[benreesman]

This is slightly tangential, but I went through a no-prenup divorce. My intentions were good in not wanting a pre-nup, but I’ve changed my advice for a reason that surprises a lot of people.

The reason I now advise folks to do a pre-nup is that when things are getting tense, everyone feeling insecure about their future actually increases the pressure and therefore the possibility of a divorce.

Write your pre-nup however you want, but save yourself the possibility of huge additional and unnecessary stress/uncertainty at a time when the relationship can least afford it.

[astura]

I thought prenups were for couples where one or both parties are bringing assets into the divorce? Like, I'd consider one if I had any real assets or savings beyond my retirement accounts, but at the time I got married I didn't.

[CSMastermind]

Marriage is first and foremost a legal and financial arrangement.

When you get married you have the option of writing the agreement between yourself and your partner (a prenup) or just accepting the one-size-fits-all government boiler plate.

Maybe you think there's nothing special about your situation. Maybe you think the government rules will work fine enough. Wouldn't you at least like someone to review them with both of your first so you know what the contract you're signing says? That still involves getting a prenup.

The prenup process also has a few additional advantages.

First, it forces transparency with finances. A stunning number of couples never fully disclose their financial state to each other. They don't know about that credit card debt their partner is holding or the student loans, or the jewelry they inherited from their grandmother worth $30k or whatever. Having those discussions about money with a neutral third party can actually help your relationship succeed and it provides insurance against not only surprises but also having to have those discussion while your relationship is failing which will be a much more stressful time.

Second, it forces conversations around expectations for the relationship, big life decisions, etc. I know many religions enforce pre-martial consoling that's similar but in today's secular world there's a good chance you might get married without having those discussions or without having a neutral third-party present to oversee the process.

In short, prenups are not about divorce, they're about the terms of the legal agreement you're signing.

[benreesman]

So I’ll annotate your insightful comment.

In many cases and jurisdictions, things like unvested RSUs have never been litigated.

So it’s like, do we want to choose, or roll some dice if it doesn’t go well?

[saiya-jin]

In place I currently live even retirements savings are part of divorce split, and I don't think any prenup can affect that. They basically add them together and split 50:50, which is often more fair to women who skipped years of work and career building and stayed with kids. Earned before/during marriage doesn't matter in this case.

[giantg2]

"which is often more fair to women who skipped years of work and career building and stayed with kids."

Or unfair to those who simply choose not to save (without staying home with kids).

"Earned before/during marriage doesn't matter in this case."

That sounds like a terrible and unfair place. Where is that?

[saiya-jin]

Switzerland, hardly a terrible place, in contrary. And as fair as one can possibly hope on this planet.

Retirement saving is mandatory just like elsewhere in Europe and taken automatically, so you can't avoid that part if you actually work. There is additional voluntary pillar but that's a minor sum compared to mandatory ones.

[giantg2]

In general Switzerland seems like a nice place. I don't really agree that premarital assets should be split in a divorce. That doesn't seem like a fair thing if one party comes into it with significantly more.

[benreesman]

Any contract is useful only so far as one or both parties have the means and inclination to either litigate it or credibly threaten to.

Absent a disparity in the pre-marriage estates, I doubt anyone would have the inclination to push the issue.

[benreesman]

GSElevator is notoriously vulgar and offensive, but if you view it as stand up comedy, it’s (darkly) funny for a reason.

https://mobile.twitter.com/gselevator/status/698952591963598...

[webmobdev]

Islamic laws on such matters are "surprisingly" progressive - as one of the few religions that recognises and accepts divorce, it is the only one I know that also insists on a prenup which specifies a lump sum a prospective bride is entitled to if the couple divorce in future. (This is negotiated between the families before the marriage). Note that in Islamic laws a muslim man has implied responsibility to care for his child, divorced or not and whoever has custody, and thus this is not a part of the prenup.

[meepmorp]

Judaism also recognizes divorce. Among the abrahamic religions, it's only Christianity that traditionally insists on continuing the marriage once the participants want out.

[benreesman]

As Medieval codes of conduct go, Islam is pretty reasonable in my book.

I always find it kind of counter-intuitive that the Western far-right routinely complains about “creeping Sharia Law”.

If those folks red the Koran they’d agree with it!

[vasco]

Simpler option is to avoid marriage, greatly reducing the pressure on getting a divorce.

[marcinzm]

If you intermingle finances or kids or property ownership then you have all the problems of a divorce except no legal framework to handle them in. Which makes for an even worse splitting process rather than a better one.

[dan-robertson]

Right, you potentially miss out in cases that can really matter (e.g. power of attorney, things related to children) and you might find you fail to avoid the things you’re trying to avoid (e.g. governments/courts giving some recognition to long-term relationships)

[4ad]

Then you have to pay more in taxes, having kids is more challenging, getting a mortgage becomes more expensive, immigration becomes impossible, and in some countries even travel becomes difficult.

[vasco]

We might be thinking of very different countries. Taxes are largely the same in most developed countries for couples or singles. Couples just have double the allowances. I'm not sure if you meant emigration, but I've lived in 3 countries while single, and I never heard this being easier married. And for sure I was never asked about my marital status for traveling.

[4ad]

> I'm not sure if you meant emigration, but I've lived in 3 countries while single, and I never heard this being easier married.

If you have partner who you are not married with, you can't bring them in whatever country you are emigrating to.

> And for sure I was never asked about my marital status for traveling.

Then you have not traveled to muslim countries with your partner.

[vasco]

Yes we can, we just apply independently, at the same time, as independent adults that we are, we've moved together all those times.

I've also traveled to Muslim countries, latest of which Morocco. There might be some restrictions here and there but the way you speak of marriage it makes it sound like it's the 14th century.

[giantg2]

"Then you have to pay more in taxes"

How? Taxes for couples are generally just doubled. You can actually save on taxes by not being married and maneuvering who claims what (house, dependants, etc).

[s1artibartfast]

Taxes are generally Progressive actually so the overall rate is higher for one person then two splitting.

Some major tax deductions like the mortgage deduction are per person as well, so two people with a shared income get twice the deduction as one person with an income

[giantg2]

"Some major tax deductions like the mortgage deduction are per person as well"

This doesn't sound right.

"so the overall rate is higher for one person then two splitting."

That depends if that one person is the higher or lower earner. This statement really only works if you have two unequal salaries. Since it's progressive, you're only paying the higher taxes on the amount that is over the threshold.

[s1artibartfast]

>This doesn't sound right

I don't know what to tell you. The code is pretty straightforward. You can deduct the mortgage interest on 375 k per person. You get twice the tax deduction with two people as one.

Regarding the general taxes you are correct in that it only helps if you have two people in different tax brackets. This is extremely common

[moneywoes]

One thing to note is a lot of places are common law

[benreesman]

This is one of those computers and people who think like computers crashing into human reality moments.

We should all strictly optimize for maximum utilization of resources.

Beep boop.

[xwdv]

That’s a unique take on it, so getting a prenup can help prevent divorce. This will be a good counter argument for when women argue that a prenup just means you’re eventually planning to get divorced.

[benreesman]

In my personal value system, the main (only?) reason to do a pre-nup is to improve the odds of a successful marriage.

Money comes and goes. It can be a great help, but it behooves anyone who has any to prevent it becoming a hinderance on the road to happiness.