OT - Couples and buying stuff together

lost_in_thought

rjsterry wrote:

Call me old fashioned, but I'm fairly sure marriage vows don't have exclusion clauses - it's all or nothing. From my very limited knowledge of the subject, I don't think the fact that something is in a separate personal account excludes it from consideration in any divorce settlement either.

EDIT: woah, the thread has moved on a bit since I started typing - that was in response to LiT's comment about joint accounts if anyone was wondering.

It's called a pre-nup, daaaaaaaaaahling.

And there are other ways.

cee

DonDaddyD wrote:

Don't want to live at the 66's anyway!

C'ee wrote:

....to be honest....on purchases like a TV, first, we talk about the requirement of needing a tv. Then how much we can afford to spend. You seem to be more 'brand-y' than I am....I couldn't give a rats toenail whether its an LG, Sony, or Haanspree...they all use LG screen panels anyway.

I'm not brand-y I like quality over and above the brand, I like Samsung TV's because I generally like the picture quality enough to pay extra. However, Novatech use the same panel so if the image is the same I'd happily get their TV minus the price of the brand name.

I agree with everything else you've said.

not brand-y? I made your soul weep a couple of weeks ago by telling you that the AMD/Intel debate didn't matter as long as it did what you wanted...you then went into some garb about how your brand affiliations and choices make you, well you, and that your very identity was defined by the unique preferences that you have.....

Or something like that.

DonDaddyD

cee wrote:

SecretSam wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

A (not by any means the only) solution:

Both parties put all their earnings into a single joint account. Everything comes out of that account. Simples.

Swings and roundabouts, and a self imposed restraint make it work.

That's what we do (married) - we did think about a proportional thing (I earn more than my other half) but that's not really a grown up solution. If we think we need something, we discuss it; eg a new telly - do we need it? Usually works OK - I get a PS3, Mrs S-S gets an I-Pod dock in the kitchen, etc etc

The most important sentence in the whole thread in bold.

I think, when you can you should go into things equally. Or at least a contribution to the purchase of the item.

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

I have a friend who 'catches' moles, because it's 'cheaper than getting people in'. He sits with a shotgun for hours waiting for them to surface, then blows them away. He's a marketing consultant. On an insane amount per hour. Time well spent.

You can't put a price on satisfaction.

Good suggestion re the anvil though. Must remember to keep my toes out of the way...

CiB

Call me old-fashioned [go on, pls], but the idea of divorce has never entered the room. Not that there'd be any point; up front it'd be all 'no you have the house, I'll settle on the Bentley and we'll have one cat each', you go for it for real and from what I can gather all bets are off and both sides end up fighting over the tin of bent nails in the garage. And fighting over the cats too - 'You have em, They were your idea' - 'No you can look after the little bleeders. Stinking orrible shagged out beasts'. Etc.

Think I'll stay in cloud-cuckoo land where it's nicer, for as long as poss.

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

I have a friend who 'catches' moles, because it's 'cheaper than getting people in'. He sits with a shotgun for hours waiting for them to surface, then blows them away. He's a marketing consultant. On an insane amount per hour. Time well spent.

You can't put a price on satisfaction.

Good suggestion re the anvil though. Must remember to keep my toes out of the way...

He has a facebook album called 'Moles I've killed'. I should really put the two of you in touch...

cee

you know....

this is all pap DDD...

Maybe I am really lucky...but I would rather be with my lovely mrs c and be homeless than be without and have a big fancy tv.

Contribute to the purchase of an item? I just don't understand this mentality at all.

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Cats are basically self-feeding, we're taking one from Essex to London to deal with a minor mousey issue... I'll save you some mouse corpses.

I have discovered a potential second career over the last few months. We've had an infestation of mice at work. The so-called pros put down bait, then let the mice die under the floorboards, rotting and stinking the place out as they go.

I, on the other hand, have become quite proficient at setting mice traps (old fashioned, Tom & Jerry-style ones) in the right places, with the right bait.

So far the scoreboard reads Me 8 - 0 Mice.

GET IN!

If the score was even 8-1 I'd be very afraid of those mice.

Yes: continued reportage does rather depend on me maintaining a shut-out.

CiB

mickbrown wrote:

...one morning we came down and there was a still alive baby mouse in the sink with no nose left (cue how did it smell gag), looking up at us with baleful eyes.

I was mowing the bottom field once eee when arr wurr a younger man and heard a squeak, looked back behind the mower and saw a baby rabbit with its leg missing, quite clearly just hapened. Who to blame? At the third attempt I managed to take its head off. Not that it's stuck with me or anything for the last 20 years or so, but it had to be done.

rjsterry

lost_in_thought wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Call me old fashioned, but I'm fairly sure marriage vows don't have exclusion clauses - it's all or nothing. From my very limited knowledge of the subject, I don't think the fact that something is in a separate personal account excludes it from consideration in any divorce settlement either.

EDIT: woah, the thread has moved on a bit since I started typing - that was in response to LiT's comment about joint accounts if anyone was wondering.

It's called a pre-nup, daaaaaaaaaahling.

And there are other ways.

Last I heard, pre-nups were taken into consideration, but not enforceable. If you're going to resort to something more underhand, that doesn't bode well for the marriage in the first place does it? I'm with CiB on this.

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Call me old fashioned, but I'm fairly sure marriage vows don't have exclusion clauses - it's all or nothing. From my very limited knowledge of the subject, I don't think the fact that something is in a separate personal account excludes it from consideration in any divorce settlement either.

EDIT: woah, the thread has moved on a bit since I started typing - that was in response to LiT's comment about joint accounts if anyone was wondering.

It's called a pre-nup, daaaaaaaaaahling.

And there are other ways.

Ignoring my link?

Are we engaged or something, WTF has been going on at the Morpeth!!!

not brand-y? I made your soul weep a couple of weeks ago by telling you that the AMD/Intel debate didn't matter as long as it did what you wanted...you then went into some garb about how your brand affiliations and choices make you, well you, and that your very identity was defined by the unique preferences that you have.....

Or something like that.

That was more about my inner geek than loyalty to any brand. It's like Marvel or DC, the loyalty extends beyond the brand, are you a Superman do anything type hero or do you like you powers explained with some quasi-genetic logic. Baby back ribs or spare ribs. That kind of thing.

CIB wrote:

Call me old-fashioned [go on, pls], but the idea of divorce has never entered the room. Not that there'd be any point; up front it'd be all 'no you have the house, I'll settle on the Bentley and we'll have one cat each', you go for it for real and from what I can gather all bets are off and both sides end up fighting over the tin of bent nails in the garage. And fighting over the cats too - 'You have em, They were your idea' - 'No you can look after the little bleeders. Stinking orrible shagged out beasts'. Etc.

All I ask for is the Stereo, TV, PC, bikes and comics (especially the comics). If anyone I was divorcing went for those (especially the comics) I can't say anymore for potential legal reasons.....

C'ee wrote:

Contribute to the purchase of an item? I just don't understand this mentality at all.

The money matters only as much as it buys things that make living life in this society marginally bearable arguably more enjoyable.

But my girlfriend and family come first before wealth and I feel wealthy because of them.

Contributing to the purchase of a household item, well we're a couple and buying things together is what you do, surely?

lost_in_thought

rjsterry wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Call me old fashioned, but I'm fairly sure marriage vows don't have exclusion clauses - it's all or nothing. From my very limited knowledge of the subject, I don't think the fact that something is in a separate personal account excludes it from consideration in any divorce settlement either.

EDIT: woah, the thread has moved on a bit since I started typing - that was in response to LiT's comment about joint accounts if anyone was wondering.

It's called a pre-nup, daaaaaaaaaahling.

And there are other ways.

Last I heard, pre-nups were taken into consideration, but not enforceable. If you're going to resort to something more underhand, that doesn't bode well for the marriage in the first place does it? I'm with CiB on this.

Well, it depends. It seems from my reading that pre-nups are taken ever further into consideration.

As for 'underhand' measures, the way I see it, I've got to protect my own interests, for the sake of my potential future, and indeed that of any offspring.

Men can remarry, as can women, but they can continue to father children into their 60s, whereas us girls are limited by biology. Why on earth would I want to finance an estranged ex-husband and some other bimbo's kids, were I to pop my clogs, or in the unlikely scenario that the bloke is awarded custody?

I don't see a problem with that. But then, hey, I'm not exactly a romantic. More a realist.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Call me old fashioned, but I'm fairly sure marriage vows don't have exclusion clauses - it's all or nothing. From my very limited knowledge of the subject, I don't think the fact that something is in a separate personal account excludes it from consideration in any divorce settlement either.

EDIT: woah, the thread has moved on a bit since I started typing - that was in response to LiT's comment about joint accounts if anyone was wondering.

It's called a pre-nup, daaaaaaaaaahling.

And there are other ways.

Last I heard, pre-nups were taken into consideration, but not enforceable. If you're going to resort to something more underhand, that doesn't bode well for the marriage in the first place does it? I'm with CiB on this.

+1 In an playful argument Ms DDD told me that prenumps don't necessariy work. And at the beginning of our relationship she was all "never get married, never gonna get married". Now she's all "where's the f*cking ring"! but that's another issue....

In the same playful argument I once established to Ms DDD that all I'd ask for is the bike, TV, PC and comics (especially the comics). She agreed that she would never touch the comics. Then I asked if she could represent herself and could I go to the same firm she works at for representation, you know to humiliate and be nasty... she reinforced that she'd take me to the cleaners.

God I love her!

(I think these conversations help establish boundaries and the like).

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Call me old fashioned, but I'm fairly sure marriage vows don't have exclusion clauses - it's all or nothing. From my very limited knowledge of the subject, I don't think the fact that something is in a separate personal account excludes it from consideration in any divorce settlement either.

EDIT: woah, the thread has moved on a bit since I started typing - that was in response to LiT's comment about joint accounts if anyone was wondering.

It's called a pre-nup, daaaaaaaaaahling.

And there are other ways.

Ignoring my link?

Are we engaged or something, WTF has been going on at the Morpeth!!!

Eh? What link?

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

So far the scoreboard reads Me 8 - 0 Mice.

GET IN!

If the score was even 8-1 I'd be very afraid of those mice.[/quote]

Yes: continued reportage does rather depend on me maintaining a shut-out.[/quote]


Is this the one where the mouse befriends the bulldog or is it the one where the mouse has a cousin in Mexico?

CiB

DonDaddyD wrote:

All I ask for is the Stereo, TV, PC, bikes and comics (especially the comics). If anyone I was divorcing went for those (especially the comics) I can't say anymore for potential legal reasons.....

Reality is that if kids are involved in a divorce, the mother tends to keep the house and most of its content [to continue the lifestyle to which her + kids have become accustomed] and the bloke gets the keys to a pokey little bedsit and the opportunity to visit the zoo every other Saturday, along with more visits to McDonalds than any sane person would normally want i.e. 1.

If it did come to it, I'd probably settle for not letting on how the router / PC / printers are configured and then introduce a small but significant problem into it all. And change the password on the TV out of belligerence.

NGale

lost_in_thought wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Call me old fashioned, but I'm fairly sure marriage vows don't have exclusion clauses - it's all or nothing. From my very limited knowledge of the subject, I don't think the fact that something is in a separate personal account excludes it from consideration in any divorce settlement either.

EDIT: woah, the thread has moved on a bit since I started typing - that was in response to LiT's comment about joint accounts if anyone was wondering.

It's called a pre-nup, daaaaaaaaaahling.

And there are other ways.

Last I heard, pre-nups were taken into consideration, but not enforceable. If you're going to resort to something more underhand, that doesn't bode well for the marriage in the first place does it? I'm with CiB on this.

Well, it depends. It seems from my reading that pre-nups are taken ever further into consideration.

As for 'underhand' measures, the way I see it, I've got to protect my own interests, for the sake of my potential future, and indeed that of any offspring.

Men can remarry, as can women, but they can continue to father children into their 60s, whereas us girls are limited by biology. Why on earth would I want to finance an estranged ex-husband and some other bimbo's kids, were I to pop my clogs, or in the unlikely scenario that the bloke is awarded custody?

I don't see a problem with that. But then, hey, I'm not exactly a romantic. More a realist.

Jake knows how you feel, hence why he's in no hurry to get married again. In hindsight he wishes he had a pre-nup with his ex wife

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

Eh? What link?

Not link, this post:

DDD wrote:

OK:

1. You've thought about divorce already, presumably you've thought about moving in, getting engaged, wedding, kids then... Please tell me romance hasn't been defeated utterly by practicality?

2. How did you manage to get protected from divorce proceedings, is it to with a law change protecting hidden assessts or something?

3. Who is the lucky guy?

CIB wrote:

If it did come to it, I'd probably settle for not letting on how the router / PC / printers are configured and then introduce a small but significant problem into it all. And change the password on the TV out of belligerence.

See there it is. That little bit of 'fight' that makes you want to be as inhospitable as possible during a divorce. She broke your heart! Is there any better reason to turn all the fuses off and break the boiler?

snooks

DonDaddyD wrote:

Now she's all "where's the f*cking ring"! but that's another issue....

When it comes to that ring you'll be allowed to spend lots of money, whatever you want to spent and a lot more

Makes a new TV look cheap, so cheap you'll have forgotten what all the fuss was about

DonDaddyD

Yes, well I wanted a Wilier Izoard as they'll stop making them soon.

Sigh....

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Eh? What link?

Not link, this post:

DDD wrote:

OK:

1. You've thought about divorce already, presumably you've thought about moving in, getting engaged, wedding, kids then... Please tell me romance hasn't been defeated utterly by practicality?

2. How did you manage to get protected from divorce proceedings, is it to with a law change protecting hidden assessts or something?

3. Who is the lucky guy?

Ahh soz, missed it.

1. Nope, all the things you presume are incorrect.

2. Pre-nups, other things.

3. NOYB.

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

DDD wrote:

3. Who is the lucky guy?

3. NOYB.

<Guffaw!>

You're dating a bloke called Nobby, *and* you can't type!

<snorting laughte!r>

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

DDD wrote:

3. Who is the lucky guy?

3. NOYB.

<Guffaw!>

You're dating a bloke called Nobby, *and* you can't type!

<snorting laughte!r>

It's the bottle of Veuve I had with lunch.

:shock: :oops:

DonDaddyD

How can you have pre-numps if your not even getting married or engaged....

Wow! You're a hard bean.

Does he/she/they at least cycle a road bike and are playing on or own carbon fibre or Titanium?

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

How can you have pre-numps if your not even getting married or engaged....

Wow! You're a hard bean.

Of course I haven't had anything drawn up. I just know I will.

And yes, maybe, but a realist.

Sewinman

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

And there I was empathising with Mrs DDD.

Finding yourself having to take the financial lead?

You strike me as the type not to be so willing to put your money into a single pot with Mr L_i_T.

Well, yes.

And it depends really, I've never had a joint account but it seeems like a logical idea for joint expenses. However, any large assets purchased with essentially my contribution would be protected from divorce proceedings.

According to what my dad has just been through (again) - you have to declare all global assets at divorce proceedings including bank account balances, regardless of whose name they are in. The judge decides how they are split. Your divorcee can come back at a later date if you have not declared all assets and demand more.

You would basically have to hide your assets for them to not be at least considered. Not a very nice way of conducting a marriage!

lost_in_thought

Sewinman wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

And there I was empathising with Mrs DDD.

Finding yourself having to take the financial lead?

You strike me as the type not to be so willing to put your money into a single pot with Mr L_i_T.

Well, yes.

And it depends really, I've never had a joint account but it seeems like a logical idea for joint expenses. However, any large assets purchased with essentially my contribution would be protected from divorce proceedings.

According to what my dad has just been through (again) - you have to declare all global assets at divorce proceedings including bank account balances, regardless of whose name they are in. The judge decides how they are split. Your divorcee can come back at a later date if you have not declared all assets and demand more.

You would basically have to hide your assets for them to not be at least considered. Not a very nice way of conducting a marriage!

I never said it was nice.

Nice guys finish _____. (clue: not first)

rjsterry

lost_in_thought wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Call me old fashioned, but I'm fairly sure marriage vows don't have exclusion clauses - it's all or nothing. From my very limited knowledge of the subject, I don't think the fact that something is in a separate personal account excludes it from consideration in any divorce settlement either.

EDIT: woah, the thread has moved on a bit since I started typing - that was in response to LiT's comment about joint accounts if anyone was wondering.

It's called a pre-nup, daaaaaaaaaahling.

And there are other ways.

Last I heard, pre-nups were taken into consideration, but not enforceable. If you're going to resort to something more underhand, that doesn't bode well for the marriage in the first place does it? I'm with CiB on this.

Well, it depends. It seems from my reading that pre-nups are taken ever further into consideration.

As for 'underhand' measures, the way I see it, I've got to protect my own interests, for the sake of my potential future, and indeed that of any offspring.

Men can remarry, as can women, but they can continue to father children into their 60s, whereas us girls are limited by biology. Why on earth would I want to finance an estranged ex-husband and some other bimbo's kids, were I to pop my clogs, or in the unlikely scenario that the bloke is awarded custody?

I don't see a problem with that. But then, hey, I'm not exactly a romantic. More a realist.

Choose carefully then, eh?

NGale

Sewinman wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

And there I was empathising with Mrs DDD.

Finding yourself having to take the financial lead?

You strike me as the type not to be so willing to put your money into a single pot with Mr L_i_T.

Well, yes.

And it depends really, I've never had a joint account but it seeems like a logical idea for joint expenses. However, any large assets purchased with essentially my contribution would be protected from divorce proceedings.

According to what my dad has just been through (again) - you have to declare all global assets at divorce proceedings including bank account balances, regardless of whose name they are in. The judge decides how they are split. Your divorcee can come back at a later date if you have not declared all assets and demand more.

You would basically have to hide your assets for them to not be at least considered. Not a very nice way of conducting a marriage!

Offshore bank accounts are the way to go it seems :roll:

MonkeyMonster

So why no smut given we're talking about LiT's assets?

Her hair obviously - its insured for millions!