Thats like saying: you could end your life all together, just die.
I can't argue with your biological imperatives.
Alex
Renting with GF my own home
- Thread starter IndexFund
- Start date
I can't argue with your biological imperatives.
Alex
IF, it dosn't sound as though you really love your girlfriend to be moving in together in the first place. If you can't afford the mortgage on your own then get a flatmate.
You should want your girlfriend to live with you because you love her and want to spend more time together, not because you need help making mortgage payments. I don't know how long you have been seeing your girlfriend, but if you are that worried that she will try to take half your assets then don't live with her.
P.S - I really don't think Paul McCartney is kicking himself at all. It could have been much worse - she could have stayed!
You should want your girlfriend to live with you because you love her and want to spend more time together, not because you need help making mortgage payments. I don't know how long you have been seeing your girlfriend, but if you are that worried that she will try to take half your assets then don't live with her.
P.S - I really don't think Paul McCartney is kicking himself at all. It could have been much worse - she could have stayed!
And an awful lot of people end up being very happily married for many years - we reach the 30 year milestone in a couple of months!!
LOL, natmarie! Very good point!
Cheers
LynnH
You people are funny, when we get together with someone, the last thing on our mind is how shall we devide the money if we break up... then before you know it, this whole break up happens and you find yourself with nothing but a pair of socks because the courts said so... lol
I personally dont believe in marriages full stop. It usually makes bad sense financially. Especially when one of the partner's has more or makes more money than the other.
I personally dont believe in marriages full stop. It usually makes bad sense financially. Especially when one of the partner's has more or makes more money than the other.
Obviously you're not the same, since you are thinking about it. I don't know about funny, but I'm happy because I enjoy my relationship without being paranoid about divorce. I'm not sure you are, though.
Re-read the defacto laws. You don't need to be legally married for the asset sharing to kick in. Don't like it? Live in a country with no defacto laws. Or find a woman with the same amount of assets as you, because a woman with more money than you would think YOU'RE after her money.
That sort of thinking really puts a damper on that living together thing. Just don't live together, then. If you need help with the mortgage, get a roommate (preferrably of a gender you have no interest in), or live by yourself in something cheaper. Don't get your gf to share the bills if you're that paranoid about getting hit for your assets.
Or are you going to give another spiel on how unfair society is? That won't do much good. We're not worried about it and quite frankly we have more for our partners to get their hands on in a divorce than you do.
I'm the type who thinks money is very important (obviously). But for a bit of perspective, money is supposed to make your life better. If it makes you so paranoid that you can't enjoy a relationship, what's the point?
Alex
Marriage / partnership CAN make great financial sense. Shared mortgage payments, shared bills. Two people on your team with more skills and time than one. Assuming you have a shared dream you can achieve more than most could on their own. I know we have.
No idea why you have such a negative take on marriage but if 60% of marriaged fail (I think the stats on first marriage are way better than that) then that means 40% succeed. People who believe in long term commited relationships are not naive - they just have a different world view to yours.
And if it should all fall in a heap then divide up the loot and move on....
Out of curiousity just looked at a few divorce stats.
Marry under 20 years of age and your chances aren't that great.
24 to 34 years old at the time of marriage and your odds are the best. I am assuming that you are mature enough at that time to know what you are doing but are less likely to have baggage such as previous marriage and children (no offence meant!) Second marriages are far more likely to fail than first I am assuming in part due to difficulty in blending families etc and general trust issues
Phew I am feeling better now
Marry under 20 years of age and your chances aren't that great.
24 to 34 years old at the time of marriage and your odds are the best. I am assuming that you are mature enough at that time to know what you are doing but are less likely to have baggage such as previous marriage and children (no offence meant!) Second marriages are far more likely to fail than first I am assuming in part due to difficulty in blending families etc and general trust issues
Phew I am feeling better now
IndexFund, if you have a higher chance of separating, then maybe your conscience has an issue with your criteria for choosing a partner. Seems if your partner hasn't decided whether she is settlign in Australia, then being settled isn't a priority to you. Hope you didn't select your gf based on something as superficial as good looks, but have actually come to understand what each other prioritize and value....
Apart from that, maybe you need to work out the probabilistic expectancy of your relationship. i.e.
P(win) * rewards of a win - P(loss) * amount risked.
depending on your disposition and options, you might end up with a calc like this for a 3 year analysis:
.66 * (sex at $100 per shot * 150 shots pa + trusting friend @ $3000pa + $2000pa saved on nightclubs and alcohol + $7500 pa rent) - .33 * ( equity of $50k after 3 yrs)
= .66 * ((3 * $15000+$3000+$2000 pa)) - .33 * ( 50k)
= 39600 - 16500
= you are ahead staying with madam by $23k.
Apart from that, maybe you need to work out the probabilistic expectancy of your relationship. i.e.
P(win) * rewards of a win - P(loss) * amount risked.
depending on your disposition and options, you might end up with a calc like this for a 3 year analysis:
.66 * (sex at $100 per shot * 150 shots pa + trusting friend @ $3000pa + $2000pa saved on nightclubs and alcohol + $7500 pa rent) - .33 * ( equity of $50k after 3 yrs)
= .66 * ((3 * $15000+$3000+$2000 pa)) - .33 * ( 50k)
= 39600 - 16500
= you are ahead staying with madam by $23k.
IF, if you want to be completely sure simply don't get her pregnant while she lives with you, and make sure she keeps working. That way the courts will find she is able to continue to support herself once your relationship breaks down and she will not be seen to be financially dependant on you. They only divide assets to ensure no party is disadvantaged by the relationship split. If she has your baby and can no longer work full time and you split up the courts will ensure she is not disadvantaged because of the circumstances you have put her in.
Men who want their wives to stay at home and not work, while raising their children have to expect that if the relationship ends they will have to share the joint assets with the wife - who is usually left holding the baby so to speak, and much worse off financially.
For a couple who have only lived together for 6 - 12 months and don't have children I would very much doubt the court will allocate her any of your assets, and I don't even think it would cross her mind to try - seeing as she would have to engage a lawyer and be up for many thousands of dollars in legal fees before it even went to court.
Men who want their wives to stay at home and not work, while raising their children have to expect that if the relationship ends they will have to share the joint assets with the wife - who is usually left holding the baby so to speak, and much worse off financially.
For a couple who have only lived together for 6 - 12 months and don't have children I would very much doubt the court will allocate her any of your assets, and I don't even think it would cross her mind to try - seeing as she would have to engage a lawyer and be up for many thousands of dollars in legal fees before it even went to court.
There are nicer ways of sharing the costs of living then charging her rent, like she pays for bills, or for food etc...
And if she isn't sure (and you sound like you aren't sure either), why live together?
Exactly 100% of lives end up in death. Doesn't mean you have to kill yourself (or plan for the funeral) now.
This is pretty much what I was going to say. Easy, non complicated. She doesn't even have to know that you have bought a place.
If you are not sure of where your relationship is heading, then why live on the wild side & open yourself up to having your assets at risk.
I agree with this. If she's entitled to assets, then getting her to pay rent does not mean it is no longer an asset of the relationship.
Of course, contributions would be a major thing here, and if you were only together 6-12 months, and you brought the house into the relationship, and she brought nothing, then I imagine this would be a fairly significant factor.
I also understand that pre-nups are now legally binding.
I am a bit confused by this thread, but maybe it is just me.
Index, you asked a question, and seem to be not wanting to hear the answer. You say your girlfriend is not interested in money, so why ask the question. There must be a tiny bit of you that is worried.
Sign a pre-nup and be done with it, or don't live together, simple.
When hubby and I met, we both brought about the same assets to the table, so it was not anything I was worried about. However, if I had been bringing a house to the table, and he brought nothing, I would certainly have given it some thought (although 25 years ago when we met, pre-nups were not around as such).
Index, you asked a question, and seem to be not wanting to hear the answer. You say your girlfriend is not interested in money, so why ask the question. There must be a tiny bit of you that is worried.
Sign a pre-nup and be done with it, or don't live together, simple.
When hubby and I met, we both brought about the same assets to the table, so it was not anything I was worried about. However, if I had been bringing a house to the table, and he brought nothing, I would certainly have given it some thought (although 25 years ago when we met, pre-nups were not around as such).
Mate I've asked the same type of question here and got the same type of responses from the same people. I for one know exactly where you are coming from. I have no problem whatsoever splitting assets that are accumulated after commencing a relationship, but it's utter ******** that you can spend years and years doing the hard yards workwise, overtime, second jobs, savings your *** off etc and then have someone come along and claim half of it. That so many people on here seem to baulk at what is a fairly important concept (asset protection) is quite amazing to me.
Having said that I don't believe these dafacto laws were brought in to allow people in situations such as yours claim half your stuff. natmarie has it pretty well covered in her post.
Having been in relationships I thought would last forever I say you can't be too careful!
