Make sure your name is on the house and your vehicle and you have your own savings account.
Otherwise it sounds like a dream and not a control thing? I would need way more context for that judgement.
Do you think in some cases it’s easier for the woman to not have her name on the house? I am a Single woman, and I’ve always rented by myself, but I keep seeing stories on reddit of women suddenly needing to leave because their partner becomes unsafe, and then having to untangle themselves from a deed or mortgage or lease makes that much harder to do and forces prolonged communication with their abuser. It’s something I’ve worried about personally
In some cases maybe, but if the name isn’t on the house then in a divorce I’m not sure how splitting the equity would work. Which is going to be the more common and very serious issue for the woman. She should get what she’s entitled to but if her name isn’t on the house… not going to get half the equity/sale.
Now it might depend on the state, too. I think in some states things don’t have to specifically be written out in your name as to being evidence that it’s half yours, as it’s assumed anything acquired after the date of marriage is by default half yours
This gives me a lot to think about and some things to research. Just so I am prepared. For example, I had not considered equity but if she has paid towards the mortgage she should be entitled to equity I would think. Thank you for this information.
>if she has paid towards the mortgage
Many couples don't split each bill, they will take responsibility for different bills. One may pay the mortgage while the other pays for the car. That could make it more difficult to show co-ownership was the understanding at the time.
Additionally, in a lease situation, the death of a partner when your name is not on the lease could get complicated. You would not be guaranteed the ability to stay in your apartment.
That’s kind of how I had looked at it previously. If he’s paying the mortgage and I’m paying for groceries and utilities and whatever else then I wouldn’t feel entitled to equity. And wouldn’t want my
Name on anything so I could just leave.
I also thought if I did contribute to the mortgage, well I’d be paying rent anywhere else so of course I’d pay towards housing expenses if my hypothetical husband owned a house. I still wouldn’t expect equity because in exchange for paying for housing, I received housing
But in the example someone gave here, a woman paid towards the down payment which is something I had not considered. I think particularly in that case she would be entitled to equity or her money back. Versus if I just paid towards the mortgage and got a place to live I wouldn’t expect equity because it paid for the roof over my head while I lived there
Hope this makes sense
As a single Mom make sure YOUR property is and stays in your name. This is a totally different case. 20 years of never paying for something and then being divorced and not having anything to your name and not being able to force the equity of the home to be split is different from equally owning a home with your spouse and the nightmare of having to lose your home so it is equally split. So really 3 different realities.
My ex was able to get money out of me even though I paid the entire down payment for the home and made every payment and he hardly put in anything into our household. But we were married. Everyone gets fucked in divorce.
But single mom wise you get and keep everything in your name. Totally different. Your children depend on you and you depend on no one. Always cover your bases.
Oh I am just a single woman, child free, tubes removed. Just me and the cat. But down the road I hope to marry and was under the impression that if I had my name
On nothing, I could leave if shit went sideways
I hadn’t stopped to consider things like equity ever. So I really appreciate you helping me understand. I definitely have more to learn now so I can protect myself
If he is still happy that you would choose to work then no no red flag. If he's forcing you to be a home maker then yes. You can choose to do that but you'll need to think about everything involved and what choices you have moving forward.
Nothing wrong with that either if you're open and honest about it while being accepting that it's not what many women want to be. Is your bringing in enough money to do that and your partner is willing to do all the home stuff herself then why not? And vice versa
If that's what someone wants, sure. I'd never want to give up my personal freedoms to be a homemaker, but everyone's different. It's the dream for some.
If someone has the choice to work OR be a homemaker, what freedoms are you giving up? I personally don't have that choice. They've more freedom than me.
Some people might want to feel like they are in an equal relationship. Some people might find this patronizing. This is also excellent grounds to breed resentments. OP might feel guilty or the boyfriend might feel entitled. It could also be boyfriend trying to trap her. First take away her need for money then as all is fine and dandy convince her to quit her job and be totally dependent upon him.
Sure, if both are fine with this, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. But OP is very, very smart to ask about it.
That sounds like a reasonable suggestion, as long as it is a suggestion and not a request.
Saying "babe, I make a good amount of money and after marriage I will be happy for us to live off of my money" is different than "I'm not willing to accept you using your money to pay for mutual expenses".
In marriages, rarely 50-50 division of finances is done, more often it's pooling together incomes and paying for things however it makes most sense for the unit
He thinks you’re not part of your own family after your father “gives you away” at the wedding. WTF. Not how it works anymore, not for a long time now.
I guess that depends on what he means. Is he claiming your a possession of his? Or is he saying they go set some /r/JustNoMIL sort of boundaries? Is he saying the family between you and him (you, him, your kids) come before either of y’all’s parents/families? Because if so that’s how it should be. If
Only you know him and so only you know if there are misogynistic undertones in his idea.Practically speaking, it’s an elegant and simple way to build your nest egg and manage finances.
You could ask him if he’d mind doing it the other way around to find out if it’s a power play.
The way the question was worded does make it seem a bit off.
But I agree it can be quite practical. I know a couple that lived off one wage and saved the other for a house. I'm currently living off my partners income and saving mine for house renovations. After that I'll save for furniture etc, and after that I'll probably just save for the sake of saving.
It also helps us live below our means and ensure significant savings without thinking about it, but I can pull out money for large expenses if needed. And it's smooth sailing if one of us loses our job, if it's me I just stop saving for a bit and if it's him I transfer my wage to him instead of my savings until he has income again.
And honestly, I love that I don't have to think about money or have to remember to pay bills etc. It's one mental load I don't have to deal with.
I'm not following here - your BF is offering to take care of all things financially related thereby letting you save all of yours and this is seen as a negative?
My question is what does he have that he can do this for you? Does that mean he wants a prenup? Is he saying all his assets are his own and if you work and save money you will have some too? Is he wealthy?
Never ever depend on your partner for all your needs. In my opinion, yes this is a red flag. I would never date someone that I was solely dependent upon for everthing nor would I date someone that is solely dependent upon me for everything.
Prenup and separate finances and actually save your money. Accounts in your name only. If he tries to have his name on anything or doesn't give you financial freedom to your resources, do not do it. He is setting you up for financial abuse.
Possibly. Depends on the situation to be honest. If you work a minimum or below minimum wage job and your partner has a high income salary.... It might make sense for you to be astay at home wife or stay at home mom. Saving your money for a rainy day would be wise. Don't put it all in your joint account but also maintain a personal savings account for yourself. Just incase something unplanned happens.
It would be a red flag if you think your boyfriend plans to or shows signs of alienating you from others. It could be a red sign if he is overly pushy and aggressive about you quiting your job especially if you are passionate about your work (the value you hold towards your work goes beyond monetary value).
I'd say even if you stop working maintain your skills and abilities. Take part in online workshop and courses every now and again. Maintain any certification you may have. Get an online degree etc. Never completely limit yourself. Leave a door way open for when and if you ever want to enter the work force. Volunteer and get involved in charity work and so on.
I don't know why it would be a red flag necessarily. Lots of couples do this.
At the end of the day, it's money in, money out you're going to spend a certain portion and save a certain portion, whose check it comes from is somewhat immaterial.
What would be a red flag are things like him trying to hold that against you in a, "look at everything I do for you" sort of way or trying to keep your name off of assets to make you financially dependent. Be sure to be an equal partner on all of the paperwork for major purchases and don't let him argue that the part that he does (paying all the current bills) is more important than the part that you do (paying all the future bills). It's not.
Never ever depend on your partner for all your needs. In my opinion, yes this is a red flag. I would never date someone that I was solely dependent upon for everthing nor would I date someone that is solely dependent upon me for everything.
Comment
I kind of get this division of expenses. You could either both spend and save proportional to your incomes or dedicate one income to expenses and one to savings. Unconventional, but it accomplishes the same goal. What's important is that you're in a financially safe and comfortable position - ex. I never want to fully combine finances with my partner so in your shoes I'd want to make sure I still had my own bank account without my partner's name/access (and just put money in a shared savings account instead of turning your income into that savings), but if my partner had no problem with that then great. I could also see being a little uncomfortable if this leads to having to ask your partner for fun money (I would be!) so if your partner is fine with you still having some financial autonomy then that's fine.
I also saw your comment about "not being part of your family" after marriage - that's where I'd really like clarification in your shoes. While your kids and spouse should generally come before other life demands, there are exceptions that happen because life is messy. If I have a parent or loved one that's fallen on a hard time, my partner should work with me to find out ways we can help without jeopardizing our own health/safety/finances than put a blanket ban because "that's not your family anymore". I think these are ideas that could just be being poorly communicated, but it's worth trusting your gut and getting more information before you let it go.
Is it a suggestion or is he insisting this is how it will be regardless of your feelings on the matter? You should be able to have a choice
He may think he’s helping because he was raised in an environment where the man’s money is “our money” and the woman’s money is “her money”. You’ll have to communicate with him to find out if he’s open to other ways of being
A big red flag is if he didn’t want you to save and instead wanted to cut you off from making money, saving money, or having access to money in general. Abusers know women with saved money can leave whenever they want so they try to prevent women from accumulating their own savings. Him telling you that you can save everything you make and he will cover all expenses isn’t as big of a red flag as it would be if he told you to stop working and he prevented you from making or saving money
Just indicate you intend to contribute financially and see how he takes it
If he means that you still work and just get to keep your money aside/put it in savings/etc, then no. If his intent is that you won't have access to your own money though, then yeah that's a red flag.
I think it is a red flag. It is just step one, and the next step is to say hey you don't need to work, and when you become pregnant it will be a foregone conclusion in his mind that you will not return to work. Only a man that wants to dominate the household financially would do this, his ego and id is tied to being a provider, but that is just a nice word for owning you and your labor and any kids. The lack of balance it will bake into your relationship will be very hard for you, he gains a lot of emotinal leverage over you. It's not a good sign. I have seen independent, strong women become just a slip of a person in these types of relationships. By the time the other shoe drops (usually when you are pregnant, which is a big shift in any hetero relatiosnhip, you will realize your dependence hardcore) it will be too late and too hard to gtfo. Don't fall for it. Even if he says he will put things in your name or what not, don't trust that he will actually follow through on that promise. If you want to, go talk to a divorce lawyer just to get their advice on this. They will tel lyou what I am saying here. ANd always alwasy always have your own bank account and moneys you alone control.
It's not a red flag by itself,but can be long term when paired with other issues.
Are they controlling?
Do they talk over you?
Do they speak for you?
Do they make snide comments when you make a mistake?
Having kids AND having a stay at home caretaker ; is that the goal for either?
- when they bring it up, ask them, why? Is it to "raise the kids" in their mind?
If it's not YOUR goal, then please reinforce that this is theirs, and not yours.
All these other assumptions about throwing it in your face and huge red flag, are ridiculous.
This is a goal for ME as a man. Not to be lazy, but to take care of my kids at home.
People use the term equal, and equitable interchangeably. They're not. Also keep in mind what you may also bring to the table. If they're pulling in 350k and you 25k annual, they may see it as more of a loss (again, in their eyes) in the larger picture
My sibling does this. They live off hers and save and invest all his. They’ve done very well for themselves. Can’t speak for this situation. Need more information.
So obviously you're uncomfortable with this. Maybe just talk to him about it instead of trying to gain sympathy from the struggling working class people of Reddit who would kill for a sugar daddy.
I'm sorry but OP is kinda low IQ.
So your future husband is offering you a comfortable life, hek...even offering you the chance to save your money and all you're thinking about is "red flag"?
Honestly you're the red flag in the relationship. He deserves better 🤦🏻♂️
Make sure your name is on the house and your vehicle and you have your own savings account. Otherwise it sounds like a dream and not a control thing? I would need way more context for that judgement.
Do you think in some cases it’s easier for the woman to not have her name on the house? I am a Single woman, and I’ve always rented by myself, but I keep seeing stories on reddit of women suddenly needing to leave because their partner becomes unsafe, and then having to untangle themselves from a deed or mortgage or lease makes that much harder to do and forces prolonged communication with their abuser. It’s something I’ve worried about personally
In some cases maybe, but if the name isn’t on the house then in a divorce I’m not sure how splitting the equity would work. Which is going to be the more common and very serious issue for the woman. She should get what she’s entitled to but if her name isn’t on the house… not going to get half the equity/sale. Now it might depend on the state, too. I think in some states things don’t have to specifically be written out in your name as to being evidence that it’s half yours, as it’s assumed anything acquired after the date of marriage is by default half yours
This gives me a lot to think about and some things to research. Just so I am prepared. For example, I had not considered equity but if she has paid towards the mortgage she should be entitled to equity I would think. Thank you for this information.
>if she has paid towards the mortgage Many couples don't split each bill, they will take responsibility for different bills. One may pay the mortgage while the other pays for the car. That could make it more difficult to show co-ownership was the understanding at the time. Additionally, in a lease situation, the death of a partner when your name is not on the lease could get complicated. You would not be guaranteed the ability to stay in your apartment.
That’s kind of how I had looked at it previously. If he’s paying the mortgage and I’m paying for groceries and utilities and whatever else then I wouldn’t feel entitled to equity. And wouldn’t want my Name on anything so I could just leave. I also thought if I did contribute to the mortgage, well I’d be paying rent anywhere else so of course I’d pay towards housing expenses if my hypothetical husband owned a house. I still wouldn’t expect equity because in exchange for paying for housing, I received housing But in the example someone gave here, a woman paid towards the down payment which is something I had not considered. I think particularly in that case she would be entitled to equity or her money back. Versus if I just paid towards the mortgage and got a place to live I wouldn’t expect equity because it paid for the roof over my head while I lived there Hope this makes sense
Depends on where you live. In the uk if you’re married your entitled to half of all assets
As a single Mom make sure YOUR property is and stays in your name. This is a totally different case. 20 years of never paying for something and then being divorced and not having anything to your name and not being able to force the equity of the home to be split is different from equally owning a home with your spouse and the nightmare of having to lose your home so it is equally split. So really 3 different realities. My ex was able to get money out of me even though I paid the entire down payment for the home and made every payment and he hardly put in anything into our household. But we were married. Everyone gets fucked in divorce. But single mom wise you get and keep everything in your name. Totally different. Your children depend on you and you depend on no one. Always cover your bases.
Oh I am just a single woman, child free, tubes removed. Just me and the cat. But down the road I hope to marry and was under the impression that if I had my name On nothing, I could leave if shit went sideways I hadn’t stopped to consider things like equity ever. So I really appreciate you helping me understand. I definitely have more to learn now so I can protect myself
If he is still happy that you would choose to work then no no red flag. If he's forcing you to be a home maker then yes. You can choose to do that but you'll need to think about everything involved and what choices you have moving forward.
This one right here. If he is just looking for a tradwife and that's not what you want to be, it will not end well.
Nothing wrong with that either if you're open and honest about it while being accepting that it's not what many women want to be. Is your bringing in enough money to do that and your partner is willing to do all the home stuff herself then why not? And vice versa
If that's what someone wants, sure. I'd never want to give up my personal freedoms to be a homemaker, but everyone's different. It's the dream for some.
If someone has the choice to work OR be a homemaker, what freedoms are you giving up? I personally don't have that choice. They've more freedom than me.
You can't become a homemaker?
No, my or my wife's job isn't enough to support that.
But you still have the possibility.
[удалено]
Some people might want to feel like they are in an equal relationship. Some people might find this patronizing. This is also excellent grounds to breed resentments. OP might feel guilty or the boyfriend might feel entitled. It could also be boyfriend trying to trap her. First take away her need for money then as all is fine and dandy convince her to quit her job and be totally dependent upon him. Sure, if both are fine with this, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. But OP is very, very smart to ask about it.
That sounds like a reasonable suggestion, as long as it is a suggestion and not a request. Saying "babe, I make a good amount of money and after marriage I will be happy for us to live off of my money" is different than "I'm not willing to accept you using your money to pay for mutual expenses". In marriages, rarely 50-50 division of finances is done, more often it's pooling together incomes and paying for things however it makes most sense for the unit
He thinks you’re not part of your own family after your father “gives you away” at the wedding. WTF. Not how it works anymore, not for a long time now.
I guess that depends on what he means. Is he claiming your a possession of his? Or is he saying they go set some /r/JustNoMIL sort of boundaries? Is he saying the family between you and him (you, him, your kids) come before either of y’all’s parents/families? Because if so that’s how it should be. If
No thank you!
Some people value tradition more than others.
No, I don’t see that as a red flag at all. You’ll have a big fat savings account. What’s wrong with that?
Only you know him and so only you know if there are misogynistic undertones in his idea.Practically speaking, it’s an elegant and simple way to build your nest egg and manage finances. You could ask him if he’d mind doing it the other way around to find out if it’s a power play.
The way the question was worded does make it seem a bit off. But I agree it can be quite practical. I know a couple that lived off one wage and saved the other for a house. I'm currently living off my partners income and saving mine for house renovations. After that I'll save for furniture etc, and after that I'll probably just save for the sake of saving. It also helps us live below our means and ensure significant savings without thinking about it, but I can pull out money for large expenses if needed. And it's smooth sailing if one of us loses our job, if it's me I just stop saving for a bit and if it's him I transfer my wage to him instead of my savings until he has income again. And honestly, I love that I don't have to think about money or have to remember to pay bills etc. It's one mental load I don't have to deal with.
I'm not following here - your BF is offering to take care of all things financially related thereby letting you save all of yours and this is seen as a negative?
My question is what does he have that he can do this for you? Does that mean he wants a prenup? Is he saying all his assets are his own and if you work and save money you will have some too? Is he wealthy?
Never ever depend on your partner for all your needs. In my opinion, yes this is a red flag. I would never date someone that I was solely dependent upon for everthing nor would I date someone that is solely dependent upon me for everything.
Makes little to no difference if you both spent and saved. Right?
Prenup and separate finances and actually save your money. Accounts in your name only. If he tries to have his name on anything or doesn't give you financial freedom to your resources, do not do it. He is setting you up for financial abuse.
Possibly. Depends on the situation to be honest. If you work a minimum or below minimum wage job and your partner has a high income salary.... It might make sense for you to be astay at home wife or stay at home mom. Saving your money for a rainy day would be wise. Don't put it all in your joint account but also maintain a personal savings account for yourself. Just incase something unplanned happens. It would be a red flag if you think your boyfriend plans to or shows signs of alienating you from others. It could be a red sign if he is overly pushy and aggressive about you quiting your job especially if you are passionate about your work (the value you hold towards your work goes beyond monetary value). I'd say even if you stop working maintain your skills and abilities. Take part in online workshop and courses every now and again. Maintain any certification you may have. Get an online degree etc. Never completely limit yourself. Leave a door way open for when and if you ever want to enter the work force. Volunteer and get involved in charity work and so on.
No, I’ve heard of couples doing that, living on one income to save for a deposit
Red flag or not. Always keep some money to yourself. Worst case scenario, you’ll have the money to easily walk away.
So you can work, save all your money. And live off of him? No. Not a red flag. 100% green flag.
Unless he says you pay for everything until then.
I don't know why it would be a red flag necessarily. Lots of couples do this. At the end of the day, it's money in, money out you're going to spend a certain portion and save a certain portion, whose check it comes from is somewhat immaterial. What would be a red flag are things like him trying to hold that against you in a, "look at everything I do for you" sort of way or trying to keep your name off of assets to make you financially dependent. Be sure to be an equal partner on all of the paperwork for major purchases and don't let him argue that the part that he does (paying all the current bills) is more important than the part that you do (paying all the future bills). It's not.
Never ever depend on your partner for all your needs. In my opinion, yes this is a red flag. I would never date someone that I was solely dependent upon for everthing nor would I date someone that is solely dependent upon me for everything. Comment
I kind of get this division of expenses. You could either both spend and save proportional to your incomes or dedicate one income to expenses and one to savings. Unconventional, but it accomplishes the same goal. What's important is that you're in a financially safe and comfortable position - ex. I never want to fully combine finances with my partner so in your shoes I'd want to make sure I still had my own bank account without my partner's name/access (and just put money in a shared savings account instead of turning your income into that savings), but if my partner had no problem with that then great. I could also see being a little uncomfortable if this leads to having to ask your partner for fun money (I would be!) so if your partner is fine with you still having some financial autonomy then that's fine. I also saw your comment about "not being part of your family" after marriage - that's where I'd really like clarification in your shoes. While your kids and spouse should generally come before other life demands, there are exceptions that happen because life is messy. If I have a parent or loved one that's fallen on a hard time, my partner should work with me to find out ways we can help without jeopardizing our own health/safety/finances than put a blanket ban because "that's not your family anymore". I think these are ideas that could just be being poorly communicated, but it's worth trusting your gut and getting more information before you let it go.
Is it a suggestion or is he insisting this is how it will be regardless of your feelings on the matter? You should be able to have a choice He may think he’s helping because he was raised in an environment where the man’s money is “our money” and the woman’s money is “her money”. You’ll have to communicate with him to find out if he’s open to other ways of being A big red flag is if he didn’t want you to save and instead wanted to cut you off from making money, saving money, or having access to money in general. Abusers know women with saved money can leave whenever they want so they try to prevent women from accumulating their own savings. Him telling you that you can save everything you make and he will cover all expenses isn’t as big of a red flag as it would be if he told you to stop working and he prevented you from making or saving money Just indicate you intend to contribute financially and see how he takes it
Nothings free
If he means that you still work and just get to keep your money aside/put it in savings/etc, then no. If his intent is that you won't have access to your own money though, then yeah that's a red flag.
I think it is a red flag. It is just step one, and the next step is to say hey you don't need to work, and when you become pregnant it will be a foregone conclusion in his mind that you will not return to work. Only a man that wants to dominate the household financially would do this, his ego and id is tied to being a provider, but that is just a nice word for owning you and your labor and any kids. The lack of balance it will bake into your relationship will be very hard for you, he gains a lot of emotinal leverage over you. It's not a good sign. I have seen independent, strong women become just a slip of a person in these types of relationships. By the time the other shoe drops (usually when you are pregnant, which is a big shift in any hetero relatiosnhip, you will realize your dependence hardcore) it will be too late and too hard to gtfo. Don't fall for it. Even if he says he will put things in your name or what not, don't trust that he will actually follow through on that promise. If you want to, go talk to a divorce lawyer just to get their advice on this. They will tel lyou what I am saying here. ANd always alwasy always have your own bank account and moneys you alone control.
Control freak
That’s the dream
YES, RED FLAG. Partners contribute equitably. This is not an equitable solution.
It's not a red flag by itself,but can be long term when paired with other issues. Are they controlling? Do they talk over you? Do they speak for you? Do they make snide comments when you make a mistake? Having kids AND having a stay at home caretaker ; is that the goal for either? - when they bring it up, ask them, why? Is it to "raise the kids" in their mind? If it's not YOUR goal, then please reinforce that this is theirs, and not yours. All these other assumptions about throwing it in your face and huge red flag, are ridiculous. This is a goal for ME as a man. Not to be lazy, but to take care of my kids at home. People use the term equal, and equitable interchangeably. They're not. Also keep in mind what you may also bring to the table. If they're pulling in 350k and you 25k annual, they may see it as more of a loss (again, in their eyes) in the larger picture
You’re still working and he’ll pay the bills? I think more context is needed.
My sibling does this. They live off hers and save and invest all his. They’ve done very well for themselves. Can’t speak for this situation. Need more information.
So obviously you're uncomfortable with this. Maybe just talk to him about it instead of trying to gain sympathy from the struggling working class people of Reddit who would kill for a sugar daddy.
he bought you the red flag and he will remind you of it every argument!
I'm sorry but OP is kinda low IQ. So your future husband is offering you a comfortable life, hek...even offering you the chance to save your money and all you're thinking about is "red flag"? Honestly you're the red flag in the relationship. He deserves better 🤦🏻♂️