Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 UnixGrand
Joined: 5/9/2011
Msg: 651
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?Page 27 of 32    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
Or is this the way we actually see marriage.

Copy and Paste ===> http://youtu.be/Qa4ixjfzFMc

Pick your poison.
 pretty_songs
Joined: 4/23/2011
Msg: 652
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/21/2011 11:48:06 PM
I don't know. I think marriage is just a paper signed between two people stating they are married. I don't think it shows how much you love some one or it's fair they get a bigger tax break. I think it's more of just a ceremony ... an expensive one. Maybe it's because I am cynical, or young, but I don't think it has a reason anymore and people confuse the wedding with marriage itself. No, I don't come a broken home or anything. My parents are still together. I just don't see why a couple who's been together for years has to get married. If it works it works. Marriage shouldn't be such a HUGE thing in our culture. It creates so much pressure for people.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 653
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/22/2011 9:30:44 AM

it can also be said that person has had a trusting nature and taken people at their word but the acting abilities of the deceitful ones have hidden their true nature well. The trusting individual is devastated to find they have been scammed, even more than once, strictly because of that trusting nature.

Of course this happens.
In fact this is what I am expressing a concern about-that someone who has been hurt/scammed/had some bad experiences, chooses to blame-and decry-the social constructs of marriage/relationships, and the legal ramifications of marriage failure,and to engage in the magical thinking that the creation and signing of a document is going to prevent all wrongs.Or that making the laws and procedures concerning divorce even more complex and complicated-or OTOH, TOO simplistic, is going to take all emotional risk out of loving someone enough to marry them.

It reminds me of some of the documentaries I've watched where women who have had assets, or even just a job, married men who's only motive in life was to live off of unsuspecting, trusting individuals. It's found to be abhorrent when men do it but it's less of a stigma when women do it to men - society has viewed it as "normal" that a man should be the "provider" and women incredibly often take full advantage of that notion.

Yes,I've noticed that difference in perception-a man being a gold-digger or parasite is seen as utterly appalling,while a woman being a gold-digger is greeted with more of a shoulder-shrug-"oh welll..." reaction.
I do agree that as a society we need to equalize this social attitude-it's either WRONG for both genders to marry strictly for financial gain, or its' an acceptable strategy for both genders to do so.I sometimes think that there tends to be more social disapproval of a male gold-digger,because it's seen as "unmanly",perhaps?
Or stemming from the days when men had significantly more "adult existence" options( work, living independently of parents/birth family) and for women, marriage was seen as practically the only proper and acceptable"adult existence" option? So a male marrying for support/financial gain is seen as "wrong-headed" because it's not that difficult for a man to find paid employment?( pre-"mancession", that is.)
Combination of perceptions maybe?

Even into the 1960s&70s,many young women were marrying primarily "to get away from home".That wouldn't come out until there was difficulty or discord-and often it was something that the woman would only divulge to female friends and associates!but it was something not unusual to hear. And many of these brides of the 60s&70s WERE in fact working full time and also having and raising children-but earning less money than their husbands.

I think we have to acknowledge that there's still a strong tendency, for a variety of reasons, for the average working woman to earn less than the average working man.
This is NOT always due to the woman lacking in ambition and drive or having a weak work ethic.
WHEN we get closer to having a balance in the average income by gender, then it may be appropriate and even necessary to again re-structure the matter of asset division and assignment of financial responsibilities when a marriage has to be dissolved. Many of us are starting to hear of divorce settlements where there is not some sort of favoritism being extended to the woman simply because of gender,indeed I've heard about several cases where a higher-earning husband used his greater economic clout to BULLDOZE his way to favorable child custody and asset division for himself.

Perhaps we can compare the current marriage and more pertinently, the divorce situation to the Titanic?
They SAW the iceberg BEFORE they hit it, they just couldn't change the course of that huge and fast-moving ship quickly enough to avoid the collision! I do believe that thinking people of both genders are seeing the "iceberg" of marriage and divorce social and legal norms,and are trying mightily to get the course adjusted in time to avoid total disaster...but it DOES TAKE TIME. There is nothing wrong with taking reasonable steps to avoid undue financial impact of a failed marriage at the present time. In fact it is a heck of a good idea. But it should be remembered that protecting ones material possessions is NOT going to protect against the emotional pain and grief of marriage failure.

Think of how many times we've heard in these very forums the tales of both men and women who have indicated the person they married was not the person they thought they knew beforehand.

I do not disagree that we hear that a lot,and I suppose there are situations where stress,emotional trauma, development of an addiction or mental illness/thought disorder could cause significant change.

Also, the phrase "love is blind" is a phrase for a very good reason.
Yes, it is, because I for one can't help but wonder, do these oft-cited huge changes in character and values really occur, or did the blindness of love cause the "changed" persons' spouse to not notice potential problems or incompatibilities of character traits or personal core values?
My grandma( the one who was left a young widow with 5 young children) used to say "Love goes where it's SENT-even if that is up a cows' behind!"

IMO, it's not just about "healing", it's about healing and LEARNING. Unfortunately it sometimes, in some situations,seems to me that the learning might be taking a given individual in another wrong direction-and some observers will speak up and express that opinion.


Prenup or not, I'm totally in favour of people being self-sufficient before, during and after marriage. Keep your skills up, and if you never had any, develop some; don't use the excuse of child rearing as a road block, at least not for years on end. If single parents find they need to take on two jobs to make ends meet, surely when parents are together then, the one staying home can make time to exercise their brain to the extent they don't "lose their skills and fall behind." Take pride in yourself that you are prepared to stand alone under any circumstance and not be at the mercy of any one else, be it a partner or big brother.

I absolutely do agree with this.
In fact, I wish that people who have doubts about their ability to be a parent AND maintain self-sufficiency would LISTEN more closely to those doubts before just jumping into parenthood with some starry-eyed presumption that somehow or other it will all be okay.

I agree with the premise of not having the best intuition where folks are concerned, although I am getting better at it, the older I get.

Each time life imploded I could have become jaded and untrusting...but I thought long and hard about it and decided that this is not the way I wanted to conduct myself or live my life. I choose to be open and joy-filled....not scared and paranoid.
Not that I won't also have my eyes and ears open and pay attention, and end relationships with men/women/family that show themselves to be toxic to my well-being.

This is the healing coupled with LEARNING that I was speaking of.

And for myself, having been raised by working parents of single mothers-single mothers who apparently sometimes had to make some hard decisions to do what was best for their children,self-reliance teaching was the order of the day every day.

I honestly have no recollection of my parents or grandmothers bragging up marriage as THE career for their daughters and grand-daughters,or telling them not to worry about a career, occupation or paying job.
In fact, my insistence on taking a good-paying job in a factory ENDED a very serious relationship I was in right out of school. So let 's not pretend that there aren't men who still want wives whose occupation is wife, mother, homemaker-essentially, to serve him!-

This a may not be as common in the younger people,but I still see it in men around my age who simply cannot comprehend that an unpartnered woman isn't prepared to drop everything not completely essential, at a moment's notice in order to get with a man. Extra work/efforts to generate more income, volunteer committments, already-laid plans to participate in some kind of organized activity or event,even sometimes previously arranged social committments to friends or family,are seen as statements of disinterest.
Failing to be right there to answer the phone or instantaneous response to an email or IM-statement of disinterest..."her busy schedule"(no kidding this was the TITLE of a thread here in these forums!),is seen as a complete barrier to dating,the presumption being that an offer of attention from a male trumps just about anything else in a womans' life.
I mention this just to balance the wise advice for women to be independent and self-reliant-it IS wise advice, but sometimes,SOME women who are meeting resistance or male disapproval of her self-reliance and independence, are going to decide that self-reliance goes against her hope to find a satisfying serious relationship. Some will shit-can the idea of a satisfying serious relationship( the better course of action, IMO, given the tone of this thread)-or will sabotage self-reliance and independence to increase her chances of finding a male partner to "look after her".(ICK!-but that's JMO).


I think it's more of just a ceremony ... an expensive one.
It need not be. Even a religious ceremony can be simple. I hate to see a young couple throw a lot of resources into a fancy wedding( not all big weddings are paid for by parents!!) at the expense of other important matters. Living in a tent or with parents because they spent every cent they had on the wedding( No,not kidding! Have seen it happen in extended family!)

I just don't see why a couple who's been together for years has to get married. If it works it works. Marriage shouldn't be such a HUGE thing in our culture. It creates so much pressure for people.

This is all very true...BUT, there are certain matters that will have to be addressed with separate documentations, that a spouse would automatically have standing in. It is up to the individuals involved to decide whether these automatic rights/benefits are worth the risks of marriage,or whether various separate legal documents for those exigencies is preferable.
Cindy O
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 654
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/22/2011 9:45:19 AM

I honestly have no recollection of my parents or grandmothers bragging up marriage as THE career for their daughters and grand-daughters,or telling them not to worry about a career, occupation or paying job.

I don't have any recollection of anything this specific either, but I do know that the idea of education past high school was simply not in my head and marriage was the only viable option I knew for a "respected" woman. It wasn't that a woman working while married wasn't acceptable, it was that it wasn't her main job. My sister, 11 years younger than me, was told, in so many words, by my mother that she shouldn't try for a demanding career because it wasn't suitable for a woman.

Failing to be right there to answer the phone or instantaneous response to an email or IM-statement of disinterest..."her busy schedule"(no kidding this was the TITLE of a thread here in these forums!),is seen as a complete barrier to dating,the presumption being that an offer of attention from a male trumps just about anything else in a womans' life.

My ex was like this: he briefly dated a woman who had a life that included orchestra, friends, family and pets. He also had his outside interests, including children, and yet when their schedules did not coincide, he called her at work to lambaste her because she wasn't 'making time' for him. Thing was, this was only a casual dating relationship, kind of an fwb arrangement yet he still expected that she would adjust her schedule to his convenience rather than the other way around. Regardless of how far we've come in the last 50 years, there are still a lot of the old expectations floating around in people's heads, whether they realize it or not.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 655
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/22/2011 10:25:51 AM
It was not my intention to convey an impression that my parents downgraded marriage- they simply held an expectation that their daughters would work outside the home-it was not regarded as some failing of the prospective son-in-law if he wasn't able to support their daughter in luxury,or that he was some kind of "loser" if it was important for the daughter to work.
But the "it wasn't her main job" was the attitude that seemed to be the NORM.
Indeed, I know of couples who sat down and really tracked their finances-to find that it was actually COSTING them for both parents to be working full-time. However, this did not always result in a decision for one parent to leave the workforce-in more than one case, the cost of having both spouses work was deemed worthwhile due to employment fringe benefits like affordable medical insurance.
However, in most cases, where a working couple with children were encountering difficulties with keeping the children well cared-for and the household running smoothly,it was considered that those things were the wifes' main duties, and she was the one expected to stop working, or reduce her hours.Taking care of the family and home was her A-#1 God-given most important task...NOT bringing in a paycheck or taking time and maybe money away from the family budget to "maintain and upgrade skills". Hopefully she could do that, or do some kind of volunteer work,anything that could be put on a resume-but that couldn't always happen.
Thats' the unfortunate downside of "reforming" divorce law...it will force couples to put kids in like-3rd place? It will be vital for both spouses to maintain employment and their own income-or devote a lot of time to keeping skills current and keeping a foot in the door of the workplace. It will, perhaps, throw a spanner in the works of those who do see children as a "meal ticket".
But I do foresees divorce reform tending to compel people to put their own income/earning power as primary importance.
Some, I'm sure, will simply forego marriage and/or parenthood, but I see a lot of families where both parents' income-producing activities will be put ABOVE everything else-for fear of a stay-at-home parent(even if that is the BEST option for the family) being penalized if the marriage fails. Fears that a parent who found it necessary to leave the workplace because that was what was BEST-will be seen in divorce court as ""lazy" "unambitious", somehow lacking in the appropriate abilities as a person- to serve SEVERAL masters! and that will go against them in financial and asset division matters.
It could certainly make zero population growth a very REAL social construct. In fact it might put population growth in the negative. Yes,perhaps this isn't ALL bad-but might it not pretty much make human pair-bonding look like weakness or defective behavior,because there's no real reason to pair-bond? Who needs love,who needs children and family life when it becomes TOTALLY a matter of " you are what you earn!"?
Just pointing out another possible aspect of divorce reform and the devaluation of marriage and parenthood-being devils' advocate.
Cindy O
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 656
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/22/2011 11:05:55 AM

That said, it is possible to be both self-reliant and to rely on your SO. IMO that’s the whole point of being in a committed relationship - you have each other.


Absolutely. Those counter-balances in a relationship...and it doesn't take being legally married to have that. Large numbers of today's generation have discovered that to the point where, if they do decide to eventually marry, it's more for the sake of romantic tradition than to avoid being stereotyped with the "there must be something wrong with you" banner there once was, or for the purpose of escaping parents, or for financial benefit. Having a daughter and son who are 27 and 28, and with them having a large number of the same friends since elementary grade school, there are only two, so far, of the group who have married recently and that was after having lived together for a number of years. The only reason they gave was that they were at the stage where they were contemplating having children and so there is still that stigma where, if you are not married, the children suffer because of other people's attitudes about "legitimizing" a union. There are a number of the group who, so far, state they don't ever want any children and, therefore, may never get legally married. It's definitely a changing world out there that has opened up a plethora of choice, rather than antiquated beliefs that there is only one way to have a sustainable, gratifying relationship and/or family.
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 657
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/22/2011 2:42:03 PM

Lol. I thought we agreed to disagree on this issue Cf

Well, that wasn't intended to be directed at you but more of a statement in general, but I can see where you would have assumed that being that I had just quoted something from you.
 x_file
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 658
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/22/2011 3:12:54 PM

Basically, I agree with this. But what about the case in which a couple choose to have kids, and agree that one parent (mom or dad) should remain home as caregiver till the kid(s) are school-age, and to then take a job that has flexible or reduced hours, so that the kids have the benefit of being raised by their parent rather than outside childcare.


That's the basic outline of one possible scenario.




Do you think it would be fair for that parent to have some compensation for the hit to his or her career, especially if the working parent has become quite succesful?


This is a loaded question.

First off, if one finds them self in this position, and asks for compensation AFTER the fact, then answer is clear: No it isn't fair. Some conversation went missing, someone f*cked up if you magically find your in this position.

There are many other alternatives to solving this types of problems. What I find interesting is that many women are not interested. Some still see having kids a means to justify staying home, not because of the kids but because they don't want to work.

Consider this, rather than asking for compensation from the father, why isn't the family asking for compensation from the government?

A lot of families have grandparents which can help with the kids after a certain age - usually 3+.

Both parents can plan for kids, save up cash, and both can look after the kids while both work part time.

How about this: Make a law hat forbids employers to let go of parents with new a born, and have that law require the employer to keep the parent as a part time employee for, say, 6-8 months. Or hire someone to temporarily fill the position until the parent(s) return to full time work. In the mean time the employer cannot reduce the employee's hourly wage. Among the many stupid laws we have, I'm sure one "decent" law, one that actually deals with a real problem, isn't going to make break the perfect system we have.

How about this: We social security, retirement plans.... lets have kids plans, kids security.

There are many alternatives and solutions to a problem that isn't going to go away anytime soon.

What I really don't like is when the courts by default reward women who do not have the conversations they need to have with their husbands prior to having kids.

If the default is, get pregnant, stay home, and THEN talk about money and ask for compensation, which the courts automatically award, regardless of any agreements the two parents might made, then it is unfair.

In simple terms, the current default way of dealing with the issue you brought up is unfair - unfair to the man, and to kids considering long term consequences.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 659
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/22/2011 4:17:50 PM
X-file
what you speak of already exists-not EXACTLY as you outline it-but pretty close

The FMLA requires larger employers to provide unpaid leave to certain workers in the United States. The law recognizes the growing needs of balancing family, work, and obligations, and promises numerous protections to workers.

Prior to the passage of the FMLA, the provision of leave for family or medical reasons was left to the discretion of individual employers. Employees making a request for leave could be denied for any reason, and employees could be fired for taking family and medical leave. When workers changed jobs, even within the same company, they could not be sure that their requests for leave would be treated consistently: "[S]ome employers had formal leave policies that were applied uniformly to their workforces while others had informal policies and the granting of leave depended on the particular circumstances."


And I think the use of the word "compensation" has caused a certain degree of misperception.
Nobody gets 'compensated' monetarily for having or raising children. I think what is meant, is that reducing working hours, or stopping work to care for children,which causes the caregiving spouse to have a lower income-is considered as a factor in weighing "division of assets" in divorce. Don't forget, there is such a thing as stay-at-home, or work part-time,DADS, too.
I don't disagree with you that there are women who use kids as a "meal ticket"-however, when the assets are divided in divorce court, should the children be forced to a much lower standard of living because their mother is a lazy cow?? And while the almost automatic awarding of custody to the mother IS beginning to change, there are still a lot of factors that the court might see as barriers to the father being the custodial parent(children are very small, father works long hours,or has to travel for work,etc)
and not everyone can just snap their fingers and acquire a live-in nanny!
Just trying to point out that I think the word "compensation" is creating a "skew" in the discussion. Nobody is saying that people should be compensated for having kids and reducing or suspending your career to care for the kids-just that it may be CONSIDERED-it may be a FACTOR, when a marriage fails and the marital assets are being divvied up.
Cindy O
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 660
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/22/2011 4:43:11 PM
Having read and agreed with Cindy’s remarks, I have changed “compensation” to “consideration” – by which I mean that division of assets/finances and assignment of spousal support should take into account the fact that the stay-at-home parent loses out financially (regardless of what they may or may not have done to keep their skills and employability current). Whether the court does this, or the couple does it seems irrelevant to me for the purposes of the discussion.

First off, if one finds them self in this position, and asks for consideration AFTER the fact, then answer is clear: No it isn't fair. Some conversation went missing, someone f*cked up if you magically find your in this position.

So you agree that it is fair that the parent who remained home with the kids is entitled to consideration for the hit to his/her career and income as long as the higher-earner is aware of this consequences of having one parent stay home or work part-time?

There are many other alternatives to solving this types of problems. What I find interesting is that many women are not interested. Some still see having kids a means to justify staying home, not because of the kids but because they don't want to work.

I agree, some women would definitely consider that hubby is entirely responsible for the family income, and her job IS the kids. But so do some husbands. Hard for you to believe, I know, but I work with a couple and I’ve seen other men posting that kind of stuff on these forums. Men are complicit in the great ‘woman=nurturer’, ‘man=provider’ scam that we have going on here.

Consider this, rather than asking for consideration from the father, why isn't the family asking for consideration from the government?

For the purposes of subsidization, the government is you and me. Are you suggesting that everybody except one (in your mind, the father) of the parents should be responsible for the financial sacrifices involved in raising children?

A lot of families have grandparents which can help with the kids after a certain age - usually 3+.

True and many grandparents do exactly that. A lot of grandparents are also done child-raising; why would you put the responsibility of the parents on to them?

Both parents can plan for kids, save up cash, and both can look after the kids while both work part time.

Yes they can do all of the above. I think both parents taking a career/income hit is a reasonable alternative; how many men would do that? Are you one of those men? At this point in time, it seems that women are more likely to be the ones who end up on the short end, financially and careerwise. This may change as time goes, since financial planners suggest that the parent with the higher income continue working, while the lower-income parent stay home. With the trend toward women becoming better employed, it may soon be the man who is just as likely or more likely to be the stay-at-home parent.

How about this: Make a law hat forbids employers to let go of parents with new a born, and have that law require the employer to keep the parent as a part time employee for, say, 6-8 months. Or hire someone to temporarily fill the position until the parent(s) return to full time work. In the mean time the employer cannot reduce the employee's hourly wage.

Something like this is already in effect in Canada. One year-government subsidized parental leave, and the same position must be available for the parent on return. I knew a couple that had two kids; she took the first of her one-year, government subsidized parental leave; he took the next year. Rinse and repeat. I don't know what their plan was when child #2 got to be two years old; I know they didn't want any more kids, but they also didn't want someone else raising their children.

What I really don't like is when the courts by default reward women who do not have the conversations they need to have with their husbands prior to having kids.

But that isn’t what I was talking about, was it? I was talking about couples who did have those conversations. And, unlike you, I didn’t specify women or men as being the ones remaining home; I said one parent gains in terms of his or her career/earning power, while the other loses in order to raise the children that the higher earner also wanted and agreed to support. Should the higher earner gain the “benefit” of children at the expense of the lower-earner? (whatever benefit is intrinsic to kids, of course; it’s certainly not financial).

In simple terms, the current default way of dealing with the issue you brought up is unfair - unfair to the man, and to kids considering long term consequences.

I grant that the higher-earner may feel this is unfair; I fail to see how it’s unfair for kids to have the benefit of more financial support.
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 661
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/22/2011 8:05:15 PM

by which I mean that division of assets/finances and assignment of spousal support should take into account the fact that the stay-at-home parent loses out financially (regardless of what they may or may not have done to keep their skills and employability current).


...but hasn't the individual who has gone to work to support the spouse and child lost out financially while supporting said spouse and child solely for x number of years as well? It's absolutely not as though that individual has been seeing to only their own financial needs and pocketing wads of cash - they've been expending at a minimum for two other individuals. That's where some of the inequity lies in the 50/50 division scenarios combined with spousal support on top of child support...or am I missing something here?
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 662
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/22/2011 8:25:04 PM

...but hasn't the individual who has gone to work to support the spouse and child lost out financially while supporting said spouse and child solely for x number of years as well? It's absolutely not as though that individual has been seeing to only their own financial needs and pocketing wads of cash - they've been expending at a minimum for two other individuals. That's where some of the inequity lies in the 50/50 division scenarios combined with spousal support on top of child support...or am I missing something here?


Exactly they could have easily used the time to do online classes and improved their skills and education.

And that is why the 50/50 split is unfair in a large way. People should have to be responsible for themselves. And their children.

I know people that have had to move in with a friend or family because after a divorce they couldn't afford to live on their own. That is unacceptable.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 663
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/22/2011 8:30:01 PM
I do think you are. The individual who has worked to support a family has not forfeited future earning power, nor (in many cases) retirement income. In short, they have not given up anything at all in the way of continuing to support them seld. More often than not, they also do not have to give up the ability to dedicate themself to a career, as they will often continue to leave the mundane tasks to the party who retains custody. Fair or not, it is not often that you see that the breadwinner takes time off their job to take the children to the doctor, pick them up on shortened school days, alter their schedule in the summer, etc.

That having been said, let's face it, the problem here isn't so much about marriage, but about having children. Simply being married doesn't affect you financially to anywhere near the degree to which being married with children does, upon dissolution of the marriage.

In the meantime, let's ask those who are homosexual, as they have fought so long & hard for a right many of us seem to detest! It appears they see a benefit. Just sayin'
 x_file
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 664
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/22/2011 9:35:10 PM

So you agree that it is fair that the parent who remained home with the kids is entitled to consideration for the hit to his/her career and income as long as the higher-earner is aware of this consequences of having one parent stay home or work part-time?


1) I don't think anyone is entitled to anything - that's my default position. Any claim to entitlement of any kind should be justified, especially when that entitlement happens to affect someone else.

2) Whether it is "fair" to compensate the parent who stayed home with the kids is not simply a matter of agreement on my part... I'd like to see the arguments. Show me the arguments, the reasoning - that's my position.

3) Even if it is determined that it is fair to compensate the parent who stayed home, it doesn't automatically follow the compensation must come from the higher earner. To make that conclusion, you need a whole different sets of arguments.

4) Whether the higher earner is aware that s/he will be the compensator is not sufficient. The higher earner must be aware, and in agreement with the parent staying home.

Any agreement on financial compensation must have "the numbers" upfront. Otherwise, one or both parties might feel cheated.



Men are complicit in the great ‘woman=nurturer’, ‘man=provider’ scam that we have going on here.


Scam? Not likely. False belief? Maybe.

But lets suppose ‘woman=nurturer’ and ‘man=provider’. Lets consider that popular scenario. Someone has to deal with this scenario for most "entitlement claims" find base here.

In this scenario the man provides for the woman, for the kid(s) and himself. He works for 2 adults (for he has to support 2 adults) + the kid(s). His entire income most likely goes towards his family. Since he is the sole provider, all the pressure to provide is on him. There is no redundancy so to switch his job, or train for another, or a better job is either very difficult or impossible. He might be stuck at a job he hates. In terms of finances, he works for 2, but saves nothing.

Where, in this scenario, does the "compensation" argument arise from? A better quesiton, why is she expecting him to compensate her? Because she stayed home to raise the kids? If so where is the man's compensation in all of this? He worked for 2 people, but has no savings to show.

If both parents must provide for their kids (equally), the man did his job by providing the funds, and the woman her job by providing the nurture... which the man also funds.

If this is the argument for compensation from the higher earner (in this scenario that's the man), I'm afraid it is weak, extremely week, not to mention really selfish.



For the purposes of subsidization, the government is you and me. Are you suggesting that everybody except one (in your mind, the father) of the parents should be responsible for the financial sacrifices involved in raising children?


Are you suggesting that the father is making a financial sacrifice to begin with?



True and many grandparents do exactly that. A lot of grandparents are also done child-raising; why would you put the responsibility of the parents on to them?


I'm not.

You clearly missed the point.



I think both parents taking a career/income hit is a reasonable alternative; how many men would do that?


I don't care.

That said, there are ways, financially, to make it worth their while.



Something like this is already in effect in Canada. One year-government subsidized parental leave, and the same position must be available for the parent on return. I knew a couple that had two kids; she took the first of her one-year, government subsidized parental leave; he took the next year.


So how exactly is the lower earner justified in seeking compensation in a scenario like this?

In your opinion, what do you think will happen if the lower earner in this sceanrio goes to court and seeks compensation?



Should the higher earner gain the “benefit” of children at the expense of the lower-earner?


Should the lower earner gain the "benefit" of children at the expense of the higher earner?



I grant that the higher-earner may feel this is unfair; I fail to see how it’s unfair for kids to have the benefit of more financial support.


It isn't. That's not the issue.



The individual who has worked to support a family has not forfeited future earning power, nor (in many cases) retirement income.


If working is so great, then forget the kids, and just work.

Also, by being the sole provider in the family, and having to bring a paycheck home, not only puts a lot of pressure on the provider, but also binds this person to their current job. In other words, the provider might not be able to take advantage of higher paying job opportunities, especially if those require unpaid training, or time off to educate one self further.



...but hasn't the individual who has gone to work to support the spouse and child lost out financially while supporting said spouse and child solely for x number of years as well?


No! We can't talk about this. It is forbidden!


I don't think you are missing anything Chameleon. I know of men who work their butts off to support their wife, adopted and bio children...they most certainly aren't further ahead financially. They could have been putting this money away in investments for themselves..but no...it's given to their families..their wives...their children...


Thank you.

I think you get it.

Now imagine one such a wife asking her husband for compensation.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 665
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/22/2011 10:17:50 PM
[Quote]lost out financially while supporting said spouse and child solely for x number of years as well?
If one considers current work as an investment in their future career, it might clarify what I mean. Most people's career peeks in their late forties to fifties; child rearing generally takes place in the thirties, give or take. Future earnings for the one who doesn't have their career interrupted or delayed is likely to be significantly more than the one who remains home for the kids. I'm not suggesting spousal support should be automatic, onerous or unending, but only fairly considered in terms of the impact a decision jointly made may negatively affect one person's earning capacity. The working parent benefits by having their children cared for by the one other person who will (hopefully) have the kids best interest at heart while not losing their future earnings potential.
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 666
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 5:34:38 AM

If one considers current work as an investment in their future career, it might clarify what I mean.


What you mean is understood...............I just don't agree.

There are many ways for the stay at home parent to expand their skills while at home.

Online schools.....working online ect ect

Just because the one staying home is lazy and won't do these things, is no reason for the one working to support their laziness to continue to do so after a divorce.

They have the chance to better themselves if they don't take advantage of it....well that is their problem.

I have raised two kids on my own and ran two business' that had a combined income of 700k a year at the same time................... Surely if I can do it others can.

People are only hindered by their desire........If someone wants it bad enough they will figure out a way.

Besides the one working has already been the sole support for the one not working and the child(ren). So that hinders their ability to gain wealth. So why should they be held responsible for them after they bounce?

When is the stay at home responsible for themselves?

I have a friend that just divorced her husband of 30 years. He is a former high ranking officer form the Air Force.
He started a civilian defense company after his retirement from the service. The co. makes millions every year.

She told me the marriage was over for her years ago but...."The money he makes was just to fabulous to leave." ......She purposely waited for him to amass a large fortune to divorce him.......She never worked despite having a masters degree.......He ended up giving her the paid for house half of his retirement and pays her over 6 grand a month.....for life that is besides the one million dollar lump sum he had to give her at the time of the divorce!

BTW the husband is the one that paid for her to go to school and get the degree she told him she wanted to get a degree and go into business for herself.....never happened.

Now tell me why someone with a masters degree would need that kind of support?
 x_file
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 667
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 5:40:58 AM


If one considers current work as an investment in their future career, it might clarify what I mean.


You can stop right here. The premise you begin with is false.



Future earnings for the one who doesn't have their career interrupted or delayed is likely to be significantly more than the one who remains home for the kids.


I call bullshit.

A couple on my street who had 2 kids, 1 year apart, and the mother stayed home, and used her spare time to get a second degree! And she planned for the whole thing ahead.

Not only can the parent renaming home not interrupt his or her career, they can actually further their career by staying home, if they want to.



Future earnings for the one who doesn't have their career interrupted or delayed is likely to be significantly more than the one who remains home for the kids.


Even this claim is false.

For god sakes, people take extended sick leave, sometimes 3 or more years, and return to their career and are at the same level as those people who worked straight thought.

Only in few certain careers, usually those that are dynamic and quickly changing does your claim hold any merit.



I'm not suggesting spousal support should be automatic, onerous or unending, but only fairly considered in terms of the impact a decision jointly made may negatively affect one person's earning capacity.


How many other things can negatively affect a person's earning capacity? Why are you hell-bent on one?



I think what is meant, is that reducing working hours, or stopping work to care for children,which causes the caregiving spouse to have a lower income-is considered as a factor in weighing "division of assets" in divorce.


How is that NOT compensation?
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 668
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 7:35:09 AM
If the working spouse is required to compensate the stay at home spouse after divorce with a cash infusion, why is that same working spouse not required to compensate the stay at home spouse during marriage with cash infusions? Could it be because they already are by providing food, clothing, shelter and any other wants and/or needs, and the same for any children? I can sure see an awful lot of stay at home individuals never happening if that was the case. A divorce is an ending of the marriage so two people can go their separate ways. Why then should one spouse be expected to continue to provide the food, clothing, shelter, etc. for the stay at home spouse. Adequate compensation should be absolutely expected for any children if there isn't shared custody, but not punitive compensation, which it can very often amount to.

The problem as I see it, and the bottom line is, there is really not much at all in the way of planning and forward thinking when entering into marriages, creating children or planning for possible future eventualities such as divorce, death, illness, loss of jobs - you name it. People enter into so many things without a concrete plan to see to their own needs, and when it falls flat, expect someone else to bail them out. It's troublesome to the point of almost being disgusting - nah...it is disgusting.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 669
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 7:57:02 AM



If one considers current work as an investment in their future career, it might clarify what I mean.

The premise you begin with is false.

Nobody gets promoted, a pay raise, or pension income accumulated while they are off work for any reason. If one doesn't work for one, two, three or ten years, for whatever reason, they've permanently lost whatever gains they might have made in that time.
Consequently, my premise is NOT false.



Future earnings for the one who doesn't have their career interrupted or delayed is likely to be significantly more than the one who remains home for the kids.

I call bullshit.

In Canada, everyone who works contributes to a government pension plan. Those who don't work, work less or have fewer earnings get less payout at the end of their working life. Their future earnings are negatively impacted, and can never be made up. In Canada, if one is married during the time they are unemployed, that person can claim against their spouse's pension for the time they were unemployed during the marriage. Thus, I could claim against my ex-husband's pension; my last ex could claim against my pension. I, personally, think it's rather ridiculous - but apparently the government doesn't think it's "bullshit" that periods of unemployment have a negative affect on one's future earnings and believe it's appropriate to have the higher earning partner help the lesser-earning partner.


Not only can the parent renaming home not interrupt his or her career, they can actually further their career by staying home, if they want to.

Two guys in my office have taken a year off; one to go back to school and the other to support his wife who had to serve an internship in another city; one woman is off on maternity leave. All three are coming back to the company, but in the year they've been gone, they've lost company contributions to the company pension plan, their government pension plan contributions, wage increases, profit sharing bonus (which many put into the RRSP) and possible advancement within the company. Also, new software and procedures have been implemented while they've been gone; there is no way any of them could be prepared for that, so there again they are behind the rest of the pack in terms of knowledge, experience and positioning for advancement and wage increase within our company.

I don't know if the woman you described got a degree in her field of work or changed careers entirely, but who's to say she wouldn't have been farther ahead financially and career wise if she hadn't paused to take care of the kids that both she and her husband both wanted (presumably). Being off work impacts one's career; whether it's a death knell or barely noticeable depends on a lot of factors. If the working parent benefits from having the children, as well as financially and career-wise, from the non-working parents career sacrifice (large or small), why shouldn't that be taken into consideration if the marriage ends?
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 670
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 8:50:34 AM

How many other things can negatively affect a person's earning capacity? Why are you hell-bent on one?

Because this is the only instance where I think a case can logically be made that one partner gains long-term benefit at the long-term and possibly permanent expense of the other person. I'm not generally a proponent of spousal support, but I have to admit that in the scenario I originally outlined, it makes some sense to me. My scenario did not include deceit, or someone whose main agenda was to live off another, but rather two people who agreed on a certain course of action. I think the long, term impact of the stay-at-home parent's career should certainly be a part of any discussion about having and raising kids. The consideration might be simply that the working parent contribute to a pension plan, or other savings, for the non-working parent just in case its needed at some future time.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 671
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 9:29:43 AM

A divorce is an ending of the marriage so two people can go their separate ways. Why then should one spouse be expected to continue to provide the food, clothing, shelter, etc. for the stay at home spouse.

I don't know that food/shelter/etc. would necessarily have to be the "consideration". But the benefits to the working parent of not having a career interruption whilst also being able to have children, continues past the end of the marriage. The disadvantage to the non-working parent also continues past the end of the marriage. Is that entirely fair? Shouldn't that have some consideration either at the time of planning the children, or at the dissolution of the partnership? The kids still exist for the pleasure and benefit of both parents (said slightly tongue-in-cheek); the working parent still has his/her career continuing on track, the non-working parent is left to play catch-up.

Adequate compensation should be absolutely expected for any children if there isn't shared custody, but not punitive compensation, which it can very often amount to.

I agree, sometimes it seems excessive. Out of curiousity (and likely where my thoughts originated) I reviewed some judgements on divorce cases a few days ago. In one particular case, the judge allowed spousal support because based on the evidence, he believed that the husband had supported and encouraged his wife to be the stay-at-home parent, thus hindering progress in her career. I thought the reasons behind the allowance made sense, although the dollar amount he set was rather high, especially combined with child support. He also felt the ex-husband had gone to considerable length to deceive both the ex-wife and the court about his actual income (6 figures) in order to avoid previous spousal and child support orders, so perhaps that had something to do with it. Although I would hope not, because allowing personal opinion to color what should be an unbiased judgement doesn't seem like it would lead to a very good outcome.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 672
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 9:39:30 AM

Being off work impacts one's career; whether it's a death knell or barely noticeable depends on a lot of factors. If the working parent benefits from having the children, as well as financially and career-wise, from the non-working parents career sacrifice (large or small), why shouldn't that be taken into consideration if the marriage ends?


In Canada, everyone who works contributes to a government pension plan. Those who don't work, work less or have fewer earnings get less payout at the end of their working life. Their future earnings are negatively impacted, and can never be made up.
That is pretty much how it is here in the US...our government pension plan is based on the hours one spends in the workplace, one's earnings,etc. If one chooses to take a few years off to tend babies/toddlers/pre-school children,or only work part-time that is going to be reflected in a lower pension.

I think that it is interesting here that the ones who are calling BS the loudest on the idea of a parent suspending career to nurture children are
1.Male
2.Appear to have extremely flexible work schedule(nothing wrong with that-some manner of "working at home",flex-time, owning ones'own business can lend itself well to combining work and family.)
3. Some of the more ferocious arguers against asset division in divorce do not appear to have been married, nor do they have children. Their occupations may not have allowed them much exposure to working parents,especially mothers, of babies and small children.



While I never was a parent, I worked with many working parents.
I was raised by working parents...in fact, as the eldest, I had a BOATLOAD of ad hoc parenting experience-particularly when my parents worked opposite shifts. Make no mistake, we were not "neglected" or put at risk by not having some kind of adult assistance nearby.We all seem to have turned out OK-nobody's in jail, divorced, institutionalized-all but myself are parents. All of us contribute to society,pay taxes etc.
But from my perspective I believe I can make a statement about working parents-when both parents are away from home and family 8-10 hrs a day, SOMEBODY has to step in and take up some of the slack at home-whether it is hired help, extended family,older children...I think that if I had some figures on what my folks actually paid out for sitters/housekeeping help, it would be be quite a chunk of change! Believe me, in many situations, having both parents of infants and small children working full-time is not nearly as easy as some here seem to think, Remember, we are not just talking about white collar workers, professionals or technical/skilled personnel here-many working mothers and fathers are punching a time clock, standing on their feet behind a checkout counter or on an assembly line, stocking shelves,waiting tables, helping professionals care for the sick and the elderly, helping teachers or doing support work for the education system,are at a workbench assembling consumer and business goods.Some of them may be getting up at like 4AM to make sure everything is ready for the babysitter-or to transport either babysitter or kids so that child care is covered.

So those who are presuming that it is some kind of "piece of cake", for both parents of young children to work outside the home, may have had rather limited exposure to the REAL world.

Again, reading this thread, I'm again struck by the thought that divorce/asset division DOES need an overhaul.
A divorcing couple should have all their assets and their children confiscated by the STATE. Then both of them can get a new start, and since both have NOTHING,its equal,right?


If the working parent benefits from having the children, as well as financially and career-wise, from the non-working parents career sacrifice (large or small), why shouldn't that be taken into consideration if the marriage ends?

If some here would actually recognize that, instead of miscomprehending that it is a device for women to get compensated for having children SHE wanted,or a means for a woman to avoid working for a living,it would make sense. There seems to be an undercurrent of resentment against women here that is producing a distortion of perception. Granted, at this time, it is still the most likely scenario that it will be the mother who takes time from a paid occupation to nurture children- is that the cause of the resentment, or the result???
OF COURSE having children should be a mutually agreeable decision and well planned for in advance. If a couple can't get on the same page about having-or not having-kids, then that couplehood needs to come to an end before resentment or trickery have a chance to set in.
If a man feels that his wife has forced fatherhood on him, he should immediately file for divorce before further damage is done. He may still have to contribute to the support of that child, but he won't spend years accumulating assets(while the marriage accumulates resentments) that will have to be divided wit the the evil witch who forced him into fatherhood as a means of evading having to WORK for a living.

Nah, I'm going back to divorce=surrender of all assets AND children to the state. Both come out of the failed marriage with nothing.
Hey, we punish people for failing at other things, don't we? People who don't do their jobs well get terminated, people who fail to pay their mortgage or car payment get those things taken away,right? So lets make marriage failure a LOSE-LOSE proposition for both parties.
Cindy O
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 673
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 10:09:32 AM

If one is strictly counting finances...BOTH adults lose out financially when they decide to have children.

Both adults also lose out when divorce happens, even if everybody leaves with what they came in with, their income was at par, there are no children, and whatever they gained mutually is split 50/50. Marriage (usually) benefits both partners financially to some degree; dissolution of that marriage (usually) hurts both partners to some degree.

It's very expensive supporting another adult and 1+children through to adulthood. I know a little bit..and a little bit only about this as I supported an able-bodied adult who chose not to work and helped with the costs of his child.

Yes it is, and for many spousal or child support, savings and retirement income are completely irrelevant; they are barely making it from payday to payday. In a perfect world, everybody would have a job that pays well enough to adequately support themselves and their children, and everybody would think and plan ahead prior to marriage/children. But that's not real life, and unlikely it ever will be - and even the best laid plans can go awry, putting someone in the position of being unable to support themselves, let alone anyone else. There has to be some recognition of what constitutes reality for most people, not what we (personally) would LIKE it to be.

I certainly didn't get further ahead in my career by continuing to work while supporting my family.

But did you get farther ahead then if you'd quit for a few years to raise a child, while your partner continued to work?
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 674
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 10:23:19 AM

He also felt the ex-husband had gone to considerable length to deceive both the ex-wife and the court about his actual income (6 figures) in order to avoid previous spousal and child support orders, so perhaps that had something to do with it.


See, that's just it though. If a person makes a 6 figure income, they are somehow expected to base payments on that 6 figure income, both with respect to spousal support (where it's allowed) and child support.

Should a person, because they happen to be the one who either has had the education, intelligence, or good fortune to land a job that creates that income, be expected to provide much more than a person who makes an average income? For instance, my ex made roughly three times the amount that I did. Just because he did, does that mean that I should have expected to be topped up in the way of spousal support just so I could wind up with an income that equalled his after topping me up?...or to put it another way, be supported in a manner in which I had been accustomed for 30 years (even though I worked for a total of approximately 20 of those years, albeit the one with the lesser income)? As far as I'm concerned, that's not fair - it's his money because he's the one earning it and I was able to survive quite nicely on my own. The reason I was able to survive on my own was because I didn't relish the idea of ever having to be faced with any potential outcomes of his death, illness or divorce (which was the least likely scenario I envisioned but which was the one that came to pass) without being able to stand on my own two feet. We didn't even think of having kids until our house was paid for in full in order to make the burden less difficult for one individual financially or the family as a whole. I was out of the work force for 11 years while looking after the house and the children and yet I was able to enter it again working from home and still see to everyone's needs albeit to a lesser degree, but by then, the degree of parental reliance wasn't the same either. If my kids were of the age that support was required for them in order to be fed, clothed, housed and educated and if it was decided they were to live with only one parent, then a fair amount, depending on each individual's income, could be mathematically forumlated...and that doesn't mean a percentage of one's total income but, rather, a percentage based on not creating a hardship to one parent over the other. When I see child support (or spousal support) in outrageous amounts, it makes me want to gag. What child requires some of these outrageous amounts you see being ordered by the courts in order to survive just because a parent earns a huge amount? The child's right is to be seen to in such a manner that they are comfortable, not fricking spoiled and then grow up to perpetuate the notion that it's a right to go through life with their hand out at the expense of others, whether it be a parent or spouse.
 kari135
Joined: 9/1/2009
Msg: 675
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 10:48:49 AM
I don’t know where some of the men posting here get the idea that taking care of children is a piece of cake. Children, especially babies, toddlers, and preschoolers, take an incredible amount of work. Being a single working mother with just one preschooler is expensive, just for the daycare alone, and I had two of them. Not only does the mother have to do the job they are paid to do and do it well, they then get to go home and do all of the cooking, cleaning, etc, and still make time for the children.

I did this, sometimes working 2 or more jobs, and it is so NOT a piece of cake! I’ve had to take jobs I didn’t like and wasn’t particularly suited to for the fringe benefits, i.e., health insurance. There were a couple years that it cost me more for child care than I earned at my primary job, and I had to have a second part time job to provide the basic costs of living. After several years of that, I was pretty much locked in to a job type I didn’t like and didn’t want. But I was fortunate in that their father was willing to do whatever he could to help by taking care of them when possible (but he was fairly rare in that) and I had some friends who were also willing to help. Many women don’t have that kind of communal support, and they do end up on welfare of one kind or another.

I’ve also known some men who, after getting divorced and having child support ordered, moved out of state and got around the child support by simply never having a job that involved a paycheck. They’d only work for cash, because they “weren’t gonna pay for that ****’s partying.” The ‘****’ - who never partied in the first place - ended up going on welfare and the child(ren) knew why. Then once the child was an adult, Daddy Dearest couldn’t understand why Junior wasn’t interested in getting to know him. Growing up in the projects on welfare doesn’t lead to warm and fuzzy feelings.
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?