15 ms·

It's unfortunate the way that sexual relationships are intertwined with finances. Gone are the days where women have little/no earning opportunities. People sh

It's unfortunate the way that sexual relationships are intertwined with finances. Gone are the days where women have little/no earning opportunities. People should be allowed to keep finances separated unless explicitly deciding otherwise.

ekc 7y ago
They could just, not get married.
- kweks 7y ago
  In many Common Law countries, you are automatically considered to be in a de facto relationship after a period of cohabitation (6 months in Australia, for example) Obviously designed to protect the rights of people in this situation long term, it's also rather frightening.
  - dijit 7y ago
    In Sweden there is a special word "Sambo", if someone lives with you (in a relationship context) for 6mo+ then they're entitled to 50% of your home, it also applies if you buy a home with the intent of living with someone. Or, at least this is what I've been told, I don't speak Swedish enough to read the relevant law myself but it's been corroborated by enough people I trust.
    - username90 7y ago
      No, that is not true. Sambolagen is for when a couple gets a new place to live in, not for when someone moves into the others home. Basically it makes a difference between assets acquired as a part of the Sambo relationship and assets acquired as a private person. So if X owns a home, then meets Y and they both start living in X's home, if they split up X will still own all of it. However if X buys a home for X and Y to live in, then it doesn't matter that Y didn't pay anything the home is still owned 50/50 according to Sambolagen. X can avoid this by making a written statement that the home belongs to X signed by Y.
      - LunaSea 7y ago
        That's incredibly stupid but I'm not surprised that it exists in Sweden. Nothing should entitle Y to any percent of ownership of the house.
        maaaats 7y ago
        You should know the context before saying "nothing". The reason most laws like these exist, is because it used to be more normal to have a stay-at-home-mom, and the male making all the money. Just because the woman didn't contribute with cold, hard cash to the household, she still contributed.
        LunaSea 7y ago
        I do know the context and sure there is a contribution but not necessarily at the same level.
    - H8crilA 7y ago
      This legislation exists in other countries - automatic protection for partners in "unregistered" relationships. The logic is not deeply wrong - why should a formal act, essentially a signature, decide, rather than what's actually happening in reality? Similar to the evergreen debates on contracting vs employment - the reality of the relationship should decide, not the title of the contract. Also often your parents can sue you for alimony if they can no longer support themselves in their old age, just like a child can sue a parent. Family law can get you by surprise.
      - Barrin92 7y ago
        >This legislation exists in other countries - automatic protection for partners in "unregistered" relationships. The logic is not deeply wrong - why should a formal act, essentially a signature, decide, rather than what's actually happening in reality? because automatically tying personal and romantic relationships and property arrangements together seems odd to people who want to keep them apart, just like some people might not want to have any relationship with their family any more and don't want to fiscally depend on them, or the other way around. It seems archaic to me to have some sort of parallel informal and customary law based on kinship that you're automatically opted into.
        H8crilA 7y ago
        That's exactly what I meant by "Family law can get you by surprise.". It's not there to protect you, like HR is not there to protect you. Just keep the ship going.
  - Blackstone4 7y ago
    > de facto relationship after a period of cohabitation (6 months in Australia, for example) I looked this up and it's not true. If there are no explicit documents, the court will interpret what the intention of the couple were in terms of ownership. If the property is in one person's name, that person tends to keep the property. If the property is put in both names then it is split 50/50.
    - kweks 7y ago
      Thank you.. you're correct, but there are some nuances. The defacto status is a qualitative status. My statement of 6 months is incorrect: it is two years of cohabitation, unless there is a child, or other circumstances. In regards to splitting assets, there is no hard and fast rule: meaning it could slice either way. https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/family-law/defacto/ https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/family-law/defacto/
      - zxcmx 7y ago
        In NZ it’s 3 years of de-facto but the “family home” (even if one partner brought it freehold into the relationship) gets split 50/50. It’s complicated because even prenups can be overturned if one partner experiences regret and the courts decide the prenup wasn’t “fair”. The law is surprising enough to enough people that they’re looking at changing it.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    it's also rather frightening I suppose that depends on which side of the financial scales you are on.
    - kweks 7y ago
      Surely the uncertainty is scary for both sides! Frightening if you contributed less financially but risk to lose your house, etc. Frightening if you contributed more financially and risk to lose your house, etc.
Cthulhu_ 7y ago
Well yeah that's pretty much the default, UNLESS they choose to get married with the stipulation of shared ownership and finances etcetera. the Netherlands recently passed legislation that changed the default marriage agreement to no longer have the shared ownership stipulation. And even then, that's only one option (marriage, that is); there is nobody (except maybe family, church, etc) forcing anyone to marry. There's other options as well.
- ajsnigrutin 7y ago
  Not everywhere. In Slovenia (and some other countries probably), we have a "zunajzakonska skupnost", which rougly translated means "out-of-wedlock relationship". If two people live together for a (undefined) "long" amount of time, and act in a way married couple do, they can be treated exactly as a married couple would be. That means, that one of the partners can claim they lived together in an "zunajzakonska skupnost", and everything acquired during the relationship canbe treated the same as with marriage, and split in half (unless someone proves they contributed significantly more,...). The existance of "zunajzakonska skupnost" iz not well defined and has to be decided in court, but it can bring many many problems. We also have only recently legalized prenups. Oh, and living wills are very very limited too. ..so yeah...
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    In the United States (and presumably England) this is called "common law marriage". I don't know if it's enough for one partner to claim marriage to the other, but if they both claim it the marriage is valid.
    - ajsnigrutin 7y ago
      Here, only one has to claim it, but they have to prove it in court. Usually this is usually done by proving they lived together, bought things together, etc. and if there were other elements of a relationship. I have no idea what happens if two non-romantic roomates buy a couch together, and one of them moves out though.
huffmsa 7y ago
It's almost like there were good reasons for strict legal and religious positions on monogamy and marriage for thousands of years all around the globe. Not to say your statement is invalid or that it's time for a shift, just a reminder that this is a well trodden field.
- winchling 7y ago
  These traditions developed around families with children. The situation now is that divorce and childlessness are common and people are adapting accordingly. Personally, I think it's sad. Long-distance relationships don't work. Yet, as I see it, short-distance relationships do work, though a period of adjustment may be required. Medium-distance relationships are stuck in the middle! And, to put a cynical hat on for a moment, the powers-that-be may be just fine with this. They want people isolated in separate dwellings for purposes of taxation, property pricing, general conformity to their agendas, etc.
  - groby_b 7y ago
    "Long-distance relationships don't work" I don't think that holds as a blanket statement. (I have multiple counterexamples in my immediate circle, at least. Some of them on the decades scale) Is there specific evidence, or is this simply an assumption you're making?
    - kemayo 7y ago
      Although I disagree with the grandparent post, I'd be fine with saying that long term long distance relationships are harder to make work. Mostly this is because there's a lack of cultural guidelines for how to handle it; if you're living with or near someone there's a cultural script to follow which mostly-works, but in a LDR you can't count on that and you need to put the work in to build your own system. Of course, relying on the default cultural script for local relationships often falls down as well when it turns out that you disagree about the details. But we accept that relationships fail all the time, and don't tend to say "local relationships don't work" just because many of them fail. :D
tootie 7y ago
My wife and I joined our bank accounts a few months before the wedding. We consider that to be our true wedding day. We got to Admiral status with Vanguard much quicker this way. Also, I intend to spend 100% of my time with her once we retire and I can't wait. My parents and her parents have been living like that for years.

ekc 7y ago

They could just, not get married.

kweks 7y ago
In many Common Law countries, you are automatically considered to be in a de facto relationship after a period of cohabitation (6 months in Australia, for example) Obviously designed to protect the rights of people in this situation long term, it's also rather frightening.
- dijit 7y ago
  In Sweden there is a special word "Sambo", if someone lives with you (in a relationship context) for 6mo+ then they're entitled to 50% of your home, it also applies if you buy a home with the intent of living with someone. Or, at least this is what I've been told, I don't speak Swedish enough to read the relevant law myself but it's been corroborated by enough people I trust.
  - username90 7y ago
    No, that is not true. Sambolagen is for when a couple gets a new place to live in, not for when someone moves into the others home. Basically it makes a difference between assets acquired as a part of the Sambo relationship and assets acquired as a private person. So if X owns a home, then meets Y and they both start living in X's home, if they split up X will still own all of it. However if X buys a home for X and Y to live in, then it doesn't matter that Y didn't pay anything the home is still owned 50/50 according to Sambolagen. X can avoid this by making a written statement that the home belongs to X signed by Y.
    - LunaSea 7y ago
      That's incredibly stupid but I'm not surprised that it exists in Sweden. Nothing should entitle Y to any percent of ownership of the house.
      - maaaats 7y ago
        You should know the context before saying "nothing". The reason most laws like these exist, is because it used to be more normal to have a stay-at-home-mom, and the male making all the money. Just because the woman didn't contribute with cold, hard cash to the household, she still contributed.
        LunaSea 7y ago
        I do know the context and sure there is a contribution but not necessarily at the same level.
  - H8crilA 7y ago
    This legislation exists in other countries - automatic protection for partners in "unregistered" relationships. The logic is not deeply wrong - why should a formal act, essentially a signature, decide, rather than what's actually happening in reality? Similar to the evergreen debates on contracting vs employment - the reality of the relationship should decide, not the title of the contract. Also often your parents can sue you for alimony if they can no longer support themselves in their old age, just like a child can sue a parent. Family law can get you by surprise.
    - Barrin92 7y ago
      >This legislation exists in other countries - automatic protection for partners in "unregistered" relationships. The logic is not deeply wrong - why should a formal act, essentially a signature, decide, rather than what's actually happening in reality? because automatically tying personal and romantic relationships and property arrangements together seems odd to people who want to keep them apart, just like some people might not want to have any relationship with their family any more and don't want to fiscally depend on them, or the other way around. It seems archaic to me to have some sort of parallel informal and customary law based on kinship that you're automatically opted into.
      - H8crilA 7y ago
        That's exactly what I meant by "Family law can get you by surprise.". It's not there to protect you, like HR is not there to protect you. Just keep the ship going.
- Blackstone4 7y ago
  > de facto relationship after a period of cohabitation (6 months in Australia, for example) I looked this up and it's not true. If there are no explicit documents, the court will interpret what the intention of the couple were in terms of ownership. If the property is in one person's name, that person tends to keep the property. If the property is put in both names then it is split 50/50.
  - kweks 7y ago
    Thank you.. you're correct, but there are some nuances. The defacto status is a qualitative status. My statement of 6 months is incorrect: it is two years of cohabitation, unless there is a child, or other circumstances. In regards to splitting assets, there is no hard and fast rule: meaning it could slice either way. https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/family-law/defacto/ https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/family-law/defacto/
    - zxcmx 7y ago
      In NZ it’s 3 years of de-facto but the “family home” (even if one partner brought it freehold into the relationship) gets split 50/50. It’s complicated because even prenups can be overturned if one partner experiences regret and the courts decide the prenup wasn’t “fair”. The law is surprising enough to enough people that they’re looking at changing it.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  it's also rather frightening I suppose that depends on which side of the financial scales you are on.
  - kweks 7y ago
    Surely the uncertainty is scary for both sides! Frightening if you contributed less financially but risk to lose your house, etc. Frightening if you contributed more financially and risk to lose your house, etc.

Cthulhu_ 7y ago

Well yeah that's pretty much the default, UNLESS they choose to get married with the stipulation of shared ownership and finances etcetera. the Netherlands recently passed legislation that changed the default marriage agreement to no longer have the shared ownership stipulation. And even then, that's only one option (marriage, that is); there is nobody (except maybe family, church, etc) forcing anyone to marry. There's other options as well.

ajsnigrutin 7y ago
Not everywhere. In Slovenia (and some other countries probably), we have a "zunajzakonska skupnost", which rougly translated means "out-of-wedlock relationship". If two people live together for a (undefined) "long" amount of time, and act in a way married couple do, they can be treated exactly as a married couple would be. That means, that one of the partners can claim they lived together in an "zunajzakonska skupnost", and everything acquired during the relationship canbe treated the same as with marriage, and split in half (unless someone proves they contributed significantly more,...). The existance of "zunajzakonska skupnost" iz not well defined and has to be decided in court, but it can bring many many problems. We also have only recently legalized prenups. Oh, and living wills are very very limited too. ..so yeah...
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  In the United States (and presumably England) this is called "common law marriage". I don't know if it's enough for one partner to claim marriage to the other, but if they both claim it the marriage is valid.
  - ajsnigrutin 7y ago
    Here, only one has to claim it, but they have to prove it in court. Usually this is usually done by proving they lived together, bought things together, etc. and if there were other elements of a relationship. I have no idea what happens if two non-romantic roomates buy a couch together, and one of them moves out though.

huffmsa 7y ago

It's almost like there were good reasons for strict legal and religious positions on monogamy and marriage for thousands of years all around the globe. Not to say your statement is invalid or that it's time for a shift, just a reminder that this is a well trodden field.

winchling 7y ago
These traditions developed around families with children. The situation now is that divorce and childlessness are common and people are adapting accordingly. Personally, I think it's sad. Long-distance relationships don't work. Yet, as I see it, short-distance relationships do work, though a period of adjustment may be required. Medium-distance relationships are stuck in the middle! And, to put a cynical hat on for a moment, the powers-that-be may be just fine with this. They want people isolated in separate dwellings for purposes of taxation, property pricing, general conformity to their agendas, etc.
- groby_b 7y ago
  "Long-distance relationships don't work" I don't think that holds as a blanket statement. (I have multiple counterexamples in my immediate circle, at least. Some of them on the decades scale) Is there specific evidence, or is this simply an assumption you're making?
  - kemayo 7y ago
    Although I disagree with the grandparent post, I'd be fine with saying that long term long distance relationships are harder to make work. Mostly this is because there's a lack of cultural guidelines for how to handle it; if you're living with or near someone there's a cultural script to follow which mostly-works, but in a LDR you can't count on that and you need to put the work in to build your own system. Of course, relying on the default cultural script for local relationships often falls down as well when it turns out that you disagree about the details. But we accept that relationships fail all the time, and don't tend to say "local relationships don't work" just because many of them fail. :D

tootie 7y ago

My wife and I joined our bank accounts a few months before the wedding. We consider that to be our true wedding day. We got to Admiral status with Vanguard much quicker this way. Also, I intend to spend 100% of my time with her once we retire and I can't wait. My parents and her parents have been living like that for years.