stace79 Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 I was curious about this so I mentioned it to a colleague who recently married his third wife, and he assures me this is not necessarily the case. When he married his second wife his child support payments for his kids with his first wife did not increase, and when he divorced his second wife and married his third wife his payments still remained the same. He said child support is calculated as a percentage of the father's income, and the only way it changes is if his income or expenditure significantly increase or decrease. So for example if he earned more money his CS payments would increase, whereas if he had another child to support (with his new wife) he would be liable to pay less CS. It is NOT calculated based on his wife's income too - if that were the case nobody would ever marry a man with kids and couples would file separate tax returns. Au contraire... it partly depends on how big a jerk your ex is. And it is based on your income based on your tax return, so if you file a joint tax return, a new spouse's income could affect that. But if an ex is vindictive enough and has a good attorney, they could easily get more money based on new income from a new marriage. Also, just the cost of being dragged through court proceedings sucks, regardless of whether you have to pay more child support or not.
bean1 Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 I think the OP should seriously consider whether or not she wants to marry a man with minor children. There is nothing wrong with not wanting to marry someone with minor children, but if you are going to do it, you should at least try to treat them the same as your own. Yes, you are not their mother, but to expect your husband to keep separate bank funds in case of any above-average expenditures for the children... it just doesn't come off right. It pretty much pegs them much lower on the totem pole.
Trialbyfire Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 Since everyone is addressing the child aspect, I agree that you need to accept the children with the father. I think it unfair to put the father in the middle, like a tug-o-war of finances, affection or attention. If you can't accept that his children are part of him, then it's best to find a man with no children. Having said that, your b/f sounds draconian in his traditional ideals of home and hearth. On the otherhand, if you expect to become a SAHM for life and that's what he also wants, expect this kind of attitude.
Ruby Slippers Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 It sounds to me as though you have a strong grasp of finances and healthy independence within a relationship. I absolutely agree that you should not be obligated to spend your money on his kids, anymore than he should be obligated to spend his money on any of your financial liabilities. If you both willingly decide to contribute more to the joint account for emergencies that might relate to these liabilities in the future, as you become more secure and settled in the relationship, fine. But the early years are unpredictable, and you are VERY SMART to protect yourself and your finances in this way. It sounds to me like maybe you're in a more stable position, and he is bummed that you aren't willing to merge everything 100% so he can take advantage of your strength. If he loves you, he will realize your very sensible measures for self-protection are no threat to him, and he'll let go of his very old-fashioned dogma about money and communication.
Ruby Slippers Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 The reason he says he wants just one 'our money' account is, he is just accusing me of: not being 'fully committed' to the relationship, wanting to retain my independence, and wanting free will to "waste" money. He says that I should just agree with everything he has to say, that I should never be annoyed with him and when I am annoyed, that I shouldn't voice them to him, that I should just 'let them go'. Everything that I get annoyed about to him is 'petty' to him. He also says that down the road, when I am a stay at home mom and he's working (assuming we ever get there, but it's not looking good now), that I should just go along with everything he says, because he would then be the finanial breadwinner. All of this just cinges my hyde. If you are being forthright and honest here, this all reveals major insecurities and control issues on his part. The parts I underlined in particular suggest a dysfunctional parent-child relationship with no trust or communication, rather than an equal partnership.
clv0116 Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 .... you should not be obligated to spend your money on his kids, anymore than he should be obligated to spend his money on any of your financial liabilities. Well I think both should be shared so at least I'm consistent.
Ruby Slippers Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 ^ Are you suggesting that I'm not? Also, in thinking about your issue further, I realized that his comments about you not questioning anything when he's earning the money and you're caring for the children completely undermine your child care and domestic role. If he can't evolve his antiquated views, he doesn't sound like good marriage material to me.
Thornton Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 I certainly don't think someone's financial liabilities should be shared upon marriage. So if I meet an amazing guy who happens to have a huge amount of debt, and I marry him, I should help him to pay off that debt? And then we fall out or he cheats or something, and I've wasted thousands paying off someone else's debt? I don't think so... I think the one who incurred the debt should pay it off.
QuietOverAllHoops Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 Why are you dating a guy with children who thinks he knows so much more than you? Surely you can do better than that. Do you like him for his money?
clv0116 Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 I certainly don't think someone's financial liabilities should be shared upon marriage Wow, really? I'd expect to undertake any obligations my wife had. *boggle*
Thornton Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 The way I see it is: I've been sensible, I don't have any debt of my own, so why should I suffer for someone else's financial obligations? They got themselves in that situation without any help from me, so they can get themselves out of it. If you love someone, you can't stop loving them just because they have some financial obligations... but you can keep your finances separate from theirs and let them deal with their own mistakes, and at the same time minimise the risk of them cleaning you out in the future. The OP obviously doesn't trust her bf not to clean her out if there's something he wants to spend money on, so separate finances are probably best.
stace79 Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 The way I see it is: I've been sensible, I don't have any debt of my own, so why should I suffer for someone else's financial obligations? They got themselves in that situation without any help from me, so they can get themselves out of it. If you love someone, you can't stop loving them just because they have some financial obligations... but you can keep your finances separate from theirs and let them deal with their own mistakes, and at the same time minimise the risk of them cleaning you out in the future. The OP obviously doesn't trust her bf not to clean her out if there's something he wants to spend money on, so separate finances are probably best. I think things should be kept separate until you are legally married. Then I think it should become "ours" rather than "mine" and "yours". That's sort of the point of getting married. You may be able to adopt some sort of financial agreement to address obligations incurred prior to marriage. But do you really think that once you get married your spouse's financial troubles won't affect you? They will. If you're trying to buy a house together, a car together, refinance a mortgage, apply for financial aid for your kids' college education -- all those take into account both parents' financial situations and taxable income. If you don't want to share your burdens -- financial or otherwise -- you are better off just dating or living together.
sally4sara Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 The way I see it is: I've been sensible, I don't have any debt of my own, so why should I suffer for someone else's financial obligations? They got themselves in that situation without any help from me, so they can get themselves out of it. If you love someone, you can't stop loving them just because they have some financial obligations... but you can keep your finances separate from theirs and let them deal with their own mistakes, and at the same time minimise the risk of them cleaning you out in the future. The OP obviously doesn't trust her bf not to clean her out if there's something he wants to spend money on, so separate finances are probably best. This is not an opinion or emotion one should have for their future spouse. This is grounds for not getting married. Why would you ever marry someone you felt this way about? And if they make financial mistakes that you would be too sensible to make yourself, what do you think you will argue about once you ARE married? A SAHM needs a roof over the kid's head. If dad, the only source of income, make a dumb financial move, how is mom not going to be effected? Marital finances tend to have a ripple effect you cannot avoid. Anyone who has ever even had a roommate knows this. Its not even a "right or wrong" situation being discussed here. I have yet to hear a viable way this could work for the OP if she intends to be a SAHM.
BUENG1 Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 I'm not sure if this has been discussed in forums previously but, what are your thoughts on joint and/or separate checking accounts between you and your significant other as to sharing financial responsibilities (mortgage, etc)? We had another 'discussion' again last night, and of course, can't come to an agreement on anything. We were discussing how we would be handling money when we would be living together and after we were married. Granted, we're not even engaged, so all of this is theoretical. He was married for years and years previously and I've been single for awhile now, never married, so he thinks he knows so much more than me. He thinks that after we are married, that everything should go into an 'our money' account; and everything should come out of that, 'my bills', 'his bills' and 'our bills' and both of our incomes would go into that account. I think that is a recipe for disaster and think, that we should have separate accounts, plus one that we both put money into, for housing-related obligations. One, I think we both should have some money of our own that we don't have to answer to anyone else about; Two, I think it's a way to do it that would cause less fighting and; Three, he has 2 kids from his previous marriage that is responsible for child support and whatever else comes up. I don't think it would be fair that some of my money would have to contribute to that. I don't think he should be responsible for my personal debts and responsibilities, nor do I think I should have to contribute toward his. What if down the road, some large expenditure or emergency came along that had to do with the kids, and he had to clean out 'our' account to take care of his half. Suddenly I don't have a dime to my name because little johnny had to have his tonsils removed or something. And what about non-emergencies? What if when the older one starts driving, he wants to buy him a car? Heaven forbid I have anything to say about the boys, but nevernomind that it's my money too. The reason he says he wants just one 'our money' account is, he is just accusing me of: not being 'fully committed' to the relationship, wanting to retain my independence, and wanting free will to "waste" money. He says that I should just agree with everything he has to say, that I should never be annoyed with him and when I am annoyed, that I shouldn't voice them to him, that I should just 'let them go'. Everything that I get annoyed about to him is 'petty' to him. He also says that down the road, when I am a stay at home mom and he's working (assuming we ever get there, but it's not looking good now), that I should just go along with everything he says, because he would then be the finanial breadwinner. All of this just cinges my hyde. what do you guys think? When you say you are going to be a stay at home parent, are you not going to have any income? I guess if thats not the case or if you are talking about savings then the rest of my post is mute. I think you asking him to deposit half of the paycheck into your account and then having no say in how its spent(especially if an emergency happens) is a little hard to take. From my point of view the money he gets from earning a living is your family's money not just yours. I don't think having seperate checking account is a bad thing, but to rigidly define my money his money is usually a bad thing. And in the case that you don't want your money going to child support if he gets behind etc, even if you have a separate account they will garnish his wages directly. I can see your point if you think your account will get levied, but it seems like you are concerned about more than this.
Eleventy Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 Just like anything else in a relationship, what matters is what you guys agree on and what you're willing to compromise/settle on. If you guys can't come to an agreement here that is compatible, don't bother getting married -- simple as that.
Star Gazer Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 I think that is a recipe for disaster and think, that we should have separate accounts, plus one that we both put money into, for housing-related obligations. One, I think we both should have some money of our own that we don't have to answer to anyone else about This is how I would do it. One account for joint expenses (household expenses, vacations, and the like) that each contributes the same % of their income to, and separate accounts for our own things (shopping for me, yard tools for him, whatever).
Thornton Posted June 26, 2009 Posted June 26, 2009 This is how I would do it. One account for joint expenses (household expenses, vacations, and the like) that each contributes the same % of their income to, and separate accounts for our own things (shopping for me, yard tools for him, whatever). I wouldn't say the couple should both contribute the same % of their income to a joint account, because one person would be contributing more than the other. Both people should contribute the same amount, so all expenses are shared equally and the higher earner is left with more cash in their personal account, which is justified because after all they are earning more.
Ruby Slippers Posted June 27, 2009 Posted June 27, 2009 I wouldn't say the couple should both contribute the same % of their income to a joint account, because one person would be contributing more than the other. Both people should contribute the same amount, so all expenses are shared equally and the higher earner is left with more cash in their personal account, which is justified because after all they are earning more. Yeah. The lower earner always likes it that way. This thread is bringing back memories of how an ex of mine voluntarily offered to pay all our rent and bills when we moved in together. I said no because I didn't want anyone to be obligated to anyone -- I wanted us to be equals. I'd probably be a rich woman if I hadn't been so hell bent on equality all throughout my 20s.
Thornton Posted June 27, 2009 Posted June 27, 2009 Yeah. The lower earner always likes it that way. Why would the lower earner like it that way? It makes sense to me that the lower earner would want to make unequal contributions, so that their higher earning partner would be contributing more money. Paying equal amounts only benefits the higher earner, because he/she has more disposable income left.
Ruby Slippers Posted June 27, 2009 Posted June 27, 2009 ^ Sorry, I was unclear. I meant the lower earner prefers the percentage system -- that means his or her contributions are lower.
clv0116 Posted June 27, 2009 Posted June 27, 2009 That only makes sense if the lower earner uses less water, makes less garbage, turns on fewer lights and uses less space in the house. Which is to say it makes no sense. Either pay equal or just admit the higher earner is packing you.
Recommended Posts