A Misconception about Marriage

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...What I'd prefer to do is give them a chunk of money when they're adults and see what they do with it. They could use it to pay off their college loans, to put a down payment on a house, or they could just spend it on crap. They will reap what they sew with that money....

This is what many wealthy families do, at least the ones who have built their own businesses. What they do with the money is a good indicator of how they view money. If they have an understanding of investing and financial solvency they will find a way to increase that chunk of money.

...
What I keep on seeing is parents who let their kids get away with anything they want. "Mom, I didn't pay last month's rent because I bought a new video game system with a bunch of games. Can you help me out?" If my kids did that to me, I'd probably just sit there and laugh at them. Believe it or not, I even have friends who resent their parents because of this very reason. I can't blame the parents who don't support their kids' bad spending habits.

It's commonplace nowadays. You can't fault them for their attitude toward money, it's a learned behavior. Parents are (or should be) the most influential people in their lives to build their perception of the world and how it works. It's the duty of the parents to teach their children how to survive.

 

[azanon]

Besides, that's how the world works. When you get a job you typically have to pay your dues by putting in a couple of weeks worth of work before getting paid. They achieve a couple of weeks worth of work, they get paid; not the other way around.

If he actually DOES that and tells them that's what will happen, then that sounds great to me. Its reminiscent of the phrase; there's more than one way to skin a cat. Hell, i wouldnt mind getting a loan, if i knew my father who has 18 years to plan for it will eventually pay more than a fair share of it.

I'm only talking about the deadbeat dad who's going to notice their child hit age 18, then insert his foot in their ass as they fly out the door not to help them with a red cent from that point on. THAT"S the only dad i have a serious beef with. That's the kind of dad my father-in-law is. That's why he will never get my respect. He knows the drill; if he wants to see his grandson, he gets in his car and drives. Its that simple.

 

[Latinoman]

Azanon, I like you and all...but I feel you are very passionate on this topic and I hope you take no offense on what I'm about to write.

NO one is critizising anyone for paying their kids education. It is a personal choice.

The issue I have with your position in here is that you are not just defending YOUR position. You are ATTACKING others positions. No one like to be told how to raise their children. And nobody likes to be told how to deal with their adult children.

Just hope your children dont marry someone like me who has to take on those loans you refused to help on

Why did you have to take on those loans? They are not your loans. They are her loans. If she did not finish her education or if she is not working...and consequently lacking the $$$ to pay those loans...then don't blame her dad for that. After all it is HER choice. Now, if she is a housewife, because both of you decided that's the best...then don't blame her dad for a choice that YOU both made as a couple. Fact is...she could be paying those loans IF she was working (which would have been a by-product of having a good education).

because you'll never get to see the grandchildren unless its you that's driving to me.

That should NOT be your choice. That should be HER choice. After all, it is her parents and no one should interfere between the relationship of his/her spouse with his/her parents. Grandparents are very important to the children. I was an orphan...if not because of my grand mother...I would have spent my life in an orphanage. You two are here today. You don't know where you be tomorrow.

And even then, don't expect kindness. I'm not as forgiving of it as she was. You guys who never were helped don't know any better.

Once again...it is NOT a parent's responsibility to pay for a child's education. And it is not your business how anyone choose to deal with their adult children's education...including the case of your spouse's parents. The thing in here is this...you are probably resentful because YOU are paying for that loan. Once again...it was your choice to do so.

Karma's a b****

I don't believe on karma. That's a term invented to scare people away.

IMO, it seems the need to love your parent(s) is greater than the need to hold them accountable for something they should be accountable for.

Parents should be accountable for providing their MINOR children with a home, love, food, clothes, and the ability to go to school. Once that child becomes an adult...it is that child's responsibility to do everything else. As an ADULT (and anyone over 18 is an adult)...the person should be accountable for his/her actions...NOT his/her parent.

SHE picked her college. Not them. SHE choosed to get a College education. It was HER choice. One that she made as an adult.

That does not make them (Parents) bad. The fact that she got an education and put HERSELF through college by making several sacrifices is perhaps what made her the kind of woman she is today. A woman that perhaps built the character that you were looking in a woman to the point that you married her.

Once again...I'm sorry I use YOUR situation in this particular post. But that's something you brought up and I wanted to comments as you were using your situation to illustrate how "wrong" some of us are. We are not wrong. You are NOT wrong for wanting to pay your childs education and we are not wrong for wanting them to make the sacrifice. I do however, sense some resentment from your part toward your in laws. And that resentment appears to be based on some decisions YOU and YOUR spouse made (e.g. paying her loan, she not working or getting income enough as to pay her loan).

 

[azanon]

(deleted)

 

[azanon]

You have your opinion on the matter Latinoman, i have mine. I see no reason to continue discussing it.

 

[Latinoman]

You have your opinion on the matter Latinoman, i have mine. I see no reason to continue discussing it.

I actually agree.

 

[d9930380]

Cutting them off at 18 is very dangerous if they haven't learned the skills to survive. If you take a sink or swim approach then you have to concide that they might well sink and as a parent is that what you want?

If you want them to be independant then you have to teach them to be independant when they are growing up. Parents need to learn how to parent their kids instead of allowing them to sit in front of the TV or XBox because it keeps them out of their hair.

 

[azanon]

Maybe this thread should be closed. The current subject of discussion has no relation at all to the original post.

 

[Latinoman]

Back on the 529 plan.

I was reading Clark Howard website (sometimes I listen to the guy on the radio and he knows quite a bit about financial stuff).

He is one of the people that advocate this plan.

All that said...this is exactly how he starts:

"By Clark Howard

I want you to know the best way to save for your son or daughter for college. But first remember my rule that you don't save a penny for college unless you are already saving the maximum you can for your own retirement. College can be paid for with grants, loans, scholarships and work. Retirement happens only if you have saved the dough."

That was from http://clarkhoward.com/topics/529_guide.html



I just wanted to share this.

 

[azanon]

I fully agree. I max my Thrift savings plan contributions (15,500/year not couting the match) as well as max my Roth IRA per year (currently 4K/year). You can get a loan for school but you cant get a loan to fund your retirement.

To call me a "saver" would be an understatement.

That being said, if you cant afford to do it all, then you know one thing for certain; you are living above your means.

So unfortunately for most people, this will not be an excuse. If anything, it will only mean one needs to lower their standard of living.

 

[ElChoclo]

Sir Drinksalot, vulpine, joekerr, RT, Francisco, I agree with all or at least part of what you say. Azanon, as a previously hard core Christian married at 21 and still married, you need to listen to RT and what he says about generalization.

Dietzcoi, as usual, you continue to try and throw out the life preserver of wisdom to marriage peddlers. Be objective, look around you. Forget about the state of marriage in Swaziland. You are in industrialised countries where people have the same mindsets.

Some have argued about whether men get anything out of marriage. You can live with a woman and get the same things. You can not live with one and get most of the things. If you want to think about what rights you enjoy as a result of marriage, you have none. You can't force your wife to have sex with you. You can't retain your children. You can't control the use of the money which you are forced to pay by legal systems.

You have no rights. Some nice marriages exist just as some people win the lottery. But most don't. PRMoon with his Vegas thinking says to take a gamble. But some betting is for suckers.

Some say marriage is a test of DJ strength, do not test yourself, as you may be found lacking. It is time for a new definition in law, of marriage. Some want gay marriage, well why not have a "non sharing of assets" marriage, no sex marriages, etc and make it into a formal legally enforceable species of marriage.

 

[RedPill]

It is time for a new definition in law, of marriage. Some want gay marriage, well why not have a "non sharing of assets" marriage, no sex marriages, etc and make it into a formal legally enforceable species of marriage.

:yes: :yes: :yes:

Guy: Babe, I talked with my attorney today, and told him that I'm ready to take the next step with you. He said the most appropriate thing to do is draft up the papers for an LLM.

Girl: What's an LLM?

Guy: It's a limited liability marriage. All the benefits of a traditional marriage - love, commitment, assumed fidelity - pass through to us with the limited liability of a non-married, non-cohabited couple.

Girl: I don't get it.

Guy: Well let's say you can't seem to shake off that extra baby weight, and I decide to go shack up with a young hot piece of ass. I can't just run off and take half your money.

Girl: Oh, well yeah that makes sense.

Guy: Baby you're the best thing that's ever happened to me.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...
Guy: It's a limited liability marriage. All the benefits of a traditional marriage - love, commitment, assumed fidelity - pass through to us with the limited liability of a non-married, non-cohabited couple...

:crackup: Priceless :crackup:

 

[KarmaSutra]

I don't believe on karma. That's a term invented to scare people away.

Correctamundo!:yes:

 

[alex18327]

The other reason guys get married is pressure from the women, she wants financial security. After alll that's all it is, a financial contract rapped up with bull**** notions of love and religion.

I was married for 6 torturous years and only got into it because I thought I wanted kids and a family. Turns out I only wanted the kids. The way I am starting to see it… I have my sons (the most important things to me and the reason I got married to begin with), maybe marriage isn’t what I want (or is what is actually best for me as a person). But I still want long term, comfortable, stable relationships that don’t have the potential to hurt me financially (or emotionally) down the road.

Marriage can be a legally binding financial nightmare. And to be honest, I just don't have it in me to go through all of the bull5hit of marriage again (at least not any time soon... if ever). But the flip side is wanting a stable LTR that won't bite me in the ass. There is a lot to be said for not having to worry about dating, to have a decent looking, fairly intelligent woman to spend time with and not to have to worry about getting laid on Friday night. But every (maybe not EVERY, but most) woman in a LTR is seeing marriage as the ultimate outcome.

I guess my specific questions are:

How long is it possible to get the milk before you have buy the cow or walk away?

What are the pitfalls associated with getting involved in a LTR that you do not want to ultimately end in marriage?

Is it even possible to have a LTR that doesn't end badly or with marriage?

 

[wayword]

:yes: :yes: :yes:

Guy: Babe, I talked with my attorney today, and told him that I'm ready to take the next step with you. He said the most appropriate thing to do is draft up the papers for an LLM.

Girl: What's an LLM?

Guy: It's a limited liability marriage. All the benefits of a traditional marriage - love, commitment, assumed fidelity - pass through to us with the limited liability of a non-married, non-cohabited couple.

Girl: I don't get it.

Guy: Well let's say you can't seem to shake off that extra baby weight, and I decide to go shack up with a young hot piece of ass. I can't just run off and take half your money.

Girl: Oh, well yeah that makes sense.

Guy: Baby you're the best thing that's ever happened to me.

he he, nice spin. I'll have to remember this one.

 

[azanon]

he he, nice spin. I'll have to remember this one.

Remember it if you like, but if the man's the one that causes the divorce through infidelity, its likely he wont even get anything close to half. I have a close business friend (the wife) that quite literally took her doctor husband to the cleaners because he divorced her and she was able to prove he was doing so because he had an affair/was leaving for the other woman.

For the most part, he only walked away with his job, and even for that, she was award partial ownership of his private practice.

 

[bigjohnson]

File in a no fault State.

 

[azanon]

You can only file in the state you live in.

 

[Latinoman]

File in a no fault State.

ALL states grant "no fault divorces" as I currently live in one in the table you provided in which "fault" was the ONLY choice. However my divorced was still "no fault".

The thing is, for a "no fault" to take place in those particular states (like mine in which only have a check mark on the "fault" section), the person must be separated for "x" amount of time. And then and only then...you can apply for no-fault as the real reason for divorce would be "living appart for 18-months/one year/2 years". Instead of the "fault" which typically are abused, adultery, etc.