- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why don't more wives demand their own retirment account?
Posted on 7/21/17 at 11:35 am
Posted on 7/21/17 at 11:35 am
The story from the OT got me thinking here, but why don't more women/ wives/ spouse that doesn't work demand their own retirement/ savings/ investment accounts?
Frankly my wife is to blame also. But I contribute basically half of our retirement savings into her wn account whether she knows it or not. She is half owner of my business so she gets half into her own SEP IRA and then I also do a Roth for both of us. If for no other reasons the extra tax deferment.
You hear about all these women married to millionaires with essentially 0 to their name at age 50+ when they are divorced. At the age of 60+ is much much worse because they should be able to retire on just their own account! With all due respect to them, they are idiots to not demand their own investments.
So with all the movements we have, why is this not pushed by feminism more?
Frankly my wife is to blame also. But I contribute basically half of our retirement savings into her wn account whether she knows it or not. She is half owner of my business so she gets half into her own SEP IRA and then I also do a Roth for both of us. If for no other reasons the extra tax deferment.
You hear about all these women married to millionaires with essentially 0 to their name at age 50+ when they are divorced. At the age of 60+ is much much worse because they should be able to retire on just their own account! With all due respect to them, they are idiots to not demand their own investments.
So with all the movements we have, why is this not pushed by feminism more?
8
Posted on 7/21/17 at 11:46 am to baldona
A large portion of the country doesn't save for retirement/understand investments. The ones that do understand this concept are not going to be stay at home spouses.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 12:00 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
The ones that do understand this concept are not going to be stay at home spouses.
I disagree. There's tons of women that work "professionally" as say a teacher, nurse, etc. that are not at all in charge of their families finances and are pretty clueless on retirement.
There's tons of women that got a professional degree but decided to stay home with the kids and their husband makes 6 figures or much more.
It just seems like you routinely hear about women "needing" a divorce settlement to have any money at all and they go work a "min" wage job to survive after being married 25 years to a doctor, or lawyer, or someone else that is worth $3-4 mil+ plus.
I just don't understand why more women don't demand a percentage of money being set aside for them. I don't understand how you can just live your life completely dependent on someone else I guess?
This post was edited on 7/21/17 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 7/21/17 at 1:22 pm to baldona
Are you talking about a tax cut targeted to high income workers?
Guess you don't watch the news much???
Divorce rulings essentially split the assets so what's the point?
Guess you don't watch the news much???
Divorce rulings essentially split the assets so what's the point?
Posted on 7/21/17 at 1:36 pm to Oenophile Brah
quote:
Divorce rulings essentially split the assets so what's the point?
For one, as I said many women have very little in their name unless they steal it or they take something in their joint account at the time of a divorce. So to actually pay normal bills they either have to get court ordered payments from the spouse or they have to get back into the work force until a divorce is finalized which can take a year or years.
Furthermore, "splitting" assets can be very costly. If instead women had their own retirement accounts for example they could survive on their own until the divorce was finalized and they received everything else.
I'm saying that retirement savings are often times by the person. I don't get to either put $11k in my roth or $5500 into into mine and $5500 into my wife's, its split it up or only $5500 into mine. 401k and other retirement vehicles are usually the same way.
This post was edited on 7/21/17 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 7/21/17 at 2:09 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
A large portion of the country doesn't save for retirement/understand investments. The ones that do understand this concept are not going to be stay at home spouses.
Well that couldn't be more wrong.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 2:21 pm to baldona
quote:
I don't understand how you can just live your life completely dependent on someone else I guess?
that is something that is hard to understand until you have a family. also, it is a 2 way street. just because a wife stays home doesn't mean she is completely dependent. in a good marriage, the stay-at-home wife is just as crucial to good finances as the working husband. Some examples:
1) My wife is responsible for shopping through the ads every week and making sure we are wise in how we spend money on groceries, clothing and other essentials. I'd say in general she saves us about $4k/yr doing this about 30 minutes a week.
2) My wife is responsible for taking care of our 3 kids during the day. This saves us about $12.5k/yr assuming 2 weeks per year we don't need it due to vacation.
3) My wife is responsible for so many day-2-day activities/scheduling that I couldn't even begin to put a value on it.
4) She provides added value of knowing my kids are safe and healthy.
5) There are so many added values of having a capable stay at home mom/wife that it is very difficult to put a $ number on that.
In the end, me and my kids are just as dependent on my wife as they are on me.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 2:21 pm to notsince98
quote:
Well that couldn't be more wrong
According to Forbes in 2016 45% of Americans had no retirement savings. Of the 55% that do have retirement savings what do you think the percentage is that are actively investing or involved? Most are just getting part of their check taken out for their 401k and don't have much financial knowledge beyond that. So let's say 20% of the 55% are active in the markets and/or understand the finance of their retirement savings. What percentage of that is stay at home spouses that are raising kids full time? I'll give you half (which I think is way too high), that's only 6.5% of Americans.
If you can explain how that is completely wrong I'm all ears.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 2:36 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
According to Forbes in 2016 45% of Americans had no retirement savings. Of the 55% that do have retirement savings what do you think the percentage is that are actively investing or involved? Most are just getting part of their check taken out for their 401k and don't have much financial knowledge beyond that. So let's say 20% of the 55% are active in the markets and/or understand the finance of their retirement savings. What percentage of that is stay at home spouses that are raising kids full time? I'll give you half (which I think is way too high), that's only 6.5% of Americans.
If you can explain how that is completely wrong I'm all ears.
You picked the wrong part of your statement to defend. Stay at home mom's are just as financially literate as any other group.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 2:42 pm to notsince98
Maybe, but I don't think so. Really the only financially literate group in the country is people in accounting/finance, maybe business owners. If someone is financially literate in a group outside of that I consider them an outlier not part of the norm. What percentage of stay at home moms have a background in accounting/finance?
Again I'm all ears if you have actual data to support your claims and am willing to learn and changing my opinion if you have any evidence. Just saying your wrong, however, is pointless and lazy.
Again I'm all ears if you have actual data to support your claims and am willing to learn and changing my opinion if you have any evidence. Just saying your wrong, however, is pointless and lazy.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 3:01 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
Maybe, but I don't think so. Really the only financially literate group in the country is people in accounting/finance, maybe business owners. If someone is financially literate in a group outside of that I consider them an outlier not part of the norm. What percentage of stay at home moms have a background in accounting/finance?
Again I'm all ears if you have actual data to support your claims and am willing to learn and changing my opinion if you have any evidence. Just saying your wrong, however, is pointless and lazy.
Just going from our group of acquaintances where I live, my wife hangs out in different groups and knows quite a bit about 25-30 other stay at home moms. Almost all of them are aware of their retirement needs and take saving for retirement seriously and understand the proper ways of doing it. Of course they all have different philosophies for saving and finances. Some are focused on paying off mortgages and retiring in their 40s. Some are more focused on retiring later using their current incomes in other ways.
You have to have a lot of financial awareness to live off of 1 income and plan/prepare for that. I think a better generalization would be to say that people who don't understand finances, savings and retirement are forced to have both parents work because they aren't good with money.
I can honestly say I only know one family with a stay at home wife that is terrible with money. And it isn't exactly they are terrible with it as they have more money from parents than they can possibly spend so they just blow it constantly. I don't know any single income households around here don't have a good grasp on their entire financial situation.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 3:20 pm to notsince98
quote:
Just going from our group of acquaintances where I live,
So your rebuttal is anecdotal evidence from your immediate area.
quote:
my wife hangs out in different groups and knows quite a bit about 25-30 other stay at home moms.
You want to change/disprove my opinion on the backs of 25-30 people in the same social circle as an upper middle class person.
I just gave you empirical evidence that HALF the country doesn't even save for retirement, and you say that I'm completely wrong. Then your counter argument is you know 25 people not that way. C'mon dude, this board is usually a good place for discussion, but you coming here telling people they "couldn't be more wrong" with no context and then going further by using your immediate social circle as your evidence has no place on this board. Take that stupid shite to the OT. This is a board for insightful discussions where hopefully we can all learn something and/or get advice.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 3:23 pm to notsince98
quote:
I don't understand how you can just live your life completely dependent on someone else I guess?
just because a wife stays home doesn't mean she is completely dependent
Did you just look for a single sentence in the OP's post to find something to argue your point? Your post is completely irrelevant to the thread. When you read the post/thread it is obvious he is talking about financial dependency as the stay at home wife in this case does not have any external income.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 3:30 pm to baldona
If set-up properly, as a business owner you have a lot more flexibility on how much you can put aside for tax deferment purposes. W-2 earners (and many specialty 1099 earners) cannot set-up retirement accounts for their wives, and they do not receive the benefit of setting up an IRA for the wife if she does not earn income.
You may be overlooking the part of the tax code that says the $5,500 limit is also contingent on that individual earning more than the $5,500. If they do not earn the income, they cannot receive the tax deferment benefit.
I am not a tax accountant/lawyer, but I do know if you are a business owner, there are ways around that rule. I just do not know what they are (I'm sure it has to do with implying that she earns a portion of the income from the business or listing her as an owner).
You may be overlooking the part of the tax code that says the $5,500 limit is also contingent on that individual earning more than the $5,500. If they do not earn the income, they cannot receive the tax deferment benefit.
I am not a tax accountant/lawyer, but I do know if you are a business owner, there are ways around that rule. I just do not know what they are (I'm sure it has to do with implying that she earns a portion of the income from the business or listing her as an owner).
Posted on 7/21/17 at 4:26 pm to Weekend Warrior79
quote:
they do not receive the benefit of setting up an IRA for the wife if she does not earn income.
Anyone can contribute to a Roth I believe? I guess Roth is not for high income earners though. What about a trad? Ok but if not for an IRA, at least have some clue about taxed investment accounts.
Yes just because a wife is "stay at home mom" doesn't mean she is not involved in the family finances. For example, many pay the bills. But furthermore, if you are solely dependent on the husband you would certainly think they would be involved in the savings, life insurance, and retirement discussions because if he died or was otherwise unable to work they should be involved in planning for those things?
I just don't understand how so many women married to wealthy men until the divorce, "have no idea where the money is or how much they have". The only reason you can have no clue is by being both ignorant and your husband trying to hide it.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 4:48 pm to Weekend Warrior79
Solo 401k can include wife as a participant fwiw.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 5:19 pm to baldona
Edited to remove wrong information.
Corrected below.
Corrected below.
This post was edited on 7/21/17 at 5:59 pm
Posted on 7/21/17 at 5:46 pm to SLafourche07
quote:
Incorrect. You can only contribute to IRA's if you have earned income.
quote:
Joe Blow W-2's wife doesn't have any income so she can't contribute to an IRA.
Yes they can,
"Spousal IRAs"
"If you file a joint return, you may be able to contribute to an IRA even if you did not have taxable compensation as long as your spouse did. The amount of your combined contributions can’t be more than the taxable compensation reported on your joint return. See the formula in IRS Publication 590-A."
LINK
"A non-working spouse can open a Roth IRA based on the working spouse’s earnings (and the couple’s tax filing status)."
LINK
This post was edited on 7/21/17 at 5:49 pm
Posted on 7/21/17 at 6:14 pm to baldona
Structured my pension so that wife continues to receive after my death. We both have equal amounts in IRAs. She does.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 7:04 pm to baldona
I know this board (well, this whole site) is mostly men, but I think your initial assumption--that most nonworking spouses don't have their own funds--is an antiquated one. Perhaps this is true among boomer & older women, but every damn GenX woman I know is either stacking her own cash, squirreling away her spouse's money, or otherwise planning for a future WITHOUT social security. We've pretty much all been told, since the first moments of adulthood, that the social security system is gonna fail before we retire, unless it is radically restructured. Whether or not this comes to pass, just the thought of it has led to a hyper focus on retirement savings among people my age, including women.
I don't hear "all about" women married to wealthy men who end up with nothing....I hear about women ending up with 1/2 of the assets b/c they have documented their contributions to household upkeep, child rearing, career support, etc. But I live in a community property state whose judges still tend to favor women a bit in divorce settlements....YMMV in other states w/o community property.
I don't hear "all about" women married to wealthy men who end up with nothing....I hear about women ending up with 1/2 of the assets b/c they have documented their contributions to household upkeep, child rearing, career support, etc. But I live in a community property state whose judges still tend to favor women a bit in divorce settlements....YMMV in other states w/o community property.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News