[quote]nephorm wrote:
The other issue is, as Judy says, “there are no courts for unmarrieds.”[/quote]
This isn’t exactly true. Its just not family court; there’s no default provisions; and it would be expensive and less predictable in general civil court. But I agree that co-mingling is not a good idea for unmarried couples. And in some states, depending on how you hold yourself out, it might make you legally married before you even know you are legally married.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]nephorm wrote:
The other issue is, as Judy says, “there are no courts for unmarrieds.”[/quote]
This isn’t exactly true. Its just not family court; there’s no default provisions; and it would be expensive and less predictable in general civil court. But I agree that co-mingling is not a good idea for unmarried couples. And in some states, depending on how you hold yourself out, it might make you legally married before you even know you are legally married. [/quote]
Well, you can’t take it literally - she is still arbitrating financial disputes between unmarrieds even on her show. But I think you’d have a tough time finding a judge willing to, for example, divvy up debts for a couple living together (who don’t have some sort of written arrangement) the same way debts are divided for divorcing couples. The real issue, of course, is that it is an expensive and unpredictable as you say… and a big ask of an already overburdened civil court system.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]nephorm wrote:
The other issue is, as Judy says, “there are no courts for unmarrieds.”[/quote]
This isn’t exactly true. Its just not family court; there’s no default provisions; and it would be expensive and less predictable in general civil court. But I agree that co-mingling is not a good idea for unmarried couples. And in some states, depending on how you hold yourself out, it might make you legally married before you even know you are legally married. [/quote]
Well, you can’t take it literally - she is still arbitrating financial disputes between unmarrieds even on her show. But I think you’d have a tough time finding a judge willing to, for example, divvy up debts for a couple living together (who don’t have some sort of written arrangement) the same way debts are divided for divorcing couples. The real issue, of course, is that it is an expensive and unpredictable as you say… and a big ask of an already overburdened civil court system.[/quote]
The debts aren’t going to get “divvied up” so to speak; they are most likely going to be joint and several with both parties remaining liable for them after a co-mingle, which is another problem with co-mingling. But we are not really disagreeing on anything material.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Silyak wrote:
This thread has convinced me that my life absolutely would not get simpler if my wife had an income. A single income family has its pluses. [/quote]
It’s ugly, but this is basically a visual of what we do. Bills are paid from the shared account and ultimately the same will occur when we retire even though the accounts are separate.
The only caveat is that I have a separate account with a Credit Union where I have a small amount deposited to pay for a car loan. [/quote]
This seems to be where we’re headed. I think it will work because we’re debt free and both have solid histories of fiscal responsibility, as well as respectable retirement savings. We’re both dedicated to living well below our combined income and we have similar views about money in general. He’s spendier than I am, but he can afford to be. We both seem to have areas of neurotic frugality along with areas of wasteful spending, and I think they mesh. Long term savings would simply remain with each of us in the event of a split, paychecks would cease to auto-deposit in the joint account, house, which is fully paid for, would either go onto the market or be bought out by one or the other of us. Savings for the moment will go toward renovation and expansion of the house, so that divides along with the house in the near term.
Is this not reasonable? In the event we marry, this will still be how it works. The only difference being that the death of one of us has the house going to the survivor free and clear.
Edit: hey! where’s my stolen visual?
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Silyak wrote:
This thread has convinced me that my life absolutely would not get simpler if my wife had an income. A single income family has its pluses. [/quote]
It’s ugly, but this is basically a visual of what we do. Bills are paid from the shared account and ultimately the same will occur when we retire even though the accounts are separate.
The only caveat is that I have a separate account with a Credit Union where I have a small amount deposited to pay for a car loan. [/quote]
This seems to be where we’re headed. I think it will work because we’re debt free and both have solid histories of fiscal responsibility, as well as respectable retirement savings. We’re both dedicated to living well below our combined income and we have similar views about money in general. He’s spendier than I am, but he can afford to be. We both seem to have areas of neurotic frugality along with areas of wasteful spending, and I think they mesh. Long term savings would simply remain with each of us in the event of a split, paychecks would cease to auto-deposit in the joint account, house, which is fully paid for, would either go onto the market or be bought out by one or the other of us. Savings for the moment will go toward renovation and expansion of the house, so that divides along with the house in the near term.
Is this not reasonable? In the event we marry, this will still be how it works. The only difference being that the death of one of us has the house going to the survivor free and clear.
Edit: hey! where’s my stolen visual?[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Why would you co-mingle accounts?
[/quote]
Let’s see…
[quote] EmilyQ wrote:
He earns approximately double what I do…
[/quote]
^^ That sounds like a good reason to me. At least, from the bride’s point of view.[/quote]
Sure, this is true. On the other hand, I’m not impoverished and have not lacked for anything that I would now have access to. He also intends, should his current employer go belly-up, which he fears may happen eventually, to take a job locally. He travels extensively for work now and doesn’t like it. If/when that occurs, we’ll probably make close to the same amount. Which is fine, we can afford to live very comfortably (as we define that) on our combined incomes, particularly since by that time we’ll presumably have our house finished out the way we want it.