Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance...

[Indylady]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

Why should I marry into a situation (with someone I do love in several ways); but which immediately puts me into significant debt - on a minimal budget - significantly threatens my retirement and my house in retirement - with a person who if they can earn enough money to support their own debt payments will be at least 3 hours away and we would get together a couple evenings or mornings a week.

I'm not looking to marry into money. But I'm not looking to hurt myself a lot financially either. I do actually figure I could support a non-working wife if she entered the relationship debt free and does not have extravagant spending habits. But even given that - I would like someone who has the reasonable potential to add financially to the relationship in some manner. To me that is the balance between the two.

Perry

I think you have your answer. Its not money; its your security as you head into retirement. Since you are quite concerned, I think that this will be a significant strain on your marriage should you be married.

 

[movie zombie]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

Well, the young can talk about LOVE all they want - and for those who have made the correct choice early, I salute you, but when you get to be our age, a harder, more pragmatic look at marriage is in order. You've got less time left to get it WRONG!

this.

i admitted to mistakes, some financial. i don't have the time, energy, or resources to rise like a phoenix from the ashes once again. time is NOT on my side with that regard. thanks for stating it so well, ksinger!

MoZo

 

[Gypsy]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

Argh, ate my edit to add (again).

In my opinion, you have to marry someone who is willing to build a foundation of trust, respect, friendship and love with you. Who you share views with on major topics like marriage, divorce, kids, raising kids, family, life, jobs, illness. You can't predict what life throws at you. If you marry someone solely for the external things... money, house, income, health, whatever... those things may not last. And then you, as a couple, won't last. If you marry someone for their income and they get laid off... what happens? But if you marry someone you know shares the same philosophy on jobs and income and money as you do... then if you get laid off they trust you to do everything you can to get a new job, they support you emotionally and monetarily until you do (without resentment), and they celebrate with you when you do find a job. And then when you look at your relationship you see that even though the external (the job) was in chaos, you both were stable and secure in your relationship and that the hardship has made you both closer and stronger.

That's what I mean about building something greater than the both of you. The internal stability that you build between you is what you marry for. It's what you depend on. And it's what matters. If you don't FEEL that, if all you have between you is expectations built on things that are external to your relationship... then you don't have much of a relationship and, to me, you don't have a foundation for marriage.

I'm not saying money isn't important. Or that love isn't important. What I am saying is that they are very important. But there is a lot more than just those two. Yes, you shouldn't marry someone who will destroy you financially. But that's an 'of course.' You shouldn't marry someone who will destroy you emtionally either. But life is unpredicable. And marriage needs more than love and money, but it also needs both of those. What happens when the heat burns off and you aren't "in love" anymore?

We just had an annoymous poster on here who married for finanical stability, but not enough love. She was unfullfilled sexually and considering virtually (e-relationship) stepping out on that relationship. We've heard in this thread of marriages that broke up that had love, but not enough money. You need more than both. A lot MORE, but you need both as well.

What's got me worried about your post is I'm not hearing that 'more'. And without that more... both love and money are insuffienct usually. You just get those marriages where people just 'drift apart'... there's no center to hold when money isn't enough and 'in love' has changed to 'love'.

 

[Jennifer W]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

Perry, a few people have said that money and earnings are bound up in who someone is and will affect the relationship. While this couldn't be further from my own experience, it's obviously really important to some couples and would be enough to make or break some relationships. If that is your approach, they it's important to give it adequate consideration, and quite unfair of me to suggest it doesn't matter in my earlier post. All I can say it that it wasn't a considerationfor me.

If you want the companionship and love that a marriage implies, but you're wary of financial consequences, do you see any way of being married but retaining separate finances? My husband and I have done that, and we've never argued about money in the 14 years we've been together. We are flexible and we have similar goals (and one firm rule of no credit), but we're each responsible for our own financial wellbeing and it works very well for us. Is this something that you might be able to consider in some shape or form? I don't know how it works where you live, but where we are, you aren't held responsible for a spouse's debt unless you co-signed when the debt was taken on.

 

[perry]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

Thanks all:

Interesting article about finances between spouses today; which is kinda related.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40794684/ns/today-money/

Fair use extract:

A national survey or more than 200 people reveals about 80 percent of spouses acknowledge making secret purchases. To compound this dirty little secret, nearly one-fifth (18.5 percent) of those married admit to having credit cards their spouse knows nothing about.

"Sex isn't the last taboo, money is," says Jean Chatzky, personal finance expert and TODAY Money contributor. "We feel a lot of shame and embarrassment about things we want that we think our mate wouldn't value or worse would blame us for buying."

The survey, conducted for CESI Debt Solutions, reveals 38 percent of married couples are concerned the revelation of their financial unfaithfulness would result in their spouse seeking divorce or separation. Some 43 percent said they wanted to avoid an argument.

-------

See the link for the full article...


Have a great day,

Perry

 

[Imdanny]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

I read that and I think it's interesting (in a bad way) that individual members of a couple do that. I would never do that.

 

[partgypsy]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

I ditto Gypsy.
I would marry someone who I felt compatible with, both sexually, philosophically, intellectually, etc, and had shared goals for our current and future life. When my husband and I met, neither of us had any money (then or for a long time), but we have a shared outlook on life. A confession: my husband has never made much money. What I mean I don't think there is a single year he has made more than 15 grand in all his life. But, other than a couple grand (paid back in 6 months), he has never been in debt and is a responsible person. He allowed us to buy a fixer upper house that he fixed up over time, saving us loads of money on mortgage payments. He takes care of our kids so I can be full time bread winner, cooks most meals, takes out the garbage, picks up the dog poop and a million other things I don't notice. I hold down the office job, but to tell you the truth most days my job is easier. In short, we are a team, and we work together for our long term goals. Are there days I wish my husband made more money? I'd be lying if I said no. But I also know I am much better off WITH him than without him.

 

[partgypsy]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

And what the heck is a Christmas near-proposal?

 

[partgypsy]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

I know that some people have moral issues with declaring bankruptcy, but is that an option for her?

"In this case, I do know where most of the debt came from and figure that their would be no more debt due to that reason should we get married. However, I also see no realistic way to pay off the estimated total debt without hurting me significantly financially (which I see no reason to do). I also see no way for the other party to realistically pay it off either even working their current career in their current location. They can make minimum payments on it; but that is about all."

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

My grandfather, who was a man of few words, always said "it's as easy to fall in love with a rich man as it is a poor man"

Money has never factored into my relationships. Sure, it makes the world go round, but it's not what makes you a rich person. You can be as happy eating Mac and Cheese with someone who rocks your world as you can be eating lobster. Same goes with every thing else, it's the quality of that relationship that sets the tone for your life together, not the money in your bank account.

With that said, honestly Perry, I'm sad for you. You're looking at your relationship and her problems as something you'd be "marrying into" as opposed to looking at the person you'd be marrying. It's all very analytical. It's cut and dry, black and white. If all that overshadows your future, why even continue the relationship, why even consider the future? There is absolutely, I can promise you, no perfect situation. When I married my husband, I was a serious earner with the potential to go very far in my career and provide a wildly lush life...then, I went back to school and decided to work non-profit. My husband, not once, ever mention the salary I was leaving behind or the hours I'd have to work. And guess what? We're still incredibly happy. We're still able to have the life we want together. Because it was never about the money, we've adjusted and maybe even better off now than before. If you're both bringing to the table the best of you, then you'll be rich in the ways that truly count.

 

[Imdanny]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

If you're both bringing to the table the best of you, then you'll be rich in the ways that truly count.

 

[TravelingGal]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

Money (the making of) didn't factor into me marrying TGuy. However existing DEBT is a major factor and could possibly have been a dealbreaker if it had been massive consumer debt (which I relate to irresponsibility).

When I was 28, I went on a Mexican vacation with two women who were 38. One was divorced, the other never married. They both said while love is important, it was (at their age) important for a man to be fairly rich. At 28, I thought that was kind of sad.

Now at 38, I totally understand.

 

[TravelingGal]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

OK, read more of the thread now...sorry for posting beforehand...

Marrying for only love is like filling up your gas tank and hoping the car goes forever. It can't run on fumes. On the otherhand, if there's no love, it's like buying the junkiest car off the lot - no amount of maintenance is going to make it a healthy happy car.

You need a great quality car, and the money to maintain it.

I guess because I AM older, I don't think just marrying for love makes sense for most of us (no pun intended). You DO marry into a situation - just look at how many young couples in "love" get divorced because they financially struggle, or hate their inlaws, etc. If you want a marriage to have the best chance at succeeding, you have to use your heart AND your head and analyze a bit.

As ksinger said, the young can afford love. They have the rest of their lives to build finances. And if it doesn't work out, they can go head and be part of that 50% statistic with less collateral damage. For the older, who wants to have someone suck your nest egg dry? No thank you.

 

[movie zombie]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

TGal, as life and responsibilities changed for you....from 28 to 38...your view changed. that's what happened for us that are older. one never knows in a relationship what is going to get thrown at it. to start with too much baggage....whether it is emotional or financial....isn't fair to either person.

Perry is wise to be upfront with who he is and what he is like. most are not. i'm sure he's watched marriages come and go around him. i also think that deep down he's already been honest with himself and is only looking to this community for points of view that not only validate his thoughts but points of view that might challenge them.


MoZo

 

[Haven]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

When some of you post that you can't just marry for love, that there must be more, it reminds me of how divergent our personal definitions of love must be.

For me, I can only love someone with whom I share core beliefs, values, and ideas about the way I want to live my life. Thus, it has always been confusing for me when people say "You can't live on love alone" because that statement makes it sound like there is little more behind loving someone than mutual attraction and flutters in your stomach. For me, I have only ever loved someone after much time and discussion and happy revelations about shared ideas and beliefs. When I reach the point of truly loving someone, there just don't exist any major divides in our outlooks or situations, because the process of falling in love, for me, includes vetting each other to ensure that so many different things align.

I keep thinking of my high school students when posters talk about living on love alone. Are there really adults who can fall in love without first knowing that their major beliefs and ideas about life align?

So, Perry, I'm going to revise my initial response:
While considerations of earning potential never entered my mind when I was dating, many other things had to "click" in order for me to even begin to feel affection for someone. If earning potential is important to you, then it is a wise consideration.
Whatever happens, I hope you are happy!

 

[CUSO]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

Well, I married for love and security. I was always and only attracted to College educated/carreer oriented women. I would never date a woman who wanted to be a stay at home mom, or was an underachiever (according to me of course). The fact that I am a SAHD just happened, was not planned. But, I knew what I wanted in life, so I programmed myself to like a certain woman from and early age. Now I met my wife when she was 18, and she is beautiful, and she was way smarter than me and very much wanted to be a lawyer. All of that put together made me realize she was the one. I just got lucky she thought I was too. But also remember this, most people divorce due to financial reasons, so to not factor that into the equasion is silly.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

Well, I married for love and security. I was always and only attracted to College educated/carreer oriented women. I would never date a woman who wanted to be a stay at home mom, or was an underachiever (according to me of course). The fact that I am a SAHD just happened, was not planned. But, I knew what I wanted in life, so I programmed myself to like a certain woman from and early age. Now I met my wife when she was 18, and she is beautiful, and she was way smarter than me and very much wanted to be a lawyer. All of that put together made me realize she was the one. I just got lucky she thought I was too. But also remember this, most people divorce due to financial reasons, so to not factor that into the equasion is silly.

yep, affair and/or money. you can love each other to death,but love don't pay the bills.

 

[marymm]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

Perry, what I have to admit I find perhaps more troublesome is that you only recently learned that this person -- who you love in some ways so presumably have known for a reasonable period of time -- is significantly in debt. That is a big secret to keep from someone with whom you have a significant relationship. This secrecy rings more alarm bells for me than the existence of the debt.

I don't know what state you live in or what access you have to legal advice, but oftentimes repayment of debt incurred by one party prior to a marriage cannot be sought from the future spouse. Your house, as long as you leave it in your name alone, should also be protected as a pre-marital asset. If you did marry, you could be liable for new debt incurred by your spouse during the life of the marriage, but not the prior debt. If the financial issues relating to her debt is the larger concern, perhaps an attorney could advise as to your legal liability and obligations.

But I wonder if your relationship together is one more of loving companionship? Because I'm thinking it seems like she works hard, and will be having some future health issues, and if you truly loved her, as much as the financial issues concern you, you would also be worried about her well-being and the ways you could look out for her (and her you). If she works somewhere 6 hours away, I wonder how much time you two have spent together and how well you really know each other - maybe the Christmas near-proposal and the news that she has significant debt is actually a sign that you two aren't at a place where marriage is the next step.

 

[perry]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

And what the heck is a Christmas near-proposal?

A decades old good friend who was visiting asking - seriously - about what would I think of marrying her?... She knows I'm looking, as she is now thinking of marriage again. We talked a lot over two days about each others wants, needs, and issues. In many ways we are quite comfortable with each other as we dated in college - drifted apart - but stayed in contact and have done things together now and then over the decades. In the last several years we have been talking on the phone a fair amount. In the end there were only several items that did not mesh well - and the others are probably workable (we would compromise).

Perry

 

[HopeDream]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

Money is power.

Perry, if you take on her debt and spend the rest of your career paying it down, and have to reduce your standard of living to be together, she will "owe" you for the rest of your life (if she is a sensative and responsible person). Are you sure you want that kind of baggage in this relationship?

like it or not, your actions could shift the balance of power in your relationship from equals to non-equals.

If important financial decisions are made in the future - will she have an equal say? or will you hold more decision-making power because of her bad financial history.

If you're concerned about the situation now, and you do bail her out, how likely are you to become bitter about it in the future? Is it likely to be brought up again during major arguments you may have in the future?

If she could use bankrupcy to clear her debt and start from zero, I think you two would have a better chance of having a good relationship.

I hope only the best for you.

 

[megumic]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

it seems to me that you are more in love with your financial security than you are with your potential spouse.

edit: why don't you just get a pre-nup, and/or just be domestic partners? why do you have to actually get married?

 

[AnneinGA]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

Perry, I feel compelled to respond to your post. I wnated to make a distinction between "money" and, for lack of a better word "business".

My DH and I got married almost eight years ago. We married for love & for business. We melded, we meshed, and we had a similar business (life) philosophy. He was divorced and in debt, and I was divorced and in just a little debt, but we both had learned from our previous mistakes, and I was quite comfortable that he would not make the same dumb financial decisions he had made (and he knew I wouldn't either). We both knew that we would not jeopardize the "unit".

While some people might find it repulsive and unromantic to think about your converstaion with her about the potential of marriage, (as I would have in my 20's), the facts of the matter are that a marriage is at its core, a business philosophy arrangement; money is only a small fraction, the rest is sharing the load 50/50, how you approach life, how you handle challenges, how you respond to people; so much of it is not the flaming fire of passion - it's the quiet steadiness that you know your partner has your back.

When we got married, we did so because it was the right time to do it. Because to make what we wanted to happen happen, that was the logical next step. Don't misunderstand, there was love, but not in the rock-solid way that there is love now; the love that has blossomed in the face of strife and challenge and joy. In all practicality, it probably would have been better to let our relationship bloom before we took the step of marraige, but doing what we did made our relationship stronger, even though it was through tough times.

My advice to you would be to separate your emotions from your business needs (and it sounds like you are doing that anyway). You obviously care for this woman, and it seems from your post that whatever she did to get herself in debt would not happen again (medical bills?) Would you need to pay off her debt? You seem to be taking this on as your responsibility - but why not put a proportionate share of income into a joint account for the household bills and let her continue to handle her finances and you to continue to handle yours? I guess I don't think that there is an either/or here - you either marry her and pay off her debt or you don't marry her. Seems to me that the smart business decision would be, if you love her, to consider a relationship with her that would keep your finances separate and allow you to explore your emotional relationship further.

 

[Jennifer W]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

Well, I married for love and security. I was always and only attracted to College educated/carreer oriented women. I would never date a woman who wanted to be a stay at home mom, or was an underachiever (according to me of course). The fact that I am a SAHD just happened, was not planned. But, I knew what I wanted in life, so I programmed myself to like a certain woman from and early age. Now I met my wife when she was 18, and she is beautiful, and she was way smarter than me and very much wanted to be a lawyer. All of that put together made me realize she was the one. I just got lucky she thought I was too. But also remember this, most people divorce due to financial reasons, so to not factor that into the equasion is silly.

yep, affair and/or money. you can love each other to death,but love don't pay the bills.

Well, we're all different. I'd rather live in a cardboard box with my husband than in a mansion without him. No amount of money would compensate for being without him. I live in a country with housing benefit, welfare, free health care and education though - perhaps that influences my view. Losing everything would be appalling, but we'd still survive.

I don't expect love to pay the bills, but on balance, if I couldn't pay them, I'd rather be loved than alone.

 

[swingirl]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

Perry, has she considered claiming bankruptcy since, from what you can tell, there is no way she can dig herself out of debt with her current career?

Unfortunately money does come between people. It's not about living in a cardboard box with the love of your life, it's about common goals and values. Someone who gets themselves in deep debt (other than from medical expenses or student loans) likely has a different attitude about spending than someone who lives within their means and worries about retirement.

A couple should become stronger together than apart. They shouldn't become weaker as a unit. I think the older we are, the more we recognize that love loses it's luster when there are issues.

 

[ksinger]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

Well, I married for love and security. I was always and only attracted to College educated/carreer oriented women. I would never date a woman who wanted to be a stay at home mom, or was an underachiever (according to me of course). The fact that I am a SAHD just happened, was not planned. But, I knew what I wanted in life, so I programmed myself to like a certain woman from and early age. Now I met my wife when she was 18, and she is beautiful, and she was way smarter than me and very much wanted to be a lawyer. All of that put together made me realize she was the one. I just got lucky she thought I was too. But also remember this, most people divorce due to financial reasons, so to not factor that into the equasion is silly.

yep, affair and/or money. you can love each other to death,but love don't pay the bills.

Well, we're all different. I'd rather live in a cardboard box with my husband than in a mansion without him. No amount of money would compensate for being without him. I live in a country with housing benefit, welfare, free health care and education though - perhaps that influences my view. Losing everything would be appalling, but we'd still survive.

I don't expect love to pay the bills, but on balance, if I couldn't pay them, I'd rather be loved than alone.

You can bank on the fact that it does. It's easy to say you'd live in a cardboard box when you know you'll never actually have to live in a cardboard box.

The fact is, that whether we admit it to ourselves or not, there IS a financial calculus going on under the surface, much like Haven describes. Even the evolutionary biologists tell us that women in particular, look for visual clues about a man's fitness to provide for her offspring, and choose marriage partners accordingly, whether they are aware of it or not. Younger people often don't want to actually talk about it frankly, because it seems unromantic, and it is. But it's also reality. How money is handled is a compatibility issue - a big one if we're to believe the stats about the reasons people divorce. I can say that my personal experience hews to the stats, since it was a large issue in the failure of my first marriage.

Jennifer, you say that no amount of money could compensate you for the loss of your husband. I throw out for consideration, what if you found out today, that he had about 30,000 in debt that you didn't know about, or just quit his job and decided YOU need to be the sole support of the family? How would your love fare then? You probably are thinking it's a stupid scenario, because your spouse would never DO that, which of course just hammers home the point that we ARE choosing for fiscal compatibility, along with all the rest, even if it's unconscious. If you had felt at any point in your courtship that this man was likely to do either of those things, you probably would have ditched him, yes?

Previous eras were quite open about this "business"aspect of marriage. Certainly marriage at any point in history has included love and respect as a desirable thing, but a clear-eyed look at the fiscal skills, or lack of them, of a potential spouse was expected as well. "Marrying well" was essential for the woman AND the man. I'm not sure at what point romantic love-trumps-all reasons for marriage became the expectation, probably somewhere between Rosie The Riveter and bra-burning and the social acceptance of divorce or thereabouts, but now now it seems you often get eviscerated for displaying even a hint of realism concerning marriage.

As others have pointed out, loving someone is a package deal, and teasing out how they handle money from who they are, is probably an exercise in futility. Most of this discussion is really about the finer points of what people mean by "love". Fun to hash over tho.

 

[Imdanny]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

Well, I married for love and security.

I guess this is the part where I have to think we shouldn't judge other people because I admit I don't understand how you didn't want your future wife to stay at home or be an underachiever in your eyes but you just happened to be a stay at home dad. You seem to be doing something/ living a certain way that you say you didn't want a future wife to do. So what I get from this is that it's a very personal decision.

 

[Imdanny]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

Well, I married for love and security. I was always and only attracted to College educated/carreer oriented women. I would never date a woman who wanted to be a stay at home mom, or was an underachiever (according to me of course). The fact that I am a SAHD just happened, was not planned. But, I knew what I wanted in life, so I programmed myself to like a certain woman from and early age. Now I met my wife when she was 18, and she is beautiful, and she was way smarter than me and very much wanted to be a lawyer. All of that put together made me realize she was the one. I just got lucky she thought I was too. But also remember this, most people divorce due to financial reasons, so to not factor that into the equasion is silly.

yep, affair and/or money. you can love each other to death,but love don't pay the bills.

Well, we're all different. I'd rather live in a cardboard box with my husband than in a mansion without him. No amount of money would compensate for being without him. I live in a country with housing benefit, welfare, free health care and education though - perhaps that influences my view. Losing everything would be appalling, but we'd still survive.

I don't expect love to pay the bills, but on balance, if I couldn't pay them, I'd rather be loved than alone.

I see your point of view.

And to those of you who are saying that financial matters factor into it, please think about this hypothetical: if your spouse was in a serious accident, heaven forbid, and was in a coma or had a spinal injury, would you love them less because they could no longer take themselves? Absolutely not, at least according to the way I think, so, yes, I think the essence of love is not financial at all.

 

[Jennifer W]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

Well, I married for love and security. I was always and only attracted to College educated/carreer oriented women. I would never date a woman who wanted to be a stay at home mom, or was an underachiever (according to me of course). The fact that I am a SAHD just happened, was not planned. But, I knew what I wanted in life, so I programmed myself to like a certain woman from and early age. Now I met my wife when she was 18, and she is beautiful, and she was way smarter than me and very much wanted to be a lawyer. All of that put together made me realize she was the one. I just got lucky she thought I was too. But also remember this, most people divorce due to financial reasons, so to not factor that into the equasion is silly.

yep, affair and/or money. you can love each other to death,but love don't pay the bills.

Well, we're all different. I'd rather live in a cardboard box with my husband than in a mansion without him. No amount of money would compensate for being without him. I live in a country with housing benefit, welfare, free health care and education though - perhaps that influences my view. Losing everything would be appalling, but we'd still survive.

I don't expect love to pay the bills, but on balance, if I couldn't pay them, I'd rather be loved than alone.

You can bank on the fact that it does. It's easy to say you'd live in a cardboard box when you know you'll never actually have to live in a cardboard box.


Jennifer, you say that no amount of money could compensate you for the loss of your husband. I throw out for consideration, what if you found out today, that he had about 30,000 in debt that you didn't know about, or just quit his job and decided YOU need to be the sole support of the family? How would your love fare then? You probably are thinking it's a stupid scenario, because your spouse would never DO that, which of course just hammers home the point that we ARE choosing for fiscal compatibility, along with all the rest, even if it's unconscious. If you had felt at any point in your courtship that this man was likely to do either of those things, you probably would have ditched him, yes?

No.

He is seriously considering quitting his job at the moment and will be unlikely to work (at least in his own profession) again. I will be the sole support of the family. That's ok. He was our sole support when I decided to quit my job to follow a dream last year. I love him. If he has £30k of debt, I'd do all that I could to stop that and would support him to get out of it, whether by paying it myself or helping him pay it. In the way that he would support me if it was my debt. What use would £30k be to me if my husband was worried to death? What would I enjoy spending it on if I'd lost him over it?

I haven't lived in a cardboard box, but I have spent a short time in a homeless hostel. I still don't fear poverty the way I fear losing the people I love.

ETA
We're different, with different priorities and that's fine. But no. I would not have ditched him, then or now. The only person responsible for my financial security is me. I would not and do not rely on my husband for my standard of living. He handles his money, I handle mine. There is some overlap, but we have largely separate finances.

 

[ksinger]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

No.

He is seriously considering quitting his job at the moment and will be unlikely to work (at least in his own profession) again. I will be the sole support of the family. That's ok. He was our sole support when I decided to quit my job to follow a dream last year. I love him. If he has £30k of debt, I'd do all that I could to stop that and would support him to get out of it, whether by paying it myself or helping him pay it. In the way that he would support me if it was my debt. What use would £30k be to me if my husband was worried to death? What would I enjoy spending it on if I'd lost him over it?

I haven't lived in a cardboard box, but I have spent a short time in a homeless hostel. I still don't fear poverty the way I fear losing the people I love.

ETA
We're different, with different priorities and that's fine. But no. I would not have ditched him, then or now. The only person responsible for my financial security is me. I would not and do not rely on my husband for my standard of living. He handles his money, I handle mine. There is some overlap, but we have largely separate finances.

I stand corrected. You are clearly a bigger person than I am then, because I could not do that. For me in a relationship, there ARE a few dealbreakers. They are very very few, especially at my age (that less time left to get it wrong thing), but there are some. Continued fiscal irresponsibility would be one of them. (Serious illness is NOT) I salute you for an idealism that I have never been able to muster.

 

[Jennifer W]

Re: Ying & Yang: Marry for Love, or for Money, or a balance

Each to their own! It isn't a test of character, just a different set of priorities. No right or wrong. For Perry, my priorities won't work because he has a different outlook (and is at a different life stage to me, I totally accept that has a bearing). For me, his priorities wouldn't work for the same reason. Doesn't matter (unless he's about to propose to me, of course...j/k)

ETA J isn't irresponsible - he's thinking of quitting a job that causes him nothing but grief some days to be a SAHD, not betting the house on a poker game or anything!