Nobody wants to bet 50% of their stuff that they will love someone forever, while paying the government more tax money yearly for the privilege? I do wonder why…
At least among the single people I know, nobody wants to compromise and they have an inflated sense of themselves. In addition they are using apps that are basically just about sexual interaction and not romantic connection. They aren't even reaching like a 3rd-5th date with most of their prospective partners, let alone thinking about the costs of divorce.
> In addition they are using apps that are basically just about sexual interaction and not romantic connection.
"Wouldn't it be great if finding a partner was exactly like shopping, where you hunt around until you find a thing meets all your fussy requirements?", said a disturbingly large percentage of society.
The dating (or mating) market is a great example of a market where agents provide huge value. Both sellers are unable to objectively value what they are selling (themselves), and so agents familiar with them and willing to vouch for them (family, friends, coworkers' spouses, etc) are in prime position to communicate with other agents and come up with reasonable valuations.
However, this works as long as the networks remain broad and active, and people participate in them (you need at least some "busybodies"). I can see this being hampered if people frequently move, and move away from friends/family.
If it wasn't clear enough, I was mocking the attitude of viewing it like a market and the people as products. Talking about "sellers" and "reasonable valuations" is taking that attitude to a whole different level.
If course, our society is so brain dead it has trouble understanding anything that isn't modeled on shopping in a market. So everything must be converted into "shopping in a market."
I find it useful to use multiple perspectives to analyze things. In this case, I think viewing it as a market on a population wide level can help explain why it does not work like shopping.
Being married doesn't necessarily increase your income tax in the US. Some couples pay more, while others pay less, depending on how incomes differ between the two spouses both in amounts and in kind. Being married does give you more options--a good tax preparer will have their software compute both the taxes for filing jointly and for filing separately.
If you both make over 400k, no matter how you file, you pay more if married. Go look at brackets. Most people don’t know it. But “married filing separately” brackets are LOWER than “single”
No, it is not double. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduced the marriage penalty quite a bit due to broadening the tax brackets. It is still there, especially for very high earners, but not noticeable for the vast majority.
Surely $600K as a couple income is even on the top endz even in tech. So, for most normal couples like where one earns $300K and the other $100K, filing as a married couple is better, no?
I think I misunderstood you, and did not realize tax slab meant tax bracket, as assumed you meant the US doubles the tax liability if you are filling married joint.
[assuming United States for everything here, in case it wasn't obvious]
In addition to the brackets, there's tons of other deductions, exemptions, etc that are higher or double for married-filing-jointly tax returns.
Just one example is the capital gains on selling your home: if you're filing singly you get an exemption on the first $250k of capital gains, but if you're married and filing jointly that exemption is on the first $500k of gains.
The tax brackets mostly eliminate the "marriage penalty", though there are some true edge cases that might make filing separately better. Generally speaking, most married couples do the same or better by filing together.
At least where I live, there is no distinction. As soon as you've lived with someone for 6 months, you're considered common law. If you separate they're legally entitled to half the stuff you've accumulated while together.
That's not how it works with marriage here either. It's only assets acquired during the marriage that is split. There are some exceptions, I'm not a lawyer.
but if more men don't want to get married, women may not be able to find a suitable partner. Also, there is a gender disparity in location (more men in small towns and SV, more women in NY, LA)
Caring about potential loss of material objects over deep human connection sounds like an absolutely miserable way to live your one short life in this universe!
> Caring about potential loss of material objects over deep human connection sounds like an absolutely miserable way to live your one short life in this universe!
Then fix the outdated laws so people can enjoy those human connections without all the risky loss/gain baggage.
You can already do that by simply not getting married? I have friends that have lived together for 10+ years and have multiple children that don't plan to ever marry... seems to be working for them.
I don't know where you live, but that's a problematic approach in many US states having common-law marriages.
Your friends anecdata is entirely irrelevant until they've separated and we hear about how that plays out, before it's even remotely worth hearing as still meaningless anecdata.
Seven[0] out of fifty is not "many" by any stretch of the imagination.
Even in those seven, it's not something that happens automatically. For example, in Utah, it only applies to those "who hold themselves out as and have acquired a uniform and general reputation as husband and wife."[1]
If my meaningless anecdata isn't remotely worth hearing about, then what's to be said about your intentionally misleading irrelevant statement?
Common law marriages are not as easy to happen by accident as many people assume. Living together doesn't matter. Common law marriage, in every state I've checked, requires that you have a ceremony and present yourself as a "married couple" publicly. You have to go around telling people you're married for it to matter.
> Common law marriage, in every state I've checked, requires that you have a ceremony and present yourself as a "married couple" publicly. You have to go around telling people you're married for it to matter.
It generally does not require a ceremony (but it does usually require an explicit mutual agreement), and living together does matter (cohabitation is commonly a requirement or evidence of common law marriage), but other than that you are right that publicly presenting as married is often a requirement (and otherwise is evidence).
And here is Colorado, which is more evidence based and does not identify cohabitation as even a form of evidence (though it does have joint ownership of property): https://pitkincounty.com/288/Common-Law-Marriage
I'm replying to someone saying don't care about these things and you're saying bring in lawyers to mitigate the awful legal defaults! I'm pretty sure that's also in disagreement with the comment I'm replying to.
>> Then fix the outdated laws so people can enjoy those human connections without all the risky loss/gain baggage.
In a country that celebrates sociopathy, manipulation of others, & psychopathy to such a high degree, I think the laws are perfectly fine as they protect exceptionally vulnerable people.
What sort of resources do you actually think there are for a spouse that is able to escape after having been isolated and abused for years, that oftentimes becomes responsible for not only their own well-being, but also childrens?
The answer is practically nothing aside from maybe your very basic necessities to sustain life.
I also think you’re really missing a major point but that’s a tangent I’m not going to go on.
[edit]:
Revised “What sort of resources do you actually think there are for a spouse that’s been isolated and abused for years”
to
“What sort of resources do you actually think there are for a spouse that is able to escape after having been isolated and abused for years”
The lack of a social safety net in the US is not something antiquated marriage laws should be misused to insufficiently provide.
We need better general solutions in this area, a lot of the separation-related problems would vanish. Job-separation and spouse-separation overlap substantially, and it's rather harmful as-is when spouses are incentivized to stay in abusive relationships if they wouldn't even receive significant support separated from an abusive deadbeat anyways. They become trapped.
I'm not aware of the specifics OP talk about (I'm not from the US) but any mature adult should of course care about the unfair loss of wealth. If you look at US marriage/divorce statistics, it'd not be paranoid to think that it could also happen to you. In fact, I bet most of the people who got to lose "material objects" unfairly never thought they'd be in that situation - which then makes them get to experience the miserable way of life you mentioned, at least for a while.
So yeah, I'd suggest to be mature and consider that things can go wrong, which shouldn't affect the depthness of the connection while things work (hopefully forever).
Looks around room at 120ish-year-old desk, hundreds of books with an average age of probably 30 years with some as old as 160 years, 50-year-old record player and receiver, 60-year-old lamp, 20+ year old guitars that will likely last decades more with minimal maintenance, wood floors that should last literally a lifetime, and decade-old shoes that I expect to still be wearing in 20 years
I mean... kinda? The ones that don't involve microelectronics and aren't mostly fabric, yeah, lots of them may as well last forever, from the perspective of a human lifetime.
Well, I'm not doing that, though, so... bad on me, I guess?
But I have LEGOs that are probably way, way older than the average length of a romantic relationship. Hell, they're probably quite a bit older than the average length of a marriage. That's just true. My kids have some metal trucks made a decade before I was born and with hundreds of hours of kid-play-time on them, that they still play with. And those are just kids' toys, not things made for use by adults who will be careful with them! Lots of stuff does last a really long time.
Quite a bit of stuff does indeed get a ton closer to lasting "forever" (say, an entire human lifespan) than most serious relationships do. Normal consumer shit, too, not, like, gothic cathedrals or something.
Treating things as less-disposable than a serious partner is probably not a great idea, but, in actual fact, they... kinda are.
A sufficient quantity of money, invested judiciously, can, yes. And that money can buy experiences as much as it can material objects. Deep companionship is something I’ve experienced both as a poor person and as a wealthy one. It’s not as durable as the wealth.
Then go sign an equitable and enforceable pre-nup. Jesus.
PS. A "I keep all my stuff forever while I earn all the money, and you cook, clean, have sex with me, and raise my children" pre-nup is not equitable, and is, in many jurisdictions, thereby not enforceable.
You're building a life together. If your partner doesn't meaningfully support you in it, you're with the wrong partner. If they are meaningfully supporting you in it, they are entitled to a share in your family's fortunes.
PPS. This isn't some feminism boogieman, this is a direct consequence of 'men are the breadwinners, women's livelyhood is utterly dependent on them.' If you're earning similar amounts to your partner, that default 50/50 split is a non-factor. If you aren't, see above.
Yeah, feminism has gone completely insane. At the moment of marriage all assets are divided equally in most countries, regardless of when they were obtained. And in many countries a man can even be liable for child support if his wife cheats on him.
That said a lot of countries actually have lower taxes for married couples like Germany, or separate it entirely like in Sweden.
>At the moment of marriage all assets are divided equally in most countries, regardless of when they were obtained.
Is this correct for European countries, UK, Australia, NZ, or Canada?
I have never heard of it for any state in the US. Typically, everything before the marriage contract is signed is not part of the community property in the marriage.
Actually it's slightly worse because asset split might skew more towards the person with lesser income to make it more equitable.
So it's entirely possible you could be the primary earner for a marriage and then when the divorce happens you actually leave with less than half of what you provided.
Huh? I live in a super red state in the USA. All assets you come into the marriage with remain solely yours. Anything you created together rightfully gets split as you were partners at that point, but inherited assets aren't counted in that (weren't created together). We don't have any sort of required alimony. You have to take one class to get divorced (but don't have to take it together) one time that is basically a 'think this through' to prevent a heat of the moment mistake in getting divorced. Seems correct and fair to me. Again, this is one of the redder states in the country. But we do have some pretty crazy common law marriage laws (the state's gotta make sure people aren't living in sin) though I don't know how those are enforced.
If you have significant assets and marry someone without a prenuptial agreement you don't get to blame feminism for your lack of due dilligence. The default marriage contract is 50/50 of everything, and if you want different terms you need to hire a lawyer before you sign the contract.
The child should be supported by a minimum livable amount (part of its rent + food + education + expenses). Instead there are crazy amounts based on the lifestyle the spouse was used to.
Funnily, if you were rich and go broke, you don't get to ask welfare or an employee to give you a salary based on the "lifestyle you were used to".
Again it's based on what the child was used to. Y'all are hyper fixated on the spouse I'm getting heavy reddit vibes here I'm expecting to start hearing about hypergamy and age of consent any minute now.
So? Why should the child get "what it was used to" and not a mere comfortamble amount? Especially if the father had a change of luck and makes less post-divorce?
I don't see any concern for kids from families that have not gone through divorce, but have gone broke or bankrupt. I don't see the state or anyone coming to pay them money to "maintain their lifestyle".
Why is this "lifestyle maintainance" only applicable to kids of divorced parents?
And why are children who started life poor less deserving of such money? They're just as capable as kids from rich parents to "get used" to a more luxurious lifestyle, they just never had the chance.
I actually am concerned about all of those things! Everyone should have their needs met, at the expense of those who have more than enough to meet their needs.
It's not really relevant to this conversation though, which is about the children of divorced parents, and how we've chosen to mediate their rights under the current system.
The problem with what I think you're proposing is who gets to decide what is a reasonable minimum amount for a given area? or a comfortable amount? Have you seen the poverty line calculations, or the asset limitations on disabled people? The state is not good at carrying this responsibility.
The current system leaves it up to the parents. Not what the parents say they want post-separation, but how they actually acted. That's why it's based on pre-split allocations.
>It's not really relevant to this conversation though, which is about the children of divorced parents, and how we've chosen to mediate their rights under the current system.
Things are to be examined in context, relatively to similar concerns, and to societies priorities and decisions at large, not as isolated domains. At the very least one should ask why this class of people deserves more than another, why their "lifestyle level" is relevant and is not for other cases and so on.
>The problem with what I think you're proposing is who gets to decide what is a reasonable minimum amount for a given area?
The area shouldn't matter. Use minimum wage as a calculation. If they kid is supposed to live on that while working their ass off as an adult, they can live on that as a kid too, especially since they still have a parent they live with to supplement that. If minimum wage is too low, the lawmakers should raise it for adults too.
Then the child should stay with the parent most able to provide for them. The big issue a lot of people have with the inequity of child support is that fathers who want custody of their kids are continually denied it by the state.
Involved, stay-at-home, full time fathers are given at best 50% custody and then a hefty child support obligation and told to go out and get a job. Uninvolved mothers are given primary custody by default and then collect a massive paycheck as a result.
Sure, but in the US the courts almost always gives custody to the mother, and then the father only gets to see his kids on weekends or less, and he has to pay for the privilege in forms of said support.
This isn't remotely true. Custody tends towards mothers because men often don't pursue joint custody. In cases where they do legally pursue it, they get it more often than not.
And again you're mistaking the fundamental nature and intention of child support. It's not a fee for the privilege of seeing your child. A parent can pay less child support by having the child more. Family court judges are fairly progressive and like this. Their explicit target is 50/50 joint custody in cases that allow for it. Men are simply less often willing to prioritize eg daily school transportation requirements vs their job.
1. In 51% of child custody cases, both parents agree for the mother to be the custodial parent.
6. 79.9% of custodial parents in the United States were mothers.
The math doesn't add up, assuming this is correct.
>Their explicit target is 50/50 joint custody in cases that allow for it.
I just discovered this was the case in my state at least. This is good to hear. In the 80s when I was growing up, it wasn't; it was more like I described earlier.
In the past, women were the most likely to win a custody battle because they were considered the primary caregivers of their children, as most fathers spent the most time outside the household because of their work schedules. Although the current share of custodial mothers is still bigger than that of custodial fathers, recent divorce child custody statistics tell us that the number of custodial fathers has soared over the past few years.
In the US this varies widely by state, My state requires non-married fathers to take additional legal action in signing an additional document declaring parentage before they are allowed on a birth certificate in the first place.
Jesus Christ. Feminism is not the idea that women are weak and need donations from men to survive. Laws set up based on that assumption are very much not feminist.
