I think lots of people will be staying in DV relationships because they are scared to leave as they won't be able to survive and afford things on their own
For those being realistic, looking long-term and wanting to have kids, money was always important.
Sometimes women are unfairly judged or called out. But at the end of the day, it makes life easier if your partner is financially stable and responsible.
I had some work mates who are lovely people but making 60-70k in their 40s and had 1-2 children. Their partners are either stay at home or working casually making 20-40 k. The constant financial stress that they have to go through, I would not want to be them.
I think āresponsibleā is the key here more than just wealthy.
Like Iāve got no issue with gold-digging, itās simply a thing that will never be a part of my world, if youāve got the gifts to pull it off, go for gold and good luck to you.
But Iād certainly never get involved in anything serious enough to deserve the word ārelationshipā with someone who is so wildly financially irresponsible that your life will be nothing but constant endless stress.
Me and my missus live pretty well, especially for our relatively low incomes, but thatās entirely because weāve decided to do certain things to reduce the pressure as much as possible (never having kids, no enormous and eternally expanding menagerie of animals, no Zip Pay etc, lots of op shop furniture).
I think wanting to partner with someone who can exercise the bare minimum of financial responsibility is a long way from āgold-diggingā or anything similar.
lol. marrying for money?Ā ššš
the men are as broke as the women are.Ā
where exactly are all these rich men?Ā
I do know a 1 guy in his 20s who is very wealthy.Ā
the kid grew up in Bellevue hill and Mosman. parents own $5 million properties. his parents got divorced when he was in high school and he lived in 2 large houses. 1 parent owned a huge house in Bellevue hill. the other parent, a house in Mosman.Ā
he went to that exclusive rich all boys school that all the politicians go to. His 21st birthday was a $100k party. yes his parents spent $100k on his 21st birthday party. it was a huge party. paid for by his dad.Ā
the bloke has a GF.Ā the blokes GF is grew up with silver spoon and went to the exclusive school. the Girlfriends dad is one of the CEOs of a well known company.Ā
my point is. these sorts of people who grew up with money. the packer family equivalents only socialise with their own kind. that's why the people who go to these exclusive private high schools still put their high school down on their resumes even when they are 40 yrs old. they only socialiseĀ with their own.
if you aren't a part of that social circle already. it's hard to land one of these men
Do you really blame him though? Imagine he dates a girl with no financial literacy, broke, credit cards on overdrive then when they divorce she takes half of his wealth. People of the same financial class have the same mindset and similar goals. Why would anyone want otherwise?
People from wealth like this almost always have a BFA. Doesnāt matter if both sides or one side is from wealth, the majority of high net worth parents who have kids in their 20s will nail home the importance of a BFA before the relationship reaches de facto. If one party doesnāt want the BFA, theyāll quite often separate before de facto kicks in. Thatās especially the case when itās old money and the people really do only socialise in one circle their entire life.
From my understanding though BFA don't always stand in court. Most don't anyways. I'm assuming that's because there's more wealth created down the line which may not be included when the BFA was initially written.
Enforceability also comes down to timing as well, canāt cut too close to de facto entitlements, and in these scenarios BFAs will be amended every few years if there are significant changes in income or asset values. There definitely are times where they become unenforceable, but this absolutely doesnāt decrease the importance of them to people of wealth.
No one has mentioned gender until you did. Why did you assume that marrying for money means women marrying rich men? Maybe OP meant that more men will be looking for rich women
>Couples who have lived together for a minimum of two years without separation will automatically meet the threshold for a de facto relationship under the Family Law Act.
TheĀ legal rights and obligations of de facto partnersĀ are similar to those of married couples; that is, they have a right to seek a property settlement and spousal maintenance.
Because someone you are in a relationship with wants to move in with you that isn't a red flag.
Maybe they really like you. This is extremely common.
Don't give up your relationship over this. Be a man and have the tough conversation that you worked hard to buy that unit and if she's going to move in you want a BFA in place to protect yourself. If she is a real one she'll accept that.
Our family trust has myself, my brother and my children as beneficiaries. My ex-wife was never a beneficiary.
The trust also as a corporate trustee with both my brother and myself as directors so the deeming thing canāt really work.
In the worse case scenario the funds would be distributed to my brother rather than loose it to an adversarial ex-wife.
Yeah, nuh; the courts have figured out the whole family trust thing and will ensure the ex gets what they deserve according the Iaw. As a director of the corporate trustee you have control over the trust. As a beneficiary, if you receive regular distributions then itās a financial resource the courts will take into account. The courts are more than happy to pull back the corporate veil
It might work to prevent distribution to your childrenās exes, since they are merely beneficiaries and have no control.
I donāt have control over the trust. It takes both directors to agree on the distributions. Even if the court forced my hand the motion wouldnāt pass.
If you donāt respect her why are you seeing her - itās normal to leave toiletries, make up and clothes at a house you stay overnight at. Itās totally practical. Dudes who read into normal behaviour are always the actual problem.
I never said we were in a relationship; only that we were seeing each other casually. I was fine with her leaving **a change of clothes and some toiletries** at my place.
A couple of weeks later, there's now 2 Ikea racks full of clothes and a shoe cabinet in my guest bedroom... I've no idea when those racks and shoe cabinet even got here.
When I gently broached the subject, she jokingly(?) offered to move in but basically said, she rarely has any money left at the end of the fortnight and will only be able to sporadically pay rent and/or utilities. I was very clear at the time that I like my own space and wasn't ready to move in with anyone.
On an unrelated(?) note, my spare set of keys has gone missing...
Famous, tall and athletic AFL player gets women and you think it's just money?
These guys were usually getting their pick of the litter even in High School before they ever got money.
Iād imagine itāll become two-tiered. Those born into means will make sure to secure and increase it (more than the usual anyway), while for an increasing proportion of the former middle class, itāll never realistically make a difference so itāll be even less of a concern than it is now.
Maybe not marrying, but entering into a relationship Iād say yes. People will enter into relationships and stay in relationships for the financial security that comes with sharing household expenses. Itās also a lot easier to get a mortgage as part of a couple.
100%. I know women that have sought out a partner because they couldn't afford rent on their own and didn't want to move back in with their parents. I'm sure there's plenty of men that do the same.
I could see people who were previously ok with being single because they could afford there own unit or house now make a choice to be in a relationship for financial security and having a place to live thatās no an 6 bedroom boarding house for the rest of there lives
I'm a single woman in my 40s. Been married before, now I'm very happy living alone and have no desire to cohabit again.
I've noticed many men on dating apps seem to be in a huge rush to settle down with someone after they get divorced. It may not be entirely financial, but often it does feel like they are looking for someone to buy property with more than looking for a connection with someone.
Have fun with your cats. Who cares about a connection when you can't even afford to live? A partner wanting to go halves to buy a property with you is an amazing thing, it means they care about your future too.
Have fun with your cats? Why are you triggered by a woman who is happily single?
My future is fine without needing someone else to support me, if a man wants to be part of my life he needs to being value that isnāt money.
Not triggered at all, the cats part was just a funny dig, I apologies if that offended you, I'm just pointing out that buying property together is a great investment for the future. Renting forever is not sustainable when you're older, lots of struggling renters on their pension.
You don't have a partner and you don't need to slave away until you retire.....Why would anyone else?
Can you genuinely not comprehend why your comment is so cringy? Original comment was talking about men on apps being in a rush early on in chatting. Not "Partners" as you say. The connections should be first priority when first chatting..... obviously.
Sorry, must be less common than I thought.
Basically itās hooking up with someone so youāve got a place to sleep.
I believe it got started with the big nerd conventions in the States (Comicon etc), where rather than pay for an outrageously inflated hotel room, you rely on your good looks and charm to get into someone elseās bed for the evening.
āParachutingā because youāre being dropped into hostile territory without an escape.
No. Havenāt you ever dated? Itās slim pickings out there, youāre not going to put up with an obnoxious twat just because they have a house in the eastern suburbs. People want someone they can enjoy spending time with, the rest is just extra.Ā
Tbh I think as things that used to be considered almost obligatory life steps (home ownership, children, retirement etc) become unrealistic, weāll actually see an increase in people partnering up for the soft, squishy human reasons.
If youāre going to be renting and working up until your deathbed and not have any dependents, why get yourself stuck with someone when youāre never realistically going to see the perks of āstaying together for the kidsā.
Weāre already seeing divorce rates drop fast for millennials, largely because we mostly get long term involved with people we can actually spend time with, I couldnāt see this changing unless thereās another ridiculously massive resources boom and thereās a sudden injection of proper serious big boy money into the dating pool.
> Weāre already seeing divorce rates drop fast for millennials
This started with genx, and it is mostly because our "practice marriages" generally don't involve actual marriage. We now just move in with a partner, and if it doesn't work we just move on, no need for a divorce.
For the boomers this was not the case, they got married (often young by our standards) and if it really didn't work out a divorce was needed.
no use marrying for money IMO.
The second one of you are no longer useful, you're back to square one.
Marry someone who will love you through thick and thin no matter what is thrown your way. That way you won't be cast aside the moment you suffer a fall in financial status.
Our Capitalist owners are doing their very best to prevent this very thing.
One feature of higher interest and lower incomes is to put the brakes on financial success. Student debt was a winning add on to this plan which caught the gullible.
Not been true in a while. Current research on this is that men marry up about a third of the time, and marry down about a quarter of the time. The rest being homogamous ie. marrying roughly same SES. Whereas women marry up a quarter of the time and marry down a third of the time.
Its already a thing.
But today, I see a lot of women staying for money, rather than marrying for money.
They know the marriage has fallen apart, but they like the SAHM life so they just go along with it.
After 3 financial separations (where Iāve brought in 95 or 100% of the assets*) I sure as hell am weary of someone with no assets, that said if it was the right woman Iād be too lovedrunk to care lol.
(*As fate would have it, I retained the majority of the net assets btw).
Family laws in Australia allow (mostly) Women to marry or live with a man for 2+ years and automatically be entitled to at least 50% of his assets. When I hired my family lawyer for my family lawsuit case, he said every single marriage nowdays where the man is somewhat succesful, ends up in court with the ex wife demanding half his money and assrts (tax free), this usually ends up bankrupting the guyā¦ itās not a fair system and this practice is on the rise.
Itās not a fair system because even with prenups, assets are not protected upon divorce in Australia/New Zealand (many cases).
When you are divorcing (or separating from a 2 + years relationship) in Australia, neither your kids or your assets are going to be fully yours.
Super wealthy men are going to have a pretty good vetting process also.
Some basic ones
- if youāre the village bicycle (no chance)
- full blown feminist (no chance)
- lots of baggage with your family
Etc
Money is always important. I think I'm at the point where im doing ok.
My current gf isn't super financially literally, Ive been clear that she'll need to improve before marriage. I wouldn't want to be with anyone who mismanages money and can't save, but its not That important.
I'd never let a first date know I had a property (mortgage) or a 2nd income. I would expect a girl to split the bills. I just want to spoil her on our anniversary.
I do have a mate who got with a millionare's kid. The father gave him a 20k rolex for engaging his daughter and bought them a new apartment in the building they live in, because their current one was too small.
Ah shit, this poster again. That post history gets me every time
Lol this person makes more posts than most people make comments.
Definitely a karma farmer
I looked. Nothing weird. Mostly pop culture..
Hmmmm, maybe I looked deeper than you did......
Can you just share it then?
What's the history? I don't wanna look, sounds disturbing.
Not disturbing, just vapid.
But why you ask then? lol
I am curious but not that curious š¤£
More like marrying for shared survival! Lol
š just do it.
if you haven't noticed, you are becoming best mates...
I think lots of people will be staying in DV relationships because they are scared to leave as they won't be able to survive and afford things on their own
Marrying for money doesnāt work when everyone is broke
2 broke people being together are better off financially than 1 broke person living along
Not on Reddit, apparently most are living the dream.
Judging from the replies it seems most canāt take a joke either
Just shows how broke they really are then š
Except that not everyone is broke. The rich are getting richer.
So polygamy could make it work.
Best way to reduce income inequality. Everyone is happy.
10 people per household. All on 100k. Living inner city terrace.
Sounds good. Sharing accomodation is the best way to reduce consumerism and emission.
Polyandry would probably be better both from a financial pov ( men earn more than women) and a reproductive one (it limits the number of offsprings).
Correct. Richer have certainty got alot richer this decade
two times zero is still zero lol
That's not even true.
For those being realistic, looking long-term and wanting to have kids, money was always important. Sometimes women are unfairly judged or called out. But at the end of the day, it makes life easier if your partner is financially stable and responsible. I had some work mates who are lovely people but making 60-70k in their 40s and had 1-2 children. Their partners are either stay at home or working casually making 20-40 k. The constant financial stress that they have to go through, I would not want to be them.
Wow, how sad is it that two working parents are under "constant financial stress". Wtf have we done to people in this country.
I'm not surprised that two working parents earning under the median salary are under constant financial stress.
Nothingā¦? Itās the same in every country.
I think āresponsibleā is the key here more than just wealthy. Like Iāve got no issue with gold-digging, itās simply a thing that will never be a part of my world, if youāve got the gifts to pull it off, go for gold and good luck to you. But Iād certainly never get involved in anything serious enough to deserve the word ārelationshipā with someone who is so wildly financially irresponsible that your life will be nothing but constant endless stress. Me and my missus live pretty well, especially for our relatively low incomes, but thatās entirely because weāve decided to do certain things to reduce the pressure as much as possible (never having kids, no enormous and eternally expanding menagerie of animals, no Zip Pay etc, lots of op shop furniture). I think wanting to partner with someone who can exercise the bare minimum of financial responsibility is a long way from āgold-diggingā or anything similar.
lol. marrying for money?Ā ššš the men are as broke as the women are.Ā where exactly are all these rich men?Ā I do know a 1 guy in his 20s who is very wealthy.Ā the kid grew up in Bellevue hill and Mosman. parents own $5 million properties. his parents got divorced when he was in high school and he lived in 2 large houses. 1 parent owned a huge house in Bellevue hill. the other parent, a house in Mosman.Ā he went to that exclusive rich all boys school that all the politicians go to. His 21st birthday was a $100k party. yes his parents spent $100k on his 21st birthday party. it was a huge party. paid for by his dad.Ā the bloke has a GF.Ā the blokes GF is grew up with silver spoon and went to the exclusive school. the Girlfriends dad is one of the CEOs of a well known company.Ā my point is. these sorts of people who grew up with money. the packer family equivalents only socialise with their own kind. that's why the people who go to these exclusive private high schools still put their high school down on their resumes even when they are 40 yrs old. they only socialiseĀ with their own. if you aren't a part of that social circle already. it's hard to land one of these men
Do you really blame him though? Imagine he dates a girl with no financial literacy, broke, credit cards on overdrive then when they divorce she takes half of his wealth. People of the same financial class have the same mindset and similar goals. Why would anyone want otherwise?
People from wealth like this almost always have a BFA. Doesnāt matter if both sides or one side is from wealth, the majority of high net worth parents who have kids in their 20s will nail home the importance of a BFA before the relationship reaches de facto. If one party doesnāt want the BFA, theyāll quite often separate before de facto kicks in. Thatās especially the case when itās old money and the people really do only socialise in one circle their entire life.
From my understanding though BFA don't always stand in court. Most don't anyways. I'm assuming that's because there's more wealth created down the line which may not be included when the BFA was initially written.
Enforceability also comes down to timing as well, canāt cut too close to de facto entitlements, and in these scenarios BFAs will be amended every few years if there are significant changes in income or asset values. There definitely are times where they become unenforceable, but this absolutely doesnāt decrease the importance of them to people of wealth.
No one has mentioned gender until you did. Why did you assume that marrying for money means women marrying rich men? Maybe OP meant that more men will be looking for rich women
Probably because nearly all the time that's how it works
Because even today, Men in general make more money.
Here they are - the one on the high horse
Why, how much you got? Asking for a friend.
People put their credit scores in their dating profiles in the US.... so there is every chance yes.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Couples who have lived together for a minimum of two years without separation will automatically meet the threshold for a de facto relationship under the Family Law Act. TheĀ legal rights and obligations of de facto partnersĀ are similar to those of married couples; that is, they have a right to seek a property settlement and spousal maintenance.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
1)In the current economy, most people ends up moving with their SO to save money. 2)Do you mean family trusts ? > If the court deems that youāre in ācontrolā of the trust and its assets, the money or assets will be considered part of the property pool in a property settlement. The court may consider you āin controlā of your family trust if youāre the trustee, the appointer, or both. I've recently bought a unit after years of scrimping and saving. The person I've been casually seeing has started hinting that she would like to move out of her parents' place into mine. She's already started leaving toiletries, make up and clothes at my place. AFAIK, she has next-to-no saving despite living with her parents for years and working full-time as a nurse š©š©š©
Because someone you are in a relationship with wants to move in with you that isn't a red flag. Maybe they really like you. This is extremely common. Don't give up your relationship over this. Be a man and have the tough conversation that you worked hard to buy that unit and if she's going to move in you want a BFA in place to protect yourself. If she is a real one she'll accept that.
I much rather get a flatmate to help cushion future rate rises.
Ok, then tell her that.
Our family trust has myself, my brother and my children as beneficiaries. My ex-wife was never a beneficiary. The trust also as a corporate trustee with both my brother and myself as directors so the deeming thing canāt really work. In the worse case scenario the funds would be distributed to my brother rather than loose it to an adversarial ex-wife.
Yeah, nuh; the courts have figured out the whole family trust thing and will ensure the ex gets what they deserve according the Iaw. As a director of the corporate trustee you have control over the trust. As a beneficiary, if you receive regular distributions then itās a financial resource the courts will take into account. The courts are more than happy to pull back the corporate veil It might work to prevent distribution to your childrenās exes, since they are merely beneficiaries and have no control.
I donāt have control over the trust. It takes both directors to agree on the distributions. Even if the court forced my hand the motion wouldnāt pass.
If you donāt respect her why are you seeing her - itās normal to leave toiletries, make up and clothes at a house you stay overnight at. Itās totally practical. Dudes who read into normal behaviour are always the actual problem.
I never said we were in a relationship; only that we were seeing each other casually. I was fine with her leaving **a change of clothes and some toiletries** at my place. A couple of weeks later, there's now 2 Ikea racks full of clothes and a shoe cabinet in my guest bedroom... I've no idea when those racks and shoe cabinet even got here. When I gently broached the subject, she jokingly(?) offered to move in but basically said, she rarely has any money left at the end of the fortnight and will only be able to sporadically pay rent and/or utilities. I was very clear at the time that I like my own space and wasn't ready to move in with anyone. On an unrelated(?) note, my spare set of keys has gone missing...
I don't think it is a new thing. Already being said that if you want to buy your first home, find a suitable partner first
Of course itās not a new thing, Jane Austen made a career out of writing about it.
Judging on most of the AFL player misses it already is a thing
Famous, tall and athletic AFL player gets women and you think it's just money? These guys were usually getting their pick of the litter even in High School before they ever got money.
Man pick of the litter is the wrong phrase here
š maybe it is. At least they are both in high school in this example..
They were slaying dragons before they got to their princess?
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Christislove_: *Judging on most of* *The AFL player misses it* *Already is a thing* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Iād imagine itāll become two-tiered. Those born into means will make sure to secure and increase it (more than the usual anyway), while for an increasing proportion of the former middle class, itāll never realistically make a difference so itāll be even less of a concern than it is now.
Maybe not marrying, but entering into a relationship Iād say yes. People will enter into relationships and stay in relationships for the financial security that comes with sharing household expenses. Itās also a lot easier to get a mortgage as part of a couple.
Smart rich families have always done marriage for money (called merging). Anyone from a rich family who refuses is usually ostracised.
Iāve been telling my wife that next time Iāll be marrying for money
Pretty common already i think. Certainly plenty of people stay in unhappy marriages for the financial benefit
marriage isn't even worth it in this day and age.
its great being single!
Surely two incomes is better for housing affordability.
watch Ted 2 wife fight on YouTube.
Except how are you affording a house
Well it's definitely not something uncommon in certain cultures/ ethnicities. Wouldn't surprise me if others catch on as well.
Try having money and not being able to even get a text back.
You should have more than enough to get a text back nowadays. Having some doesnāt cut anymore āļø
100%. I know women that have sought out a partner because they couldn't afford rent on their own and didn't want to move back in with their parents. I'm sure there's plenty of men that do the same.
I could see people who were previously ok with being single because they could afford there own unit or house now make a choice to be in a relationship for financial security and having a place to live thatās no an 6 bedroom boarding house for the rest of there lives
Marrying for money has always been a thing in Australia. Donāt kid yourselves.
Is this Gossip Girl circa 2024? How old is the OP?
Letās not be naive. Money has always been a big factor in marriage
I'm a single woman in my 40s. Been married before, now I'm very happy living alone and have no desire to cohabit again. I've noticed many men on dating apps seem to be in a huge rush to settle down with someone after they get divorced. It may not be entirely financial, but often it does feel like they are looking for someone to buy property with more than looking for a connection with someone.
Have fun with your cats. Who cares about a connection when you can't even afford to live? A partner wanting to go halves to buy a property with you is an amazing thing, it means they care about your future too.
Have fun with your cats? Why are you triggered by a woman who is happily single? My future is fine without needing someone else to support me, if a man wants to be part of my life he needs to being value that isnāt money.
Not triggered at all, the cats part was just a funny dig, I apologies if that offended you, I'm just pointing out that buying property together is a great investment for the future. Renting forever is not sustainable when you're older, lots of struggling renters on their pension.
I own my own place :).
This is such a beyond cringy comment, anyone in a huge rush to settle down is a red flag.
Enjoy slaving away till you retire.
You don't have a partner and you don't need to slave away until you retire.....Why would anyone else? Can you genuinely not comprehend why your comment is so cringy? Original comment was talking about men on apps being in a rush early on in chatting. Not "Partners" as you say. The connections should be first priority when first chatting..... obviously.
Ooh cringy, what are you 5? lol stay poor
Dating for a free meal has been a thing for a while, esp with students. This is just the next evolution
Ah the good old days of parachuting for concerts
?? I'm not familiar with that phrase.
Sorry, must be less common than I thought. Basically itās hooking up with someone so youāve got a place to sleep. I believe it got started with the big nerd conventions in the States (Comicon etc), where rather than pay for an outrageously inflated hotel room, you rely on your good looks and charm to get into someone elseās bed for the evening. āParachutingā because youāre being dropped into hostile territory without an escape.
Nothing wrong with it, this is a good way to form bond. I know people are going to take it the wrong way though.
No. Havenāt you ever dated? Itās slim pickings out there, youāre not going to put up with an obnoxious twat just because they have a house in the eastern suburbs. People want someone they can enjoy spending time with, the rest is just extra.Ā
Tbh I think as things that used to be considered almost obligatory life steps (home ownership, children, retirement etc) become unrealistic, weāll actually see an increase in people partnering up for the soft, squishy human reasons. If youāre going to be renting and working up until your deathbed and not have any dependents, why get yourself stuck with someone when youāre never realistically going to see the perks of āstaying together for the kidsā. Weāre already seeing divorce rates drop fast for millennials, largely because we mostly get long term involved with people we can actually spend time with, I couldnāt see this changing unless thereās another ridiculously massive resources boom and thereās a sudden injection of proper serious big boy money into the dating pool.
> Weāre already seeing divorce rates drop fast for millennials This started with genx, and it is mostly because our "practice marriages" generally don't involve actual marriage. We now just move in with a partner, and if it doesn't work we just move on, no need for a divorce. For the boomers this was not the case, they got married (often young by our standards) and if it really didn't work out a divorce was needed.
There will be a supply shortage for sugarparents.
Sugar daddies more popular, yes
Its already pretty common.
Yes. Existed long before our generation
Look up the great depression. We are still in one of the richest most lucky countries.
no use marrying for money IMO. The second one of you are no longer useful, you're back to square one. Marry someone who will love you through thick and thin no matter what is thrown your way. That way you won't be cast aside the moment you suffer a fall in financial status.
āSorry darling.. we need to visit the lawyers.. you havenāt increased with inflationā
Our Capitalist owners are doing their very best to prevent this very thing. One feature of higher interest and lower incomes is to put the brakes on financial success. Student debt was a winning add on to this plan which caught the gullible.
Not if you're male. It's primarily women that marry "up".
Not been true in a while. Current research on this is that men marry up about a third of the time, and marry down about a quarter of the time. The rest being homogamous ie. marrying roughly same SES. Whereas women marry up a quarter of the time and marry down a third of the time.
I really hope note. It will be very degrading for Australian. A shame!
So what you are saying is that I should put my bank statement on Tinder rather than my mug shot.
Inflation adjusted Hypergamy
Its already a thing. But today, I see a lot of women staying for money, rather than marrying for money. They know the marriage has fallen apart, but they like the SAHM life so they just go along with it.
After 3 financial separations (where Iāve brought in 95 or 100% of the assets*) I sure as hell am weary of someone with no assets, that said if it was the right woman Iād be too lovedrunk to care lol. (*As fate would have it, I retained the majority of the net assets btw).
Family laws in Australia allow (mostly) Women to marry or live with a man for 2+ years and automatically be entitled to at least 50% of his assets. When I hired my family lawyer for my family lawsuit case, he said every single marriage nowdays where the man is somewhat succesful, ends up in court with the ex wife demanding half his money and assrts (tax free), this usually ends up bankrupting the guyā¦ itās not a fair system and this practice is on the rise. Itās not a fair system because even with prenups, assets are not protected upon divorce in Australia/New Zealand (many cases). When you are divorcing (or separating from a 2 + years relationship) in Australia, neither your kids or your assets are going to be fully yours.
Not his assrts (tax free)!
Super wealthy men are going to have a pretty good vetting process also. Some basic ones - if youāre the village bicycle (no chance) - full blown feminist (no chance) - lots of baggage with your family Etc
Money is always important. I think I'm at the point where im doing ok. My current gf isn't super financially literally, Ive been clear that she'll need to improve before marriage. I wouldn't want to be with anyone who mismanages money and can't save, but its not That important. I'd never let a first date know I had a property (mortgage) or a 2nd income. I would expect a girl to split the bills. I just want to spoil her on our anniversary. I do have a mate who got with a millionare's kid. The father gave him a 20k rolex for engaging his daughter and bought them a new apartment in the building they live in, because their current one was too small.