'Don't have kids unless you are ready to marry' says judge

unicorn1984

lostinrates wrote: »

We cannot possibly know in depth everyone's personal situation.

Inheritance is a big factor, Whether your wills are up to date and reflect what you want to happen (married or otherwise, but marriage gives a base line protection on intestacy on to a partner). Also IH threshold. With property, in some parts of the country, this is not so hard to cross. For example, if you are property owners, does his will reflect that you should get his share of the house? Or if you have children, that his children should?

DH lost his mother in his teens, and his parents were married. While I think marriage gives a base line, I don't think its by any means a perfect substitution for a will. Its better than nothing in that instance.

This is why its such a hard topic for anyone to agree on! Every single relationship is different so its virtually impossible for any one of these comments to fit "the norm".

We have just bought our first home (my names isnt on the mortgage due to me still being legally married, but I will be paying half) so in reality, he could leave me and my son homeless if he wanted to and I wouldn't have a leg to stand on! I have even had to sign a form to say that if he is unable to keep up the mortgage payments and the house is repossessed, do I understand I have no legal rights to stay there..... once my divorce is sorted and me and my ex have signed the financial order (I think that's the right word for it!), then he will put my name on the deeds to the house, so I will then have a legal right to the house should we split.

Dunroamin

unicorn1984 wrote: »

My partner has life insurance, which is in my name so god forbid anything happens to him I get a payout, and also his pension from work would go to me too. We aren't married, yet to me that means if anything were to happen, I would be financially stable?

And will he be financially stable if anything happens to you?

unicorn1984

Dunroamin wrote: »

And will he be financially stable if anything happens to you?

My insurance would go to my son if anything happened to me. hardly fair on my partner is it?!

Savemesomemoneyplease

Dunroamin wrote: »

Isn't love also about taking care of the loved one if something like death or illness should happen?

Yes. Not sure what that has to do with marriage though, you'd do that - married or not.

Tropez

I had already ensured as best I could that if I were to pop my clogs then my partner would have received everything in order to ensure there were no difficulties for her although there would have likely been IHT to consider.

Getting married has nothing to do with those financial implications, however, even IHT related ones. I only relatively recently considered them because largely I like to keep money out of our relationship - I know that's not everybody's idea of marriage but it is the most convenient one for us.

lostinrates

Tropez wrote: »

I had already ensured as best I could that if I were to pop my clogs then my partner would have received everything in order to ensure there were no difficulties for her although there would have likely been IHT to consider.

Getting married has nothing to do with those financial implications, however, even IHT related ones. I only relatively recently considered them because largely I like to keep money out of our relationship - I know that's not everybody's idea of marriage but it is the most convenient one for us.

You both work and don't have kids....

We don't have kids. (Shhh don't tell the critters) but I know longer 'work' just play at having a business interest. Finances are very inequitable in our relationship yet we pooled everything. It was an important aspect for both of us to discuss.

I have learned the hard way once before! And that wasn't that bad, again, no kids, short period of time, but it was bad enough. Never again.

Savemesomemoneyplease

lostinrates wrote: »

You both work and don't have kids....

We don't have kids. (Shhh don't tell the critters) but I know longer 'work' just play at having a business interest. Finances are very inequitable in our relationship yet we pooled everything. It was an important aspect for both of us to discuss.

I have learned the hard way once before! And that wasn't that bad, again, no kids, short period of time.

We've done that too.

Georgiegirl256

Savemesomemoneyplease wrote: »

Yes I know.

But in your 20s you surely shouldn't be left high and dry? Just like any other single 20.

You are being very naive....

Yes, marriage should be about your love for one another, but the legal benefits it brings cannot be ignored.

shop-to-drop

From what I understand he meant was if you are a couple who wants to get married but doesn't feel ready yet. Then you are not ready to commit to children together either. I think he has a point.

Tropez

lostinrates wrote: »

You both work

Ah, don't remind me. Maybe it's just some sort of early midlife crisis but work is just getting in my way now.

But I get what you're saying. It is substantially easier that we have no children to keep our finances separate. I know that I am phenomenally fortunate to be with someone who doesn't want children and enjoys financial independence in the same way that I do.