles hidden overseas in what is termed "illegal methods" and may aswell not have it.

Potential-Monke

Strumms wrote: »

If I own a house. I get married, she wants to move in, I want her to, it’s staying as my house...it’s her home, our home but in the event of things going arse over armpit... still my property.

If i have 30 grand in savings from before we were married, it’s up to me to decide how that is spent...

If I want to throw a big chunk of that in a joint account to get us started, my call, but some remaining in my personal account my decision . Same for her, have her stash.... I’m not gonna be making a grab for it...

My mother always had that view in marriage, you never sacrifice your financial independence or leave yourself without what you worked hard to amass.

But does that matter once you get married? Regardless if the mortgage is in your name, if its "home" for both of ye, in a messy split would she not be entitled to half regardless? Same for the savings? I thought it did, but I'm open to correction.

jelem

Potential-Monke wrote: »

But does that matter once you get married? Regardless if the mortgage is in your name, if its "home" for both of ye, in a messy split would she not be entitled to half regardless? Same for the savings? I thought it did, but I'm open to correction.

good legal team and even if she shagging milkman she get half.
Pre nups have been disqualified in courts so not safe.

RacoonQueen

Potential-Monke wrote: »

But does that matter once you get married? Regardless if the mortgage is in your name, if its "home" for both of ye, in a messy split would she not be entitled to half regardless? Same for the savings? I thought it did, but I'm open to correction.

Is it not half of what you saved while married? So what you had prior to wedding day can't be touched?

Potential-Monke

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Is it not half of what you saved while married? So what you had prior to wedding day can't be touched?

From Citizens Information:

"-The current and likely future income, earning capacity and assets of each party
- The accommodation needs of each party
- The value of any benefits given up by a party because of the judicial separation, divorce or dissolution"

Just some of the factors. In your example, you said the house would be "home" to both of ye, so going by the wording above she could allege that she is losing the benefit of the "home" and you'd have to either pay out or move out by the sounds of it.

So I dunno... I'd be very wary. For savings, I couldn't see anything specific about it. But from what I can tell, they would be taken into account, ie: the "current". I believe asset includes savings, but open to correction.

Strumms

Potential-Monke wrote: »

But does that matter once you get married? Regardless if the mortgage is in your name, if its "home" for both of ye, in a messy split would she not be entitled to half regardless? Same for the savings? I thought it did, but I'm open to correction.

I’m no expert, but. If we have a joint account, we both have bank books / cards and account is in both our names. We each transfer say 1000 euros per month into the joint account... from our personal accounts..every payday.

That’s used for savings, shopping, petrol, car tax / insurance, house insurance, light, heat and all sundry living expenses and purchases, weekends away, holidays .. whatever is over from what we earn stays in our private accounts. Say 1700 each.

That’s transparent, accountable and fair...

That way, things go tits up, everybody only gets out what they put in. No greedy grabbers... we split and there was 6000 in the joint expense bubble... 3000 each, one Ford Kuga, one year old, in both our names.. sold and split or we can buy each other out if agreed.

Property... you’d want to be signing an agreement, no way would I be inviting family, friends, wife or whomever to live with me under the knowledge that things go tits up after 4 years, half the gaff is theirs, by virtue of the fact they did a bit of cleaning or hovering, and snoring ..

You did a bit of paying €400,000 for it, but by virtue of the fact they ‘lived there, half is theirs’....this country is rotten to the fûcking core...

Big difference between offering a ‘home’ and offering a property.

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

I’m no expert, but.

Here's how a real-life example played out for someone I know (friend of a friend kind of thing).

He went to work, and she worked a part time retail job. They had a child, so she stayed home to take care of the child.

They built a house. He worked hard and, to be honest, got exceptionally lucky, and started pulling in megabucks. He bought property (mostly commercial) left right and centre all over the town they lived in. They had another child and so while he was pulling in major money, she was the stay-at-home-mam.



Kids grew up (over 18), marriage collapsed.

This is estimates, not actual figures, but his available cash was about 800k. She got about 350 of that i believe (to cover buying a house for herself, and savings to live on). He had a particular machine (I'm trying to not be specific here) he used for work. He had the choice that the machine could be kept and he goes to work, and a percentage of profitable income (think it was about 25-35%) goes to her to maintain her existence/lifestyle, or the machine could be sold with her getting a 50/50 split of the profits arising from it's sale. (even if he sold the machine and got work doing something else, she was still entitled to a percentage).


His portfolio of property is slowly appearing online for sale, bit by bit. She gets a percentage (unsure how much) of the profit arising from the sale of each property (he's trying to drag this out by putting sky-high prices on things).


She worked one part time retail job in her life, for approx 2 years. The solicitor's argument was that if she wasn't a stay-at-home mother she could have pursued her own career and made her own money, and therefore as she made the sacrifice to stay at home with the kids, he had to compensate her and help her maintain the lifestyle she had become accustomed to.

Although he can still work, and give her money from that work, at no point was there an expectation that she would now return to the workforce. She did, temporarily return to the retail job for about 6 months, during which none of her money was given to him.



Make of that what you will, but that's the (very rough) gist of what happened. Keep in mind how lucky they were to have had so much money. In that instance he got to keep the family home because she was the one who left him.

dogbert27

Deleted User wrote: »

Here's how a real-life example played out for someone I know (friend of a friend kind of thing).

He went to work, and she worked a part time retail job. They had a child, so she stayed home to take care of the child.

They built a house. He worked hard and, to be honest, got exceptionally lucky, and started pulling in megabucks. He bought property (mostly commercial) left right and centre all over the town they lived in. They had another child and so while he was pulling in major money, she was the stay-at-home-mam.



Kids grew up (over 18), marriage collapsed.

This is estimates, not actual figures, but his available cash was about 800k. She got about 350 of that i believe (to cover buying a house for herself, and savings to live on). He had a particular machine (I'm trying to not be specific here) he used for work. He had the choice that the machine could be kept and he goes to work, and a percentage of profitable income (think it was about 25-35%) goes to her to maintain her existence/lifestyle, or the machine could be sold with her getting a 50/50 split of the profits arising from it's sale. (even if he sold the machine and got work doing something else, she was still entitled to a percentage).


His portfolio of property is slowly appearing online for sale, bit by bit. She gets a percentage (unsure how much) of the profit arising from the sale of each property (he's trying to drag this out by putting sky-high prices on things).


She worked one part time retail job in her life, for approx 2 years. The solicitor's argument was that if she wasn't a stay-at-home mother she could have pursued her own career and made her own money, and therefore as she made the sacrifice to stay at home with the kids, he had to compensate her and help her maintain the lifestyle she had become accustomed to.

Although he can still work, and give her money from that work, at no point was there an expectation that she would now return to the workforce. She did, temporarily return to the retail job for about 6 months, during which none of her money was given to him.



Make of that what you will, but that's the (very rough) gist of what happened. Keep in mind how lucky they were to have had so much money. In that instance he got to keep the family home because she was the one who left him.

To which she'd be entitled to half the profit if he ever decided to sell it.

Peregrinus

Strumms wrote: »

I’m no expert, but. If we have a joint account, we both have bank books / cards and account is in both our names. We each transfer say 1000 euros per month into the joint account... from our personal accounts..every payday.

That’s used for savings, shopping, petrol, car tax / insurance, house insurance, light, heat and all sundry living expenses and purchases, weekends away, holidays .. whatever is over from what we earn stays in our private accounts. Say 1700 each.

That’s transparent, accountable and fair...

That’s fine. While you’re married, how you arrange your financial affairs is up to the two of you. Separate accounts, joint accounts, any combination of the two — whatever works for both of you is fine. Nobody else will interfere. Nobody else cares - it’s none of their business.

Strumms wrote: »

That way, things go tits up, everybody only gets out what they put in . . .

And this is where you’re making a mistake. If you split up, all bets are off, and new rules apply. The new rules are:

1. If, despite the split, the two of you can agree on how you want to sort out your financial and property affairs, and on who gets what, etc, etc. again, that’s fine. Nobody else will interfere.

2. If you can’t agree, you will end up having your financial and property affairs sorted out by a court.

3. If this ends up in court, everything is in play — the assets you own, the assets your spouse owns, the assets you jointly own; everything.

4. The court has wide powers to make any order it thinks proper - one party to pay maintenance to the other; one party to transfer assets to the other; one party to have the free use of an asset belonging to the other, or to have exclusive use of an asset belonging to them jointly; etc.

5. In exercising these powers, the court will take into account:
• the current and expected future income, earning capacity and assets of each party;
• the current and expected future financial needs and obligations of each party;
• the standard of living of the family before the break-up;
• the age of each party, the duration of the relationship, the length of time the couple lived together
• the accommodation needs of each party;
• the input each of them made and is likely to make to the welfare of the family
• the degree to which the marriage/civil partnership affected each party's ability to earn
• the conduct of each party
• etc, etc.

There is no “half of everything is theirs” rule. But equally there is no “what’s mine is mine, what’s theirs is theirs” rule. The rule is, in fact, “what’s mine, what’s theirs and what’s jointly owned is pretty much irrelevant; it all goes into one big pot and what really matters is what each of us needs and how each of is situated after the end of the relationship”.

(Incidentally, relevant to the topic of this thread, you can’t avoid any of this by shacking up but not marrying. If you have been cohabiting for more than 5 years, or if you have a kid and have been cohabiting for more than 2 years, then on the breakdown of your relationship, basically the same rules will apply.)

This doesn’t mean that there’s no benefit to having a clear distinction between personal financial affairs and joint affairs, individual assets and joint assets, while the relationship is continuing. Having that kind of setup may make it easier for you to agree on financial and property issues if the relationship breaks down. (And almost anything you can agree is likely to work out better for both of you than a financial/property settlement imposed by a court.) And, even if you don’t agree, having your affairs so clearly organised may make the process of litigating over them less messy and less stressful.

But it doesn’t mean that your personal assets are in any way “protected” in the event of a messy breakup. All your assets are in the pot, as are all your partner’s. And, while the direct and indirect financial contributions made by each of you to the accumulation of those assets is one of the considerations that the court will look to in deciding on the division of the pot, it’s only one in a very long list of considerations, and by no means the most important one.

Potential-Monke

That pretty much settles my mind on living with a partner again! Madness. Time to start displaying #Single4Lyfe

Peregrinus

I guess you have to decide which is more important to you; accumulating and retaining assets, or building intimate and sustaining relationships.

It's a tough one, isn't it?

pgj2015

Strumms wrote: »

If I own a house. I get married, she wants to move in, I want her to, it’s staying as my house...it’s her home, our home but in the event of things going arse over armpit... still my property.

If i have 30 grand in savings from before we were married, it’s up to me to decide how that is spent...

If I want to throw a big chunk of that in a joint account to get us started, my call, but some remaining in my personal account my decision . Same for her, have her stash.... I’m not gonna be making a grab for it...

My mother always had that view in marriage, you never sacrifice your financial independence or leave yourself without what you worked hard to amass.

In your dreams, just because you want that and think it is fair, doesnt mean that is how it will turn out. many a man lost a farm, house, money etc to a woman he married. A well known business man was a self made millionaire, married the wrong woman, he was worth 800 million pounds, she got 500 million pounds in the divorce.

if you own the house and want it to stay that way, you are risking it by letting her move in. if she is in the house for 3 years and the house is sold she is entitled to half the value of the house, even if you marry her or not.

Potential-Monke

Peregrinus wrote: »

I guess you have to decide which is more important to you; accumulating and retaining assets, or building intimate and sustaining relationships.

It's a tough one, isn't it?

Not really. Assets. Less demanding than relationships and leave you down less often. :pac:

pgj2015

Potential-Monke wrote: »

That pretty much settles my mind on living with a partner again! Madness. Time to start displaying #Single4Lyfe

You don't have to stay single, just dont share a house or have kids with them.;)

pgj2015

If you won 10 million in the lottery 10 years after your divorce, I think your ex wife/husband is entitled to half the winnings in Irish law.

pwurple

You blokes really live sheltered lives in here, with no death, cancer, accidents ever mucking up that perfect scenario of earning fortunes, shagging immaculate women (who never spend a penny on maintaining that) who bear your children and are happy to go on their way afterwards without a penny in the world when you tire of them.

Back on planet reality, stuff happens. And marriage is a legal protection that identifies you as each other's family.

Before I was married, my boyfriend had an accident, a serious one , needing an ambulance. We had lived together for 10 years, I owned the house but had put his name on it. I couldn't consent to the operation he needed in that emergency. He was unconscious. I had to phone his mum for the consent (who was in another hospital at the time undergoing cancer treatment)


It's later in life now, we got married, we have children, savings, life policies, pensions, mortgage, health insurance etc etc. Life gets fairly complicated. We think about what happens when we are gone, our children and their care, a will . Being married, tagging a buddy as your family, having those legal rights together to share decisions and share assets makes a lot of that easier.

And I can tell you that asset and career management is easier with a supportive partner too. We have both been successful so far in our careers and been able to help the other out with progression... Things like taking care of life admin while studying for exams, or bring a sounding board and cheerleader for work stuff . And when you are higher up in corporate chains, your personal life, how you treat people is scrutinized as much as how you perform. Sleeping with a different person every weekend isn't looked on as kindly as being "settled" with a spouse.

Peregrinus

pgj2015 wrote: »

If you won 10 million in the lottery 10 years after your divorce, I think your ex wife/husband is entitled to half the winnings in Irish law.

It's worse than that! If you buy a lottery ticket, then your ex-wife is entitled to half the prize from you even if the ticket doesn't win!

(Also she gets all the vowels from your name, leaving you with the consonants only.)

pgj2015

Thermo905 wrote: »

I'm single and own my own house but I don't think I could ever get married, I love women too much. I could never put myself in a situation where I could only have sex with one. I like having sex with new women on a regular basis. It would be catastrophic for my mental health to have sex with the same woman year after year. I need variety and passion, something which is lacking in marriages.

You could have an open marriage?

pwurple

Thermo905 wrote: »

I could never put myself in a situation where I could only have sex with one. I like having sex with new women on a regular basis. It would be catastrophic for my mental health to have sex with the same woman year after year. .

Lol

Anyone else read this and think, virgin? Keep inflating them thermo. Keep that novelty alive.

Peregrinus

pwurple wrote: »

Lol

Anyone else read this and think, virgin? Keep inflating them thermo. Keep that novelty alive.

Nah, Thermo's position is fair enough. He doesn't think marriage is worth it because, bascially, he doesn't want to be married. Which is fine. If you don't want to be married you definitely shouldn't marry.

Thermo may change his mind at some point in the future and want an exclusive committed relationship. Or, he may not. Either is fine, as long as he's clear about the choice he's making, and happy about it.

To be honest, I think people who don't want to be married but fail to realise it probably cause more trouble and unhappiness for themselves and others than people who don't want to be married but imagine that they do.

Peregrinus

Thermo905 wrote: »

I see no need, and that puts my assets at risk also. In the event I did get married though and have an open relationship it would have to be with a woman a lot more wealthy than me.

Women interested in such a marriage are few, because they can see that it puts their assets at risk.

pgj2015

Thermo905 wrote: »

Yea I don't blame them, the laws were designed by morons, they should absolutely protect their assets they worked hard for just like everyone should.

I know couples in long term relationships, no kids together, both own their own houses, they dont live together. you could try that?

pgj2015

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nah, Thermo's position is fair enough. He doesn't think marriage is worth it because, bascially, he doesn't want to be married. Which is fine. If you don't want to be married you definitely shouldn't marry.

Thermo may change his mind at some point in the future and want an exclusive committed relationship. Or, he may not. Either is fine, as long as he's clear about the choice he's making, and happy about it.

To be honest, I think people who don't want to be married but fail to realise it probably cause more trouble and unhappiness for themselves and others than people who don't want to be married but imagine that they do.

what do you mean by this?

Peregrinus

Thermo905 wrote: »

Yea I don't blame them, the laws were designed by morons, they should absolutely protect their assets they worked hard for just like everyone should.

As I pointed out already, the laws weren't designed for people who value accumulation of assets over building intimate and sustaining conjugal relationships.

That doesn't mean the laws are moronic. Such people will (rightly) not wish to marry, so why would marriage laws be framed to accommodate them? That would be silly.

Wibbs

Peregrinus wrote: »

To be honest, I think people who don't want to be married but fail to realise it probably cause more trouble and unhappiness for themselves and others than people who don't want to be married but imagine that they do.

+1 Of the crappy marriages I've known this was certainly a factor. An expectation and oft times a desperation as time was marching on that marriage was a given and they happened to end up with whomever they were going out with at the time, someone they may not have ten years before, or since. A game of marriage musical chairs. When the music stopped they jumped on the first chair that was available, even if one of the legs was wonky.

And the crappy marriages are a minority of the ones I know. Most are grand, have their ups and downs, mostly meh, the boring bits of life, but doing pretty OK. Of the really good marriages I know I have noticed they tended to be either married young, first love and all that, or married much later, like 50+ later and both partners are very easy going people, drama free. Tiny sample size mind you.

pgj2015

Thermo905 wrote: »

Yea I think that's a good idea, l think living separately helps keeps the passion alive longer.

I was thinking more along the lines of keeping your house so it doesnt get sold in case the relationship doesnt work out.

Peregrinus

pgj2015 wrote: »

what do you mean by this?

I'm thinking of people who assume that, because "everybody" marries, they should too.

Marriage involves a set of rules designed to secure appropriate legal, social, administrative etc recognition and support for the relationship between a couple who are exclusively and permanently committed to one another, who accept financial and material responsibility for one another, etc.

If you don't want a permanent commitment; if you don't want an exclusive commitment; if you don't want a commitment by which your assets and earning capacity are committed to be available for the needs and benefit of someone else (and vice versa) — then don't marry. If you do, there's a high chance that you'll make yourself unhappy, or your partner unhappy, or both of you unhappy, because at the very least you are putting yourself in a situation not designed to meet your aspirations. Plus, there's a high chance that you are misleading your partner (and possibly even yourself) about exactly what your aspirations are.

JMNolan

People mentioned tax benefits to marriage. What tax benefits? My wife earns as much as me so I'm curious to see what tax benefits I'm missing out on. As an aside, I would not advise my sons to get married. I got lucky with my wife, but we're the only happy marriage I know of and I know a few guys booted out of the family home who never see their kids and are paying for house & wife & kids. Good deal for women mind.

SVI40

pgj2015 wrote: »

If you won 10 million in the lottery 10 years after your divorce, I think your ex wife/husband is entitled to half the winnings in Irish law.

Totally incorrect. There is NOTHING in Irish law that states a spouse is entitled to half. Nothing at all.

They are entitled to apply to the courts for a variation of means, due to a change in circumstances, but that does not mean they will get anything.

Peregrinus

Thermo905 wrote: »

I disagree, I think they are moronic. Nobody should be entitled to maintain a level of lifestyle that they never would have had without their partner providing it. That is indeed moronic.

Say for example I meet a millionaire and live with her for 5 years and then I decide I want to break up, why the hell should I be entitled to any of her wealth? This is why it's moronic. Maybe you think I would deserve half of her wealth, but I strongly disagree.

I think judging marriage laws on the basis of whether they meet the needs of millionaires is probably unwise.

And judgin marriage laws on the basis that they entitley you to "half her wealth" in the event of a breakup is definitely unwise. Because, as already pointed out in this thread, that's not the law at all.

Most people are not millionaires. Most people benefit materially from being in a marriage - it cost much less to run one household for two people than it does to run two households for one person - and, the longer the marriage endures, the more that benefit results in the accumulation of (modest) wealth. And, it follows, most people suffer materially when their marriage ends, because of the loss of that benefit.

The financial and property settlement that happens when a marriage ends isn't really about dividing up assets, even though that's what it looks like. It's about allocating loss - the inevitable loss that results from the end of the marriage. And it's extremely rare for the entire loss to be allocated to one party. In almost 100% of cases, both parties will lose out. And, commonly, both parties will feel unfairly treated, relative to the other.