[lalafufu]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/paid-off-1...00268.html

Quote:

After years of keeping his credit cards locked in a fire safe, Peter got an unpleasant surprise: a collection of statements totaling more than $55,000. Peter alleges his wife had broken into the safe and gone on a shopping spree at high-end department stores. To say the least, he wasn’t happy about it, but they remained married for a few years, eventually divorcing in 2012.

“Then she cheated on me, hired an attorney, and I ended up being stuck paying 60k to her in alimony, and ended up with the 55k all stuck in my name,” he claimed to Reddit recently

give them an inch, and they'll take a yard

idk whether it hurts or helps men more when the mainstream media publishes these articles. Blue pill guys will subconsciously get an increased tolerance for shitty female behavior. They see the court system reward bad female behavior and don't even question this source of authority. It's simply accepted as a societal norm because the sheep want to smoothly continue on with their existence. It has got well beyond the point where dudes will make stupid jokes about these issues to laugh it off. That's all they can do. They don't realize there's another option--don't play a game created by a system that's biased against you.

Do blue pillers need to personally be 'fucked' or witness one up close before opening their eyes

[Dr. Howard]

how did he 'stay married to her for a few years'. Financial craziness like that would be equal to cheating to me,the best bet would have been to report the card as stolen. However its not uncommon, I know a girl who's mom saw an old triumph for sale one day and suggested to her husband that she wanted it. He said no, too expensive and she didn't even work on cars. What did she do? A month later she went out and wrote a check from their account and bought it.

At that stage, guys should assume she's fucking other dude's anyway.

[aSimpNamedBrokeback]

Your suppose to figure out they're thieving ass conniving women before you marry them.

[tarquin]

I don't know why any married man would have a credit card limit over $300 and/or a joint bank account. It's just asking for trouble.

[samsamsam]

Background check anyone? I know I am before getting serious.

[kinjutsu]

(07-29-2014 11:17 AM)tarquin Wrote:  

I don't know why any married man would have a credit card limit over $300 and/or a joint bank account. It's just asking for trouble.

Exactly. This. Point.

If she wants a card. Tell her to get it in her name.
Women love to spend money that's not her own.

[Uzisuicide]

I gave my wife an American Express Pass Card that way I could limit what she was able to spend by selecting how much credit she had access to on my Amex card. She maxed out cards in her own name before our divorce. I did get stuck with all the debt from an 'under water' house mortgage. Stories like the one above hit home for me.

[Faust]

If the credit card is in her name, aren't you still liable for the debts if you're married to her? I thought you were.

[CRR]

What I've noticed is even guys without much money are getting screwed.

I know several guys who, in order to please wife/gf, put so many items on credit in order to fund a lifestyle.

The difference now of course is entitlement. I'm in my late 30s. In my youth, rich people drove BMWs and Mercedes, middle class people drove Hondas, poor people shared a used Kia or Hyundai (which both for the record are much better now). Rich people shopped at high end stores like Neiman Marcus, middle class people shopped at Macys, poor people at discount centers.

Now, everyone (especially women) drives a BMW and shops at high end stores. Now granted this isn't scientific, but I see all over my social media people (especially women) who I know have no money showing off their expensive new purse or car. I know they have no money because not only can I easily tell, as someone who works in finance several come to me for advice. And it's shocking how much debt they have and how little income.

As with feminism, it's a cultural problem. I'm not above wearing nice clothes or driving a nice car, not at all. But living within ones means seems like a forgotten value. Instead, it's an entitlement issue. An entitlement for things. I have it hard, I deserve what I want and if she has it why can't I? I'll just figure out how to pay for it later (or just declare bankruptcy). Or some guy can just pay for it because, misogyny.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(07-29-2014 01:32 PM)CRR Wrote:  

What I've noticed is even guys without much money are getting screwed.

I know several guys who, in order to please wife/gf, put so many items on credit in order to fund a lifestyle.

The difference now of course is entitlement. I'm in my late 30s. In my youth, rich people drove BMWs and Mercedes, middle class people drove Hondas, poor people shared a used Kia or Hyundai (which both for the record are much better now). Rich people shopped at high end stores like Neiman Marcus, middle class people shopped at Macys, poor people at discount centers.

Now, everyone (especially women) drives a BMW and shops at high end stores. Now granted this isn't scientific, but I see all over my social media people (especially women) who I know have no money showing off their expensive new purse or car. I know they have no money because not only can I easily tell, as someone who works in finance several come to me for advice. And it's shocking how much debt they have and how little income.

As with feminism, it's a cultural problem. I'm not above wearing nice clothes or driving a nice car, not at all. But living within ones means seems like a forgotten value. Instead, it's an entitlement issue. An entitlement for things. I have it hard, I deserve what I want and if she has it why can't I? I'll just figure out how to pay for it later (or just declare bankruptcy). Or some guy can just pay for it because, misogyny.

Good observation. I blame TV.

Years ago, high-end lifestyles were only shown on programs like "Dynasty," where the people being portrayed were super-rich. But "Sex and the City" and its ilk changed the game, making women think high-end lifestyles were the norm.

What these women don't seem to realize (or care) is that these shows are basically advertisements -- hour-long product placement vehicles. They're consumer indoctrination.

Back to the subject at hand: if you're dealing with a woman who isn't good with money, it's probably not going to work to try and change her outlook. To a lot of women, consumerism is like a religion. And like Church Ladies, they look down on those that are non-believers.

So, for example, if you show a woman with massive credit card debt ways you cut corners financially, she'll respond with "I'm sorry you don't have the money to pay." This happened to me. I gave up.

[d-d-m]

Jesus Christ, my soon-to-be ex-wife is basically the same, although the amount was under $20K. On one hand, I'm glad I'm not alone. On the other...damn, it sucks.

[samsamsam]

(07-29-2014 01:48 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Back to the subject at hand: if you're dealing with a woman who isn't good with money, it's probably not going to work to try and change her outlook. To a lot of women, consumerism is like a religion. And like Church Ladies, they look down on those that are non-believers.

Good point. I just think it is a red flag and no she probably won't change. She might if she hits rock bottom, but with a guy there she will never really hit it. Sounds like the guy ends up taking the beating for her and no lesson is learned on her part. He does of course learn the lesson.

[Peregrine]

Quote:

I know they have no money because not only can I easily tell

I'm curious, how can you tell?

[Ensam]

(07-29-2014 01:30 PM)Faust Wrote:  

If the credit card is in her name, aren't you still liable for the debts if you're married to her? I thought you were.

Yes, debts incurred by either party during the marriage belong to both people.

It's extra fucked because if your wife gets a credit card behind your back, runs up a ton of debt, then divorces you her standard of living is artificially raised above the sustainable level available during the marriage which might increase the amount you have to pay her in alimony.

[lalafufu]

(07-29-2014 09:09 PM)Ensam Wrote:  

(07-29-2014 01:30 PM)Faust Wrote:  

If the credit card is in her name, aren't you still liable for the debts if you're married to her? I thought you were.

Yes, debts incurred by either party during the marriage belong to both people.

It's extra fucked because if your wife gets a credit card behind your back, runs up a ton of debt, then divorces you her standard of living is artificially raised above the sustainable level available during the marriage which might increase the amount you have to pay her in alimony.

how do they decide who pays off which debts

You would think they'd assign it to the person who ran it up by default, but we know common sense is often ignored when it comes to divorces

[CRR]

(07-29-2014 06:10 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  

Quote:

I know they have no money because not only can I easily tell

I'm curious, how can you tell?

To be clear, I can't meet someone and immediately know, although some people reek of being a poser. Most people with money tend to be more humble, or at least they used to.

Not too long ago, personal finances was alongside politics and religion that people generally kept to themselves. Nowadays people share personal information (school debt, credit card debt) likes its nothing. It becomes easy to read between the lines.

Many of them will drive a nice car but live in a crappy area in a crappy apartment. A girl I worked with talked about her and her boyfriend as if they were high rollers. I thought it was interesting that they'd only meet me and my ex at my place or out. I was with our boss and we had to pick her up on our way to a meeting, and she lived with her bf in a dirty, small apartment.

One person I worked with drove a nice car and lived in a very nice, large apartment in a great area, and I know our income was comparable. Thing is, based on her conversations, it was easy to put together she had a lot of debt AND was receiving some sort of government assistance for her kid (single mother). That's the thing, a few people I've encountered freely admit to taking from the gov't, as if they are proud of the scam.

But the biggest reason is working for companies on the financial end, you review financials which includes payroll. Of course I keep all the info I see confidential, but people lie like crazy about how much money they make.

Combine all that with just observing how people behave, it becomes easier to tell and somewhat instinctive. It's like a trained auto mechanic who can spot whats wrong with your car as you're pulling it into the shop.

[Ensam]

(07-29-2014 09:46 PM)lalafufu Wrote:  

(07-29-2014 09:09 PM)Ensam Wrote:  

(07-29-2014 01:30 PM)Faust Wrote:  

If the credit card is in her name, aren't you still liable for the debts if you're married to her? I thought you were.

Yes, debts incurred by either party during the marriage belong to both people.

It's extra fucked because if your wife gets a credit card behind your back, runs up a ton of debt, then divorces you her standard of living is artificially raised above the sustainable level available during the marriage which might increase the amount you have to pay her in alimony.

how do they decide who pays off which debts

You would think they'd assign it to the person who ran it up by default, but we know common sense is often ignored when it comes to divorces

Depends on the state. You split the debts just like you split the assets - with one huge caveat. The person whose name is on the debt is always liable even if the other party doesn't live up to their agreement. So you and your wife buy a car, your name goes on the loan, she gets the car in the divorce and agrees to pay the debt. If she stops making payments on the car loan you are responsible for the debt even though you don't have possession of the car! In community property states it doesn't even matter if your name is on the loan. Both parties are responsible for the debt being paid off. If she stops paying her share of the loans they'll come after you.

[El Chinito loco]

(07-29-2014 10:00 PM)CRR Wrote:  

Combine all that with just observing how people behave, it becomes easier to tell and somewhat instinctive. It's like a trained auto mechanic who can spot whats wrong with your car as you're pulling it into the shop.

One of the tells is that true self made people with money tend to be rather frugal. They know the value of using money efficiently so they live below their means. The easiest one is the basic financial literacy test. If someone doesn't really understand what compounding is or how it applies to them then they are most likely posers.

Posers also tend to throw it around a lot and flash money. Bling also signals that most likely they don't actually have two cents to rub together unless they are a well known athlete or something.

There's the super wealthy class of people who use up money like it's toilet paper but those are comparatively rare and not people you come across randomly. The irony is that people like this get a lot of freebies because of status reasons.

There's also a pretty big difference between rich and wealthy. You can be rich and fall off pretty quickly with poor spending habits.

[Coldfire]

Why the fuck should men have to pay to maintain their standard of living part of being an adult is knowing that you can't all ways get what you want and you have to make changes. Why can't the judge just tell them to live within their means and stop forcing men to pay these spoiled bitches.

[JohnKreese]

(07-29-2014 10:11 PM)Ensam Wrote:  

(07-29-2014 09:46 PM)lalafufu Wrote:  

(07-29-2014 09:09 PM)Ensam Wrote:  

(07-29-2014 01:30 PM)Faust Wrote:  

If the credit card is in her name, aren't you still liable for the debts if you're married to her? I thought you were.

Yes, debts incurred by either party during the marriage belong to both people.

It's extra fucked because if your wife gets a credit card behind your back, runs up a ton of debt, then divorces you her standard of living is artificially raised above the sustainable level available during the marriage which might increase the amount you have to pay her in alimony.

how do they decide who pays off which debts

You would think they'd assign it to the person who ran it up by default, but we know common sense is often ignored when it comes to divorces

Depends on the state. You split the debts just like you split the assets - with one huge caveat. The person whose name is on the debt is always liable even if the other party doesn't live up to their agreement. So you and your wife buy a car, your name goes on the loan, she gets the car in the divorce and agrees to pay the debt. If she stops making payments on the car loan you are responsible for the debt even though you don't have possession of the car! In community property states it doesn't even matter if your name is on the loan. Both parties are responsible for the debt being paid off. If she stops paying her share of the loans they'll come after you.

Ok, can we start a "reasons not to get married in the Western world" thread and pin this at the top? This alone should be enough to make anyone's blood run cold (mine did reading it).

[Suits]

(07-29-2014 10:46 PM)Coldfire Wrote:  

Why the fuck should men have to pay to maintain their standard of living part of being an adult is knowing that you can't all ways get what you want and you have to make changes. Why can't the judge just tell them to live within their means and stop forcing men to pay these spoiled bitches.

Because equality.

[El Chinito loco]

(07-29-2014 11:30 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(07-29-2014 10:46 PM)Coldfire Wrote:  

Why the fuck should men have to pay to maintain their standard of living part of being an adult is knowing that you can't all ways get what you want and you have to make changes. Why can't the judge just tell them to live within their means and stop forcing men to pay these spoiled bitches.

Because equality.

I also assume on the macro side of things that the government makes out reasonably well too. Because it's turning a more tax efficient joint filing household into two separate individual filers with higher rates. There's a lot of "slippage" that goes along with divying wealth up.

The biggest profiteers (besides the woman exploiting the system) are the lawyers and irs.

[CRR]

(07-29-2014 10:23 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(07-29-2014 10:00 PM)CRR Wrote:  

Combine all that with just observing how people behave, it becomes easier to tell and somewhat instinctive. It's like a trained auto mechanic who can spot whats wrong with your car as you're pulling it into the shop.

One of the tells is that true self made people with money tend to be rather frugal. They know the value of using money efficiently so they live below their means. The easiest one is the basic financial literacy test. If someone doesn't really understand what compounding is or how it applies to them then they are most likely posers.

Posers also tend to throw it around a lot and flash money. Bling also signals that most likely they don't actually have two cents to rub together unless they are a well known athlete or something.

There's the super wealthy class of people who use up money like it's toilet paper but those are comparatively rare and not people you come across randomly. The irony is that people like this get a lot of freebies because of status reasons.

There's also a pretty big difference between rich and wealthy. You can be rich and fall off pretty quickly with poor spending habits.

All true.

I'd add a lot boils down to how one carries him/herself. Its a lot like social media. The person who is constantly (humble)bragging is likely a depressed loser.

[Uzisuicide]

It may vary state to state, and the credit card companies may try to tell you that you are liable for your spouses credit card debt. But I can certainly tell you that I was NOT held responsible for credit cards that my wife took out in her name. If they put it on your credit report you can dispute it and win. If she has a card attached to your account then you are liable. If she applied for the card herself you are not.