Not my question, but a hypothetical. People make it into a black and white issue, but you rarely hear about any alternative proposals. What's the best approach for a couple entering into marriage with a wide disparity in wealth accumulated?
OT: Pre-nup or no pre-nup?
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
It is a black and white issue when there is a wide disparity in wealth/income.
You either accept giving away a large amount of wealth/income, or get a pre-nup that caps what you give away
You either accept giving away a large amount of wealth/income, or get a pre-nup that caps what you give away
A wide disparity in wealth or if it’s a second or third marriage, there should always be a pre-nup.
Well, you only get married two or three times in your life so make each one count
Also depends on prior children, business ownership, real estate, other obligations......elderly parents, disabled siblings.....
Can get kinda complicated.
How about starting her off at something like 0%, 10% or 25% "equity" and building it up for each year of marriage until it hits say 50% after 25 years together.
So you are going to negotiate terms after the contract is signed?
nothing is ironclad. But set the terms in an absolute manner before signing.
i think it is much more of a question then a generation ago with respect to the amount of college debt out there. Would be a tough question is the person you are with let's say has $100,000+ in loans and you let's say didn't have to take any loans out and had $50,000 in saving at the time of marriage as you are a saver and make good money.
Post_ShockTherapy_MackDaddy
Well-Known Member
Only interracial couples get pre-nups? I know quite a few Indian couples with pre-nups.
Get the prenup. Quantify what each brings into the marriage. Any gains throughout the marriage are split evenly. Don’t commingle funds such as inheritance . If you do it will be split in divorce.
There are some large inheritances to be acquired by people these days. Unless you want your children to give half of it away to a divorced spouse teach them about commingling.
There are some large inheritances to be acquired by people these days. Unless you want your children to give half of it away to a divorced spouse teach them about commingling.
"After much prayer and discussion with my family, I've informed Jane I'm entering the transfer portal. My top three destinations are Mary, Susan, and John. No interviews...RESPECT MY DECISION!"
I guess the term marriage means something different to me. I am not religious but do believe that marriage means "the two become one" for life. In my marriage everything is joint.
The tax and benefit advantages of marriage, I believe, were instituted to support family life -- the production and raising of children. Today those benefits have become a factor on the decision to marry, or even (not) divorce. This throws confusion into the reasons that should keep people together, or apart. The result is a degradation of the institution itself, to the point where it is common for people to now have several "marriages" in life.
By the time of retirement it's now hard to find people who have had only one marriage. These people invariably have a confused mess for lives, juggling schedules, children, etc. Many are so estranged from children and parents that they might as well have stayed singled the entire time.
So if you are preparing for the breakup before the union by having a financial prenup, it seems to me what you are really doing is getting a marriage license to deal with a financial issue -- taxes and benefits. I would expect that marriage to fail, so I wouldn't bother wasting money on a big ceremony/celebration. Just go get the piece of paper. That is what you have. A contract. If you don't need the financial benefits of marriage, then move in together but stay single. It will be easier to separate once the passion fizzles out.
The tax and benefit advantages of marriage, I believe, were instituted to support family life -- the production and raising of children. Today those benefits have become a factor on the decision to marry, or even (not) divorce. This throws confusion into the reasons that should keep people together, or apart. The result is a degradation of the institution itself, to the point where it is common for people to now have several "marriages" in life.
By the time of retirement it's now hard to find people who have had only one marriage. These people invariably have a confused mess for lives, juggling schedules, children, etc. Many are so estranged from children and parents that they might as well have stayed singled the entire time.
So if you are preparing for the breakup before the union by having a financial prenup, it seems to me what you are really doing is getting a marriage license to deal with a financial issue -- taxes and benefits. I would expect that marriage to fail, so I wouldn't bother wasting money on a big ceremony/celebration. Just go get the piece of paper. That is what you have. A contract. If you don't need the financial benefits of marriage, then move in together but stay single. It will be easier to separate once the passion fizzles out.
I realize that this isn't exactly what the OP asked but unless there are very specific circumstances (needing to be on spouse's health insurance or having children), just don't get legally married.
There is nothing to say that you cannot pledge your everlasting love to each other without complicating it with a legal document. This avoid co-mingling of finances completely. Also, any other issues (power of attorney, living will, etc) can be handled with legal documents.
Just my two cents, but there is no reason to subject yourself to the legal boundaries of marriage unless you have kids (or need health insurance).
There is nothing to say that you cannot pledge your everlasting love to each other without complicating it with a legal document. This avoid co-mingling of finances completely. Also, any other issues (power of attorney, living will, etc) can be handled with legal documents.
Just my two cents, but there is no reason to subject yourself to the legal boundaries of marriage unless you have kids (or need health insurance).
Depends on the jurisdiction in which you live. This is not the case where I live.
It isn't just the wealth coming into the marriage. If you are military, or plan to be, it is a good part of your pension. My high school sweetheart and I married at 19 right after I returned from basic training. I was divorced a little over 20 years ago. Not my choice. My spouse was a homemaker for all but 2 years of our 17 year marriage and remarried within a year of our divorce.
The cost, you ask? Splitting half of our savings at the time of the divorce - $40,000. Surrendering a little under 40% of my military pension, even after remarriage - $192,000, so far. Child support for a special needs child for life - $228,000, so far. If we all live to our expected lifespans, it will add up to over a cool $1,000,000.
You think I would tell my 19 year old, head over heels in love self to get a prenup? You effin betcha.
It’s not preparing to break up, it’s protecting yourself and your children. If your significant other is truly in love with you, then they shouldn’t care about getting any of your stuff...getting you should be enough.
I don't disagree, much. I think I could have protected at least my military pension, but possibly at the cost of being married in the first place. When you are young, you only think of the happily ever after. Life has a way of interjecting along the way. The bottom line is that you may get married in a church, but in the end it is only a business contract you have entered into that can be broken by one party or the other, oftentimes without penalty.
Last edited:
I was married for 18 years. So when my marriage ended it was emotionally devastating. The combination of two kids, a beautiful home and NJ martial law put me in a very bad spot. Here was my prenuptial agreement. I had saved $35k as a young adult and continued to keep that money under my mom and dad’s name after I said "I do". I knew not to commingle my premarital assets with my marital assets since combining your assets makes it subject to equitable distribution. Well, over the years my 35k grew to about 56k. No, not a life changing amount but enough to hire a good attorney and fight to save my pension, not pay any alimony, force the sale of a 3200sqft home and force each party to be responsible for their personal debt. .
Last edited:
Similar threads
