Marriage: is it worth it?

Peregrinus

JMNolan wrote: »

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.

The fact that in your particular circumstances marriage carries no tax advantage doesn't mean that it carries no tax advantage for anyone, ever. If there were a disparity in earnings between yourself and your wife then there would be potentially significant tax benefits. If you or your wife wanted to give up work or, God forbid, one of you had to give up work, your eyes might be opened to the tax benefits of marriage.

JMNolan

Peregrinus wrote: »

The fact that in your particular circumstances marriage carries no tax advantage doesn't mean that it carries no tax advantage for anyone, ever. If there were a disparity in earnings between yourself and your wife then there would be potentially significant tax benefits. If you or your wife wanted to give up work or, God forbid, one of you had to give up work, your eyes might be opened to the tax benefits of marriage.

Most couples earn money these days. The days of marriage conferring tax benefits are long gone.

Peregrinus

Thermo905 wrote: »

Your proving my point why the laws are moronic, a one size fits all approach shouldn't be applied that means someone can take a significant chunk of a millionaires assets. The laws should be sensible and take into account all circumstances and not allow someone to take somone else's wealth if they haven't earned it or don't deserve it.

Again, you're posting in ignorance here. The laws are extremely flexible. The court has very wide discretion as to the orders it can make; there is no rule that requires them to give one spouse a significant chunk of the other (millionaire) spouse's assets without regard to all the circumstance. On the contrary, the rule is that they must have regard to all the circumstances when making financial and property orders.

Peregrinus

JMNolan wrote: »

Most couples earn money these days. The days of marriage conferring tax benefits are long gone.

They don't necessarily earn the same money. And, even if they do at some times, they don't necessarily continue to throughout the marriage. One party limiting their employment commitment when there are young children is quite common. And, later on, so is one party reducing their employment commitment or retiring before the other.

The proportion of couples who have a long marriage and whose circumstances throughout are such that they never at any point benefit from the tax treatment available to married couples would be fairly small, I think.

But , obviously, if you and your current reason for living are in that position and have a justified confidence that you will always be in that position - yeah, marriage doesn't offer you any significant tax benefits.

Roger the cabin boy

Potential-Monke wrote: »

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

The modern attitude to life huh.
Effort is not worthwhile without a tangible and material benefit.

pgj2015

Have a quick look on a dating site and see all the men and women who are separated or divorced, its scary. its enough to make you think twice about getting married. id say half the people on dating sites are separated or divorced.

KaneToad

Thermo905 wrote: »

It seems that the courts don't always use that flexibility very well, as moronic outcomes are not uncommon.

It seems the courts believe that the non earning spouse is entitled to the same level of lifestyle, that's just stupidity.

The non earning spouse facilitates the earning spouse to do so by minding children or running the household. The courts have always taken this view. It's not an outrageous view, in my opinion.

eviltwin

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

The modern attitude to life huh.
Effort is not worthwhile without a tangible and material benefit.

I think its more about protecting what you have worked hard to create. When I got married both of us had nothing, everything we have we built together so I have no problem splitting things in half if it came to that.

I'd never get married again, I have worked hard to get the little I have and that's going to my kids.

Roger the cabin boy

eviltwin wrote: »

I think its more about protecting what you have worked hard to create. When I got married both of us had nothing, everything we have we built together so I have no problem splitting things in half if it came to that.

I'd never get married again, I have worked hard to get the little I have and that's going to my kids.

Not sure i understand the contradiction your reply?
Am i missing something?

seamus

I wonder do all of these people who value the accumulation and protection of their wealth more than the accumulation and protection of personal relationships, realise the link between the two?

Do you consider your outlook on life to have any bearing on your terminal singledom or do you blame your lack of partners on society's refusal to value wealth hoarding like you do?

kildare lad

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

The modern attitude to life huh.
Effort is not worthwhile without a tangible and material benefit.

You might have a different opinion if it was you that ended up renting a box room or moving back into your parents at 40 years of age

suicide_circus

The fact that a one spouse can cheat on the other, divorce them, take half the cash, the house, the kids AND go on to relieve aliamony is by any reasonable measure, immoral and unjust.

I just make sure i maintain my wealth at a minimum level to avoid unpleasantness

pgj2015

seamus wrote: »

I wonder do all of these people who value the accumulation and protection of their wealth more than the accumulation and protection of personal relationships, realise the link between the two?

Do you consider your outlook on life to have any bearing on your terminal singledom or do you blame your lack of partners on society's refusal to value wealth hoarding like you do?

some people are single by choice, not because we value wealth. I get asked out a lot but rarely take them up on their offer for different reasons, she has kids, dont fancy her enough, gold digger, unemployed etc.

mcsean2163

Antares35 wrote: »

Agree with all that Potential-Monke. My parents are happy together (albeit my mother definitely got the better deal), but they've both admitted that a big push for getting married was that their home lives with their parents were so shít, that marriage was also an escape for them. My mother quit work as soon as the kids came along and never went back. Dad had to shoulder all the financial burdens while she was a woman of leisure. I think it's desperately unfair and you can see now that he's aged so much more than her. But, he didn't see anything wrong with it at the time. I could imagine my fiance's reaction if I told him I was giving up work and expected him to support me!

You'd be surprised, I'd say most men would be delighted if their wife minded the children. I've found it really difficult as I've taken parental leave, contract roles, etc. to work around the kids while my wife focuses on her career. She took three months off between jobs and it was brilliant as I could focus on my business. I think the kids are happier with her etc. Fwiw, there's nothing easy about minding kids, maybe your Mam made it look easy.

partyguinness

Remember that marriage for 'love' is only a very recent development.

Arranged marriages are still very common in other societies as a means of preserving and ring fencing assets and wealth. Love is of no relevance.

mcsean2163

Thermo905 wrote: »

The interruption to the non earning spouse's career and that sacrifice should indeed be taken into account when allocating the distribution of assets. But if the non earning spouse quit a job on 30k per year selling shoes and never had any likelihood of earning the 1 million per year that earning spouse takes home, then in my opinion they are not entitled to huge settlements that they never would have even come close to earning if they stayed in their job.

The high earning spouse could easily pay for childcare if the non earning spouse really wanted to have a career so badly. But in such situations they're perfectly content not to work.

Ok, as someone whose career has been completely derailed by kids and the lack of a support from a spouse, I 100% disagree. I'm not on great money, around €100k but if I could put time into my business I think there would be huge potential to earn more. I'd have no problems with 60% division if partner gave me opportunity to succeed.

bertiebomber

love is a fantasy basing your whole future on it is a joke!

SeanW

Wibbs wrote: »

I do wish people would stop automatically extrapolating American online cultural notions and idiocies on marriage and divorce rates and making out Ireland is the same. Never mind the American divorce rate isn't 50% or anything near it, so even the "source facts" are completely bloody arseways.

Ireland has one of the lowest divorce rates in the western world and the lowest in Europe.

FACT: The divorce rate in Ireland was the lowest in Europe in 2015 according to Eurostat figures. It showed less than one divorce occurred for every 1,000 people – 0.7 in every 1,000 to be exact. Malta and Montenegro were the only other countries with less than one divorce for every 1,000 people – they came in at 0.8 and 0.9 respectively. Under one in a thousand marriages is just a little different than half or a quarter. Under one in a thousand are pretty bloody good odds.

Again stop copying plastic Yank cranks online with their heads up their arses. Not just around divorce either. This is not America thank fuck.

With all due respect, those statistics can be somewhat misleading. The statistics presented only deal with divorces per 1000 people per annum. There are two serious problems with that.

1. Even if it were useful, it would only indicate the chance of a person being involved in divorce per year. Not over the course of a marriage/lifetime.
2. The "per 1000" looks like it includes the entire population, not just married people. The problems with this should be obvious.

When you consider these faults in a country like the United States, the figure goes from 2.5 per 1000 (as per your link) to somewhere between 40 and 50%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_the_United_States#Rates_of_divorce

One can accept that the rates of divorce in Ireland are radically less than those of the United States ... for now, but I would expect that as Ireland leaves behind its conservative Catholic traditions, that will change over time.

Thelonious Monk

pgj2015 wrote: »

Have a quick look on a dating site and see all the men and women who are separated or divorced, its scary. its enough to make you think twice about getting married. id say half the people on dating sites are separated or divorced.

Seperated/divorced ones are what I'd be looking for so they wont want to go through that rigmarole again!

Mad_maxx

seamus wrote: »

I wonder do all of these people who value the accumulation and protection of their wealth more than the accumulation and protection of personal relationships, realise the link between the two?

Do you consider your outlook on life to have any bearing on your terminal singledom or do you blame your lack of partners on society's refusal to value wealth hoarding like you do?

thats a stout defence of the stacked system

Mad_maxx

suicide_circus wrote: »

The fact that a one spouse can cheat on the other, divorce them, take half the cash, the house, the kids AND go on to relieve aliamony is by any reasonable measure, immoral and unjust.

I just make sure i maintain my wealth at a minimum level to avoid unpleasantness

its called " gender equality "

accensi0n

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I'm not on great money, around €100k

:eek:

mcsean2163

Thermo905 wrote: »

In your case the effort put into minding children would probably justify a significant proportion of the assets as you aren't rich, so that's not unreasonable.

There is a reason childminders don't get paid huge salaries, because ultimately they don't deserve huge salaries as they aren't providing scarce skills or expertise.

You also have to remember that stay at home parents aren't only minding the children for their spouse, they are minding the children for themselves too. It's not someone else's children they are minding and in doing so they strengthen their bond with their children and spend valuable time with their children that the working spouse doesn't get.

So who is going to compensate the working spouse for the time lost with their children?

The reason childminders don't get paid a lot is because the world is really ****ed up. Caring for children and ensuring the grow up feeling loved and supported is the most important job for any family.

Actually sickening listening to the amount of assholes here worrying about their money. The only thing that would worry me is the potential damage done to kids by a divorce.

Spring is coming, find your soul and maybe then you'll find a soulmate. Who cares what car you drive. Is that what you want on your headstone, here lies XXZ drove a BMW.

mcsean2163

accensi0n wrote: »

:eek:

Professional fees, insurance, accountant and no pension, so maybe looks good on paper but not brilliant and definitely not a life changing amount. A civil servant on €70k is getting a pension worth about 30k on top of their wage with everything done for them. I'm senior in the industry and started off on a very low wage, so not a lot and totally fubar for retirement.

Wibbs

SeanW wrote: »

With all due respect, those statistics can be somewhat misleading. The statistics presented only deal with divorces per 1000 people per annum. There are two serious problems with that.

1. Even if it were useful, it would only indicate the chance of a person being involved in divorce per year. Not over the course of a marriage/lifetime.
2. The "per 1000" looks like it includes the entire population, not just married people. The problems with this should be obvious.

When you consider these faults in a country like the United States, the figure goes from 2.5 per 1000 (as per your link) to somewhere between 40 and 50%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_the_United_States#Rates_of_divorce

One can accept that the rates of divorce in Ireland are radically less than those of the United States ... for now, but I would expect that as Ireland leaves behind its conservative Catholic traditions, that will change over time.

Good points Sean. Right so. Marriage: Bugger that. Avoid like the bloody plague.

Interestingly in the wiki link divorce rates appear to be falling in the US. Are they actually falling, or are more people not getting married in the first place, are still breaking up at the same rate, therefore not showing up in the divorce stats?

Strumms

dogbert27 wrote: »

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

So you could own the house, 10 years...going out with a girl the last 3, start of the fourth, you get married, she moves in or has moved in....

3 years later of cohabitation and marriage, the marriage in trouble... split likely, your solicitor tells you... “ Strumms, that gaff you own, if you ever sell it, half is hers ? ”... is that right ?

She could be entitled to say 300,000 because you permitted her to live rent free in you house for X duration ? If my understanding is correct, that’s nutsville.

Mad_maxx

Strumms wrote: »

So you could own the house, 10 years...going out with a girl the last 3, start of the fourth, you get married, she moves in or has moved in....

3 years later of cohabitation and marriage, the marriage in trouble... split likely, your solicitor tells you... “ Strumms, that gaff you own, if you ever sell it, half is hers ? ”... is that right ?

She could be entitled to say 300,000 because you permitted her to live rent free in you house for X duration ? If my understanding is correct, that’s nutsville.

you sound surprised ?

kildare lad

Bill Burr said it best

https://youtu.be/x0gaYyNk7QA

Strumms

Mad_maxx wrote: »

you sound surprised ?

I think anybody hearing that for the first time, would be.... :eek:

pgj2015

Strumms wrote: »

So you could own the house, 10 years...going out with a girl the last 3, start of the fourth, you get married, she moves in or has moved in....

3 years later of cohabitation and marriage, the marriage in trouble... split likely, your solicitor tells you... “ Strumms, that gaff you own, if you ever sell it, half is hers ? ”... is that right ?

She could be entitled to say 300,000 because you permitted her to live rent free in you house for X duration ? If my understanding is correct, that’s nutsville.

There was a legal case I read about a few years ago in Ireland. a woman was left a 1 bed cottage from her granny. The woman lived with a boyfriend in the house for 3 or 5 years. They split up. He had a wealthy mother, she dies leaving him a mansion of a house worth 1 million + and money as well. He still goes after half the cottage out of pure badness. not sure if he won or not but I think he had grounds for his share of the 1 bed cottage.