Hellobee Boards

@MrsSCB: I think this is a GREAT idea. SAHM's sacrafice a lot by walking away from their careers. Experience, staying up to date on current issues in your industry, future earnings potential, and paying into social security.

Wouldn't it be possible to still contribute to an IRA as a SAHM?

I feel like this topic has been talked to death. A lot of women don't look at their future earnings potential when they make the decision to stay at home. Then they find themselves in a positron where they need to return to the workforce and their skills and contacts are too stale. I think it makes sense to work part time where possible.

I think its a great idea if the husband is requesting his wife leave her career. Good for those girls who can get one!

@looch: As long as you file jointly husband and wife can contribute to IRAs up to the max contribution limits or the couple's total earned income, whatever is smaller. So as long as the husband was making at least $11,000 in earned income and the couple filed jointly they could both max out IRA contributions. But you miss out on the much higher contribution limits (not to mention employer matches) of a 401K.

I think it's a smart idea. Leaves from the workforce come with consequences, no shame or harm in protecting yourself and your children.

@T.H.O.U.: yes, true. It could also be a joint decision for one parent to stay at home.

I am just having trouble with how it would work...the working partner would have to put money aside to equal to the other partner's potential wages, bonus, 401k contributions and matches, etc?

@looch: Maybe it would look more like guaranteed alimony payment? (since alimony isn't awarded as often as it used to be to women upon divorce) It wouldn't replace everything you would have made had you kept working, but might provide a cushion to get on your feet with? Its a good question!

@LindsayInNY: I see, okay.

GREAT idea! I'm ALL for prenups, so yeah, I'm for this. I'd prefer to put it in a prenup, so there's no need to even go here later.

I'm not a SAHM, but I've always been one to remember you NEVER know the future so plan accordingly.

Its not the most romantic thing in the world, but it certainly is smart.

I don't know, this just makes me feel squeamish. I don't like the idea of prenups to begin with, although in the case where one party has significantly more assets, I can see the desire to have one. To sign a post nuptial agreement just seems like you're setting yourself up for failure. Maybe if one partner asked the other to give up their career and stay home, against their desires, I could see that, but in my experience, people usually become SAHPs because it is what both parents want.

I also would hope that if a couple breaks up, both parents would care enough about their children to ensure that whoever is going to be the primary caregiver of the children is adequately supported. I know it doesn't always work out that way but that's where I would hope the courts would do their part!

To each their own, but I would never get a pre or post nuptial agreement, I just don't like the message it sends...

I'm surprised at how many people are for this! Is anyone actually doing it?

I kind of get pre-nups, but feel like this would be even more odd to bring up post-marriage.

@LovelyPlum: @Ree723: I see where you're both coming from... DH and I talked a *lot* about a pre-nup but eventually ended up not getting one. We talked about it mostly because we're both lawyers and it's almost a given in some instances. But, we didn't have any assets at the time besides a dog and debt so it didn't really make the most sense.

I'm in the camp that pre- and post-nups both make feel icky bc of the message they send. I know that goes against wise, logical financial planning, but I don't want to have anything that represents that I'm less than 100% committed to a lasting marriage, regardless of the financial risk that may represent.

I have really mixed feelings about this. On one hand, it may be a smart, financial decision, but on the other, I feel that the arrangement of a SAH parent is one that exists within a relationship. Obviously, married or not, a working parent should still provide for their children, in the highest capacity. However, I would have a hard time accepting payment for my winter coats, haircuts, and lattes if my husband and I were to divorce. He may provide that now, but it's part of the shared income perk we have established, as a couple. My husband's income might afford my personal necessities, but I also provide a service by keeping our shared home in order, caring for our child, maintaining a well stocked kitchen, and staying on top of our finances. If we were to separate, these services would be up to him. While our children remain his responsibility, I don't believe I would.

I could just have trouble relating. Although I'm currently a SAHM, I have every intention of returning once DD is a toddler, and attempt to stay updated and well versed in my field. I just feel safer when I feel self sufficient, and personally find that frame of mind acts as better protection that any kind of formal, financial security arrangeent. Of course, this is merely what works for me and my personality.

In the end, I think it comes down to personal belief, and preferences. Women should feel secure and empowered to plan for the future how they see fit.

i think it's a great idea. for myself, i am strongly against divorce, but who's to say when i'm 45 my husband isn't going to go through some midlife crisis & leave me for a 22 year old?? i'm strongly considering a post-nup right now, our entire downpayment for a home is mine, money he had nothing to do with, without me he wouldn't be looking at houses, but since the house will be in his name, i want to make sure if he leaves me, i don't get left homeless. i'm all for spelling out expectations and making sure you protect yourself. you never know what life can bring and i don't think anyone who was screwed by a former spouse saw it coming, no one ever sees it coming, that's why you married them in the first place, because you thought you could trust them.