|
Post by ScottDinTN on Oct 10, 2019 18:44:38 GMT -5
I guess my reasons for staying, for now, are pretty practical.
1. To give the kids the closest to an intact family as I can. I know I can't be an example to them of a romantically involved parent but everything else is there. 2. I want to be with my kids more than just on the weekends or every other week. That's more about me than them. 3. We are mostly civil to each other outside the bedroom so it works most of the time. People outside of our home will be shocked when I leave. 4. Financial stability. We both have good jobs and I really don't want to live on less than half of our current income just because she doesn't like orgasms.
|
|
|
Post by baza on Oct 10, 2019 19:43:07 GMT -5
There's #5 as well Brother ScottDinTN . Staying avoids - or at least postpones to a later date - the awful scenes and disruption that go with splitting up. Just an observation in regard to the financials. If you theoretically split, you'd each take half the divisible net assets. You would also shed responsibility for your spouses' expenditure post split. You would each take on full responsibility for your own expenditure post split. Really, as individuals with good jobs, what would essentially change ? You get your respective right whack out of the accrued marital assets, you maintain your respective good jobs. You (or her) might have to pony up some kids support payments, but as a responsible parent that's hardly something you'd begrudge.
|
|
|
Post by ScottDinTN on Oct 10, 2019 22:34:17 GMT -5
Really, as individuals with good jobs, what would essentially change ? You get your respective right whack out of the accrued marital assets, you maintain your respective good jobs. You (or her) might have to pony up some kids support payments, but as a responsible parent that's hardly something you'd begrudge. I'm sure the lawyers would get a good chunk of money from both sides in the divorce. Afterwards, you are running two households off of the money that used to run one. I'd say that's a lot of extra money.
|
|
|
Post by Handy on Oct 11, 2019 1:14:13 GMT -5
ScottDinTN Afterwards, you are running two households off of the money that used to run one. I'd say that's a lot of extra money.
You are correct in stating that two households would cost more than one but several other people that have left and divorced mostly say having less after the divorce was worth every penny.
I think along similar lines as you do about two households costing more than one household. I sometimes feel like the monkey that can't let go of the grape in the monkey trap because I don't want to lose the grape.
|
|
|
Post by baza on Oct 11, 2019 3:57:14 GMT -5
This is in no way a suggestion that you should divorce Brother ScottDinTN . It is challenging two things. #1 - is the perception that legal costs are astronomical. In my no fault jurisdiction my legal costs were a bit over $2,000, my missus' costs were a bit under $1,000. We essentially negotiated it ourselves, got our respective lawyers to make sure we hadn't fucked it up somewhere in the process. 80% of divorces in my jurisdiction are resolved in this way. Only 20% end up before a judge (and I'd imagine that would likely involve protracted legal representation which would probably cost a packet) #2 - the perception of needing to run two households after divorce. By its very nature, divorce dissolves the marriage and splits the assets equitably to the two principals, you and your missus. And like most divorces, there'll be swings and roundabouts in the process. You lose a bit in this aspect, you gain a bit in that aspect. But you end up with your right whack of the assets and likewise for your missus. The marriage is no more and you and your former missus start off on your different paths as stand alone individuals. There's no "two households" in this scenario .... the act of divorce splits them into 2 entirely separate financial entities. For an individual in your age group (46-50 according to your profile) there are 15-19 years available to restore, consolidate, enhance your financial picture. That's very do-able given a decent plan and a bit of discipline. I got out in 2009, and had my financial position exactly where I wanted it by 2015 (and even better now in 2019) Again, I am not suggesting in any way that you should get divorced. I am looking at those two potential roadblocks (legal costs and the two households perception) to challenge them and pose the question whether they really are roadblocks.
|
|
|
Post by ScottDinTN on Oct 11, 2019 9:15:02 GMT -5
The two of you were living in one house. After the divorce you each live in your own house. That is two households. I don't see how that is not two households. Another way of looking at it, my wife earns slightly more than me. So, after a divorce, I would be living off of 40-45% of the income I used to have available to me. I'm not saying money is the only consideration, but it is one of them. I also agree with the previous post from Handy that some day I will see it was worth it in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by worksforme2 on Oct 11, 2019 10:27:09 GMT -5
Really, as individuals with good jobs, what would essentially change ? You get your respective right whack out of the accrued marital assets, you maintain your respective good jobs. You (or her) might have to pony up some kids support payments, but as a responsible parent that's hardly something you'd begrudge. I'm sure the lawyers would get a good chunk of money from both sides in the divorce. Afterwards, you are running two households off of the money that used to run one. I'd say that's a lot of extra money. The lawyers only get a good chunk of money if the 2 of you insist on it by the attitude in how the divorce is approached. An amiable divorce can be accomplished quite economically. My X and I used a single attorney to do the legwork of walking the paperwork through the courts. We had previously agreed on division of assets and we had no children so our split was pretty simple. The attorney cost us $500 to draw up the separation paper. Legal separation for 1 yr. is required in NC before filing for a divorce. After 1 yr. it cost me $75 to file for a divorce and another $60 to record the decree at the County Clerks office. So all total less than $700. Since your divorce is probably more involved it would cost a bit more. Child support is usually a predetermined amount based on a formula set up by the states legislature, so if you speak to an attorney they could give you a pretty good estimate of how that would work out for the 2 of you. You are correct, there will be 2 households following a divorce. But you are calculating the money currently available for you incorrectly. Assuming most of the current shared income is allocated toward the family, then only a small % is actually available for you, let's say 15-20% for you personal wants, needs, hobbies, commuting, clothing, etc. So keeping something closer to your actual take home pay following a divorce might mean a slight improvement in the monies available for you. Or maybe not. That's why you see an attorney to calculate this stuff with you. Realistically, both of you would probably see a reduction in your standard of living. The big questions are: 1. How do you feel about the prospect of spending less time with your children since that is a distinct probability. And 2: Is having a life that includes intimacy and possibly love worth the trade off for what you would be giving up?
|
|
|
Post by baza on Oct 11, 2019 19:09:44 GMT -5
Your explanation is way better than mine Brother worksforme2 . And the underlying suggestion - "see a lawyer and do the sums on your specific situation" - is very sound. In a situation like Brother ScottDinTN 's (which reads as pretty good financially) both he and his missus would come out ok as individuals. AND, with another 15-19 years of their respective working lifes to go, any short term individual financial pain would be readily rectified with an appropriate plan and a bit of discipline. And again, this is NOT to suggest scott ought to get divorced .... it is however a suggestion to get fully informed about the implications of such an event.
|
|
|
Post by saarinista on Oct 11, 2019 21:49:15 GMT -5
ScottDinTN one of my pet peeves is how most Americans live in much larger houses than they need. Of course, need and large are subjective terms, but you know it's possible that the two of you could live in smaller houses IF you split and still have plenty of room. Also, if your wife earns more money than you do, you may get a bit of child support from her. I don't have kids so I don't know how that all works, but whatever. Money's not everything. Sex, and having a compatible partner to share one's life with, matter a lot, too. 😔
|
|
|
Post by csl on Oct 11, 2019 21:56:22 GMT -5
ScottDinTN Afterwards, you are running two households off of the money that used to run one. I'd say that's a lot of extra money.You are correct in stating that two households would cost more than one but several other people that have left and divorced mostly say having less after the divorce was worth every penny. I think along similar lines as you do about two households costing more than one household. I sometimes feel like the monkey that can't let go of the grape in the monkey trap because I don't want to lose the grape. "Better to live on a corner of the roof than to share a house with a quarrelsome wife." Prov. 21.9 & 21.19"It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than to share a house with a contentious woman." Prov. 25.24"... at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." Deut. 19.15
|
|