70 thoughts on “Secret Bank Accounts Could Save Your Marriage

    1. +Mlogan11

      Ok, fine I grant the idea that there are legal benefits, but that’s not my main point.

      My main point, is that Marriage used to be a religious only custom, that signified a huge commitment for life.
      A commitment for life is a big deal. It means you can’t back out. I can see why people would hold it in high esteem, because there was a high price to pay.

      A commitment to grant some legal privileges, is not that big a deal, and merits little prestige, because it is not a very high price to pay, but despite this, marriage is still seen by most as the same lifetime commitment it once was, even though it is not.

      I mean, they even say “till death do us part,” just to maintain the illusion of prestige that marriage used to have.

    2. Generally people get married because they like the companionship and having children. You also get some tax advantages that domestic partnerships don’t. Obviously you might find that the drawbacks of marriage are greater than the advantages, but don’t pretend marriage is a purely religious ritual. There are civil/secular marragies.

    3. +Rabolisk

      My whole point, is that the very concept of “civil/secular” marriage is absurd.

      There is supposed to be a separation of Church and State to avoid the chaos that erupts whenever the government gets involved in religious ideas.

      It used to be, if you want to get married, you go to a church (or other religious edifice) and you get married by a religious official, who declares you to be married. Simple.

      Here’s the political dilemma…

      Let’s say the Church is your only option, and the Church never allows gay couples to get married.
      A separation of Church and State will keep the government completely neutral on this issue.

      So what does a gay couple do?

      Well, they can “A,” reject the religious institution which does not accept them, or “B” create their own institution which does accept them, or “C” reject the religious doctrine of marriage.

      The whole idea of America, is that individuals and groups should be allowed to do what they want to do. Therefore the Church should be allowed to have this thing called “marriage” and they should be allowed to allot the title of “married” to anyone they so choose.

      Gays can protest the Church, for disallowing them the marriage title, but this only serves to demonstrate the ABSURDITY of the title of “married” in the first place.
      This is politically PROGRESSIVE, because it confronts the core of the issue head on, and avoids silly semantic word games.
      And THAT is where the issue belongs, a debate about the merits of the CHURCH doctrine.

      However, without this separation of Church and State, you create the current nonsensical system.

      The current system assumes the government is in charge of declaring who is married (in love) and who is not.
      There are so many things wrong with this, they are too numerous to discuss, but to stay on topic, I’ll discuss one of them in particular.

      Because the government has delved in the the subjective realm of “love,” now there is a mess on our hands.
      Because now, we have to somehow define “love,” and that opens up a Pandora’s Box of civil rights issues.

      For example, who says I can’t love my toaster? Why should I be denied the right to love my toaster? Is there some philosophical or moral claim one can make that denies me the right to love inanimate objects? Or my cat? Or dog? Or an invisible friend?

      Now, instead of debating what we SHOULD be debating, and keeping the pressure on the CHURCH, we are debating the very concept of “love” with respect to civil rights.

      The issue is now deflected from where it should be. The issue is now about “civil rights” vs “love” rather than “religious doctrine” vs “love.”

      This lack of focus, creates confusion, causing resentment and regression, and moves society backwards.

    4. No, the financial aspect of divorce was created because before WWII the only jobs women could get were very poorly-paid jobs. Nurses, secretaries, seamstresses, the different kinds of maids they used to have before they were all lumped into one overarching job, midwives, things like that. So, women were making a LOT less than they’re male counterparts because – except for a VERY few exceptions that stand out mainly because they WERE exceptions – they weren’t allowed into the “men’s” jobs at all. And, once they got married – or, at the VERY least, the second they confirmed they were pregnant – they were expected to quit their jobs & become housewives & mothers & NOTHING else. So, in the event of a divorce – especially ones where kids were involved – it was expected of the man to pay alimony &/or child support because he was the wage earner & she was not.

      SINCE WWII, however, we have been seeing a distinct trend heading in the opposite direction, with more & more women becoming wage-earners themselves – some of whom are even out-earning their male counterparts – while more & more Dads are staying home with the kids. This is why some of the videos I’ve seen about 3rd Wave Feminism show such antipathy for alimony & child support nowadays. It’s not because they feel women should be independent of male influence once they’ve gotten the divorce, but because now that women have started earning more than their husbands – even when the totality of women in general is still making less than the totality of men in general – now the WOMEN are starting to get hit with requirements to pay their ex-HUSBANDS the alimony & child support, & NOW the feminist women are pissed about it.

      Almost as though they were expecting men to just keep paying it, even after women started making more than them, huh?

      So, I agree that there should be a document drawn up before the marriage actually takes place that makes it so that whatever each part comes in with is what they leave with – & that includes continuing income as well as already-acquired assets – to prevent women from cutting & running whenever they think they can find someone better. It’s called a “prenuptial agreement,” & while I wouldn’t ever consider using one Myself – mainly because I don’t ever intend on getting married in the first place, but even if I did I’m an old-fashioned guy at heart (And I’m at the eldest end of the “Millenial” Generation, apparently.) & so am quite willing to support My women even when they’re not My women anymore – I can completely understand why some men need it.

  1. If you want to keep your money secret and are worried about losing it to divorce you shouldn’t be married in the first place.

    1. well you may have deep feelings, but some people think about the future and in my opinion those are the people that thrive. I understand your point though.

    2. If you are a millennial and hope to retire before the age of 80, you will need to put some money back for it.  Not everyone understands this.

  2. I don’t even have any ambition to get married. I’ll be a software engineer in 2 more years so it’ll be more of a burden having a partner that you need to spend money on.

    1. +Robert House

      I’m not saying that you should rush into marriage or have kids when you are very young. What I am saying is that saying “screw marriage” when you have your whole life ahead of you is a bad move.

      I don’t think anyone had ever died of old age and thought in their final moments “I’m really glad I never started a family”.

      Physical attraction is just to get you through the door. Afterwards you have yo evaluate their skills, intellect, knowledge and wisdom. If they don’t milf with yours then there is no future for the two of you.

      In general, both of you should be able to improve each other’s faults. Be the Ying to there Yang, if you will.

    2. +Tyler Thompson
      Then damn cuh, guess you’re getting cut from the gene pool lol

      Too bad, so sad. The odds were not in your favor my friend.

  3. Dumb as fk, for the last time marriage is NOT for equality NOR money. If you gonna constantly talking about whats fair whats not you marriage is going to be a disaster.

  4. What Cenk said is exactly what my wife and I do. We don’t need secret accounts. We do what we want with our own money. Only time my wife tells me I shouldn’t get something is by asking, and where will you out that? . Most notably it was for the Lego super star destroyer. .

    1. Yeah, but denies super star destroyer is greatly offset by: plays borderlands with me, bought me a Logitech g25 racing wheel, watches game of thrones with me, and let’s me take photos of naked women… It’s a net win

  5. I don’t think people should be married unless they have thoroughly discussed and have had a joint financial life for a few years. Living together is a great way to do that.

  6. When you get married, nothing should be left to secrets. My husband and I discuss spending, but there is such a mutual respect at what we both bring in that its not an issue. I mean, we talk about things and agree or disagree and compromise. That’s what life partnership is about. It’s not easy, but with mutual respect and admiration, it works wonderfully. I wish everyone to feel that comfortable!

  7. Joint or separate bank accounts don’t matter when your married. Each party owns 100% of the account. When my husband cleaned out my account and passed bad checks through it, it was my fault. When the rent wasn’t paid because he pilfered my bank account it didn’t matter. When he robbed our child’s piggy bank, it was legal. A spouse can’t be charged for stealing their own money. He kept his paycheck in his pocket, never shared and I had to claim the income he made as family income even though “the family” never saw any of it. I will never be contractually obligated in that way ever again. #Happilydivorced

  8. I agree, shared account and separate accounts. As long as the income gap isn’t so big that the lifestyle starts diverging. Or do you pool the money and then split it evenly into the separate accounts?

    1. If you have to worry about lifestyle divergence then there’s a conversation that needs to be had.

      I think I’d go with something more like what Cenk said with the 500 dollar limit. As long as two people aren’t in the poor house or in crazy debt or whatever, have a monthly limit for unquestioned spending and discuss if you want to make a bigger purchase, like getting a top of the line computer or a car or something.

    2. That’s exactly what my wife and I do and it works great. Both our checks get deposited into our joint account which is what we use to pay bills, savings, loan debt, etc. Each month we put $200 into each of our individual accounts and that’s our unquestioned spending money for the month. If either of us wants to get something more expensive we talk about it. It’s a great system.

  9. Ana always projects her own baggage onto these types of stories dealing with relationships. She sounds like someone having major reserves about being married for a number of reasons ranging from finances, monogamy, gender roles, etc.

    1. +Ramon Suarez

      That’s an interesting point… in a relationship all your issues are magnified, it take a lot of growth and vulnerability to work through them.

      Ana has mentioned her dad being really rich, yet she seems to struggle financially. As a teenager she wanted attention from boys but her mum said she should study and ignore the boys, which changed the course of her life.

      Those type of things definitely affect someones view of relationships. Ideally you would dig down and examine them, and do so *jointly* with your partner, who would help you walk that path in a safe and trusting environment. While you do the same for them and their issues. The relationship forms a container for exploring and celebrating your shared and imperfect humanity together.

      That takes a lot of growth and trust and maturity though. If you don’t have the experience it’s hard to see that, let alone have a perspective on it.

      Also, the whole purpose of many things like marriage are changing. The institution of marriage, finances, monogamy, gender roles all are starting to have very different meanings now than they did 50 years ago, it was much more simple back then. All of them are changing and evolving, and will continue to do so.

      So I think the “baggage” she seems to has issues with, finances, monogamy, gender roles etc, are a mixture of personal baggage from life experience, but also biological baggage from our primate originals, and cultural baggage from collective beliefs (gender roles), and systemic baggage from societies structure and technological state.

  10. My wife and I are old school, I guess. We got married we agreed on ‘1-for-all and all-for-1’ arrangement. One of us was better at making money and the other was better with raising kids. So it wasn’t “my stuff” and “her stuff”, it was “our stuff”. Worked for us, so far. However, there are disagreements.

    1. I think it might be something that couples should discuss before getting married. This is also more of an issue when you have more money. Poor couples barely scraping by, they don’t have a lot of questions where money should go: to the bills, to food, to keeping the car running. That’s obvious, unless one of them is completely reckless and insensible, in which case they shouldn’t get married in the first place. I’ve never been married, but I lived with my boyfriend in my early 20s. Even though he was the only one with a “real” job, he put me in charge of managing what little money we did have because he knew he was very bad with it. That is, until I said he couldn’t use his last $20 for pot because we didn’t have any food, then he decided I’m not in charge anymore.

    2. +moonlily1
      yes, tobacco, alcohol, and other stress relievers can be costly, and if one’s budget is stretched thin it can be extra harmful.

    3. You guys are so accustomed to money that you see poverty as something unbearable. It is not. I’m from a third world country and both my wife and I have lived through very thought times, but it is your family culture what makes you progress. Sure, been poor makes money decisions a lot more difficult, but money was not everything, apparently in your world it is.

    4. +Abraham Saenz Who said money was everything? I’m not even sure what you’re arguing against. I simply said that less money means less decisions about what to do with it, having the option of deciding what to do with your money is a luxury in itself. That’s a simple truth. How in the hell does that indicate that I devalue family?

  11. I had a huge amount of student loan debt before I got married this past May. My husband has no debt and perfect credit. I suggested that we get a prenup (it wasn’t expensive) to make sure creditors didn’t go after him. Believe me…disclosing my financial situation was extremely uncomfortable. But my marriage would never have happened if I had lied about finances. You have to be honest with your partner. Having the conversation before the wedding is SO important.

    1. You’re an anomaly, a unicorn, a saint. Respect. Hope you continue to be fair and ethical in your marriage. I’m sure your husband is absolutely loves you and that you are similarly affectionate as well. We need more of such stories of happy coupling in this age of shallowness, materialism, narcissism and one-sided laws. Wish you all the best. 🙂

  12. Pingback: cung song ngu nam
  13. Pingback: buy dumps online

Leave a Reply