Laws around protecting assets in event of breakups and kids

Primrose

All our savings are joint, except ISAs of course, but we have a "His" joint current account and a " Hers" current joint account. Our respective incomes go into our own "joint" account and we each pay for different household expenditures.
This means we can spend any surplus money on surprise presents or self indulgent treats if we want to without being accountable but in case one of us dies, all money is still accessible to the survivor.

I think each couple has to work out what suits them best financially and in general lifestyle. My husband loathes gardening but enjoys cooking. I dislike cooking and love gardening so I do the gardening and grow the vegetables and he cooks them. Works for us.

We're really deviating from the original question in the thread now though! !

maman

Primrose wrote: »

We're really deviating from the original question in the thread now though! !

That's true to a point but I think most of us are agreed that OP would be better off in an equal relationship. So, if any future partner brought as much to the relationship (or more even ) then his worries would disappear.

I don't think he'd be happy to 'trade' his financial assets for someone to do his domestic chores. I wouldn't blame him. He could probably pay for a cleaner and buy ready meals! :rotfl:

Although what none of us can predict is what happens if he falls for someone with poor financial assets or earning power or inclination to improve either. I think he's trying to guard against this. Some would call it hard headed. I think he's being sensible.

ska_lover

onwards&upwards wrote: »

Why is the woman getting all the blame? Maybe it makes the guy’s life easier to not have to worry about anything domestic or household budget or childcare related because his wife does it all?

That is a very specific question - which woman are you talking about?

Unless one knows them personally, one wouldn't know how the household chores are shared out....would they?

svain

Having skimmed this thread it seems the OP has never suggested he wouldnt share his wealth whist in a happy relationship. It is if the relationship breaks down that he wishes to protect himself .... I think people on here are struggling to differentiate this. It seems a perfectly reasonable original post and in his same position if any new partner didnt recognise this I would run a mile!

elsien

I'm not struggling to differentiate anything.
But wanting to protect yourself after a year or so is a little different to wanting to protect yourself 15 years in when there may be children involved.

onwards&upwards

maman wrote: »

That's true to a point but I think most of us are agreed that OP would be better off in an equal relationship. So, if any future partner brought as much to the relationship (or more even ) then his worries would disappear.

That somewhat suggests that a relationship can only be ‘equal’ if both are in the same financial position. Is money really the only thing that counts?

Primrose

Well our poster will have his own concepts about the values and concepts he's looking for in a potential partner and I hope he finds somebody who ticks all his important boxes.


The reality is likely to be that if he's looking for a partner in a similar age group to himself, a good proportion of females are likely to have previous relationship history, including children, that may prevent them ticking the "equal wealth" boxes . I assume he's already thought of that and will be eliminating those who don't fit his financial criteria to avoid future complications.


In doing so of course, he may risk eliminating somebody who has all the other personality criteria to make her an ideal partner. Finding the right person who ticks all the important boxes is not easy. In the end, humans being full of imperfections, it can often end up involving a compromise on something.

maman

onwards&upwards wrote: »

That somewhat suggests that a relationship can only be ‘equal’ if both are in the same financial position. Is money really the only thing that counts?

Of course not but it's a rough indicator. I could extrapolate that the person would have similar education and values and attitudes.


That then takes me back to my earlier example of the graduate who chooses to work as a cleaner. Of course, as poppyoscar pointed out she might be happy and carefree but it's not an attitude I could admire IYSWIM.

onwards&upwards

maman wrote: »

Of course not but it's a rough indicator. I could extrapolate that the person would have similar education and values and attitudes.

What! That’s absolutely crazy! You can’t tell any of that just from what somebody earns or owns!

10 people who all earn the exact same amount could be wildly different in every other way! Politics, education, religion, background, sense of humour, ethics, ambitions, anything!

maman

onwards&upwards wrote: »

What! That’s absolutely crazy! You can’t tell any of that just from what somebody earns or owns!

10 people who all earn the exact same amount could be wildly different in every other way! Politics, education, religion, background, sense of humour, ethics, ambitions, anything!

As I said, it's a rough guide. Neither OP or anyone else is going to get into a lasting relationship/marriage/children with someone without finding out a bit more. So from the people with similar financial status you then dig deeper. If it's some hooray with inherited wealth and politics to match or a Mike Ashley type then I'd run for the hills!