The Marrying for Money Debate Goes On

Yesterday I talked about how MSNBC says finding a mate can cost you $40k but I skipped over something later in their article that I found as interesting as the $40,000 comment. Here it is:

Nearly 70% of women and 50% of men said they were interested in marrying for money, according to a Prince & Associates survey of 1,134 men and women earning $30,000 to $60,000 a year. When asked just how much money it would have to be, in all cases it was over $1 million in net worth and, in some instances, as high as $2 million.

We've talked before about marrying for money and the general consensus was that people would NOT marry for money, but that it played a role in the marriage decision for most. This information seems to indicate that mid-level earners would be willing to heavily weigh the money issue if the person they could marry had a substantial net worth (I know some will say $1 million is not that much, but statistically it puts you in the top 10% of all net worths in the U.S.)

Personally, I already have a decent net worth, so if I ever was single again someone would really have to have MAJOR amounts of money before the issue ever entered into my decision. But would I consider marrying someone, say with $50 million in net worth, just for their money? No, not just for their money. But if I cared for them and they had $50 million, that would be an interesting decision.

On the other hand, what about someone deeply in debt? For me, if I loved a person and was convinced their debt was something they now had a handle on (in other words, they'd changed their spendthrift ways, the issues that had caused the debt were one-time situations, etc.), then I'd marry them, assume the debt, and pay it off. But if they consistently spent money like there was no tomorrow, there's no way I'd get married to them. A big ship can sink even from a little leak, and I'm not going to let someone ruin 20 years of work and saving in a few years. I'd give them a chance to change and then decide on marriage, but if they were unwilling or unable to control their spending, I'd have to move on.

Unless she was REALLY hot, of course.

Ok, I just had to throw that last sentence in to get some of you riled up. I was joking. Mostly. ;-)

What's your take on the issue?

Comments

[Suze]

I'd marry George Clooney even if he were a leaky money sieve, but anyone else? Nah.

Seriously, I probably wouldn't marry for money. At this point, I have enough. I definitely wouldn't marry someone who was profligate with their resources, though. I don't need that headache.

[Katy Raymond]

I married poverty with potential the first time, 31 years ago yesterday. It worked out great. If I had it to do again, I would want both of our financial situations on the table. Finances tell a lot about character. Once I knew he was a man of solid character, I would consider marriage no matter what his net worth. I would NOT marry for money, in other words.

But I WOULD marry if he was really, really HOT. :)

[livingalmostlarge]

I'd marry someone in debt if they were changing. If not I'd not even consider staying long term with them. They have to want to change for themselves, not for me.

[Kyle]

Hmmm, $50 million would be pretty tempting...

I don't think the money situation would influence me much because a spendthrift would probably also tend to have other attributes I'm not attracted to. It probably wouldn't come down to that.

[savvy]

If I had gotten married earlier in life, I MAY have considered marrying someone with reasonable debt (student loans, etc.) but not a lot of consumer debt. I figure a lot of people make money mistakes when they're fresh out of school.

However, by the time you reach your late 20s/early 30s, you should have wised up financially. While money (or the lack thereof) wasn't really a factor when I was dating, money matters were. Meaning, how you manage your finances. I wouldn't have married a spendthrift because that would only lead to a lot of issues down the line.

[carol]

I wouldn't necessarily marry for money, but I definately would not marry someone with alot of debt. Debt is a way of life for many people; it's a mindset. I've worked hard, accumulated money on my own, and I'm not willing to subsidize someone else's kids, ex-wife, business, etc. I totally expect a partner who is as responsible about and with money as I am. I'm 60, I'm not putting myself through that kind of anguish,and I can't afford that kind of mistake.

[TheJapChap]

Hmm.... I was a debt-free college grad when I married into 30k of my wife's student loans. No problem, though, because in no way were they related to frivolous spending and we are making some great headway after only a year of marriage. That....... and she's insanely HOT! ;-)

[Mrs. Micah]

Since 95% of Micah's debt was student loans and 4.9% was a car loan, I didn't consider him a spending threat. I was right in my estimation. :)

[Minimum Wage]

Whoa, what if someone has a lot of debt (e.g. student loans) and was never s spendthrift, and therefore has no spendthrift ways to change?

Would a chronically low income eliminate them from consideration?

And it would be interesting to see that low-level earners (as opposed to mid-level earners) think.

[Meg]

Hmmm. I might marry for money IF I truly cared for the person, was attracted to him, and if we shared mostly the same goals and values. But it would have to be a lot of money before it impacted my decision, more than 1 or 2 million.

Income/income potential matters more than net worth, BTW, unless your net worth is so big it IS your income.

I would NOT marry someone without solid values and stability financially, even if they had $20M.

[Monroe on a Budget]

My goal when I was dating in my 20s was to find someone who was responsible with his money. I thought that was more important than how much or how little it was.