How much money should I be making before I get married?

[cnystrom]

This whole conversation reminds me of 20 years ago when I first got married and I wanted kids so badly. And everyone was like… “Don’t have kids until you have “insert some random amount of money here”… When, in reality, kids don’t have to be that expensive. And, also, there is no magical set amount of money that tells me I’m ready. Likewise, I don’t believe there’s a magical number that tells you you’re ready for marriage.
If you’re buried in debt, I’d say that should be being worked on. But I’d hate to see someone reject a potentially “perfect” partner because of something as silly as currency.
My husband and I struggled for YEARS when we were young. Those were some of the happiest years for me and it had nothing to do with how much or how little we had.

In my opinion kids are different than a wife, or wives. They are always a blessing and I always wanted as many as I could get and as soon as I could get them, and I have had no reason to think that that was a mistake.

We were blessed with 5, but there were large gaps of many years when we did not use birth control and yet no children were forthcoming. You do not always get them when you want them. Praise God when you do!

 

[frederick]

I remember reading this advice before we got married (25 years ago). It is sound advice, and following it has blessed us. Live on your income, and don't depend on the wife's (do the same thing with overtime money, or bonus money). Save it. Use it to accelerate debt payment. Use it for something extra. Don't base your life on it.

When I wanted to buy my first home interest rates were around 14 percent for mortgages. I couldn't afford a house so purchased land, worked hard to pay it off, then used the equity to borrow against and cash to build a shell of a house. There was sanitation, water and electricity connected and I got married a few months after moving in. My wife endured roughing it till I paid off the mortgage 21 years ahead of the 30 years it was due. The 14 percent was a huge motivator to get rid of debt. I hated how much the banks were profiting from my hard work.

 

[cnystrom]

On the flipside, my brother had many kids when not ready financially and now he will never be ready financially. It's a responsibility no matter how cheap you can make it if for no other reason than your attention span is siphoned, and rightfully so. I do agree, it doesn't have to be "expensive" depending on your relative wealth.

Was he married? Was he ready for marriage when he got married?

 

[cnystrom]

Children are a wealth, the most durable and valuable wealth.

100%

 

[FollowingHim]

I have seen it over and over again where young couples arrange their lifestyle for two incomes and it becomes a trap. All of the women I know who are working wives would have much rather been a stay at home wife and mother.

Yes, this is true. A wise couple with two incomes would set their life up in such a way that it is technically possible, even if less comfortable, for them to rearrange your lifestyle to live on just his income.

The main reason people become trapped is through debt or rent. The key is to ensure that these things can be paid for on just his income. For instance, have a mortgage that is structured in such a way that the minimum repayments can be made from just his income. The plan can be to use the additional income from the wife to pay off the mortgage much faster than that - but if at any point she has to stop working, you can just make the minimum repayments and still survive. That sort of arrangement takes full advantage of both incomes without being a trap.

But even if that is not possible in the way they're living at present, they can always move when she gets pregnant.

 

[frederick]

Yes, this is true. A wise couple with two incomes would set their life up in such a way that it is technically possible, even if less comfortable, for them to rearrange your lifestyle to live on just his income.

The main reason people become trapped is through debt or rent. The key is to ensure that these things can be paid for on just his income. For instance, have a mortgage that is structured in such a way that the minimum repayments can be made from just his income. The plan can be to use the additional income from the wife to pay off the mortgage much faster than that - but if at any point she has to stop working, you can just make the minimum repayments and still survive. That sort of arrangement takes full advantage of both incomes without being a trap.

But even if that is not possible in the way they're living at present, they can always move when she gets pregnant.

Another trap arises when income increases, and a family ups its spending/lifestyle to match. If things go south and they don't reduce the spending, they can rapidly get into serious debt problems. This was highlighted when the covid plandemic hit; people lost businesses and homes, relationships crumbled under the pressure, and some committed suicide. The tragedy is too many people are setting up to repeat the mistakes when the next plandemic hits.

 

[paterfamilias]

I am 26 years old and single. I know that having a family is expensive and I want to be financially responsible and not get married and have children before I can afford to. Right now I have a steady job and I make enough money to pay for the things that I need and to save a little bit. I could not buy a house or support a wife and children with my current income, and I think that it is unlikely that the income from my job will increase in the near future. I am looking into starting some kind of side business to increase my income, but I know that the outcome of that is uncertain. I am also concerned that mass inflation will continue and that I will be poorer in the future than I am now because of it.

So the advice I am looking for is how long I should wait to start seriously looking for a wife. I want to make sure that what I do is in line with scripture and that I will be able to fulfill all of my responsibilities to my family. The scripture that I found about being a provider is exodus 21:10-11 and 1 timothy 5:8 but other than that I am not sure what my financial obligations are to my wife according to the bible.

Do you think that I would be meeting my obligations to provide food, clothing, and shelter to my wife if her income to is required to help pay the bills?

I know that if I had several wives instead of one we could all pool our income together and better afford things. I am just not sure if it would be a good idea to pursue plural marriage for financial reasons.

@Aaron_D
I won't try to answer the question directly with a particular dollar figure as there are just too many potential variables to give you a pat response.

So, I am going to ask some questions to help you consider your situation from what might be a different point of view.

Are you definitely locked into your current location?
I sm thinking in terms of other parts of the country where the cost of living to pay scale for your skill set may be better and tue cost of homes lower.
How portable is your career? Are you by any chance working remotely and able to move while maintaining your current position or do you have a skill that will allow you to find work in another area readily? How much of a commute are you willing to take on?
By way of example...I am looking for a land and home combo. In North Texas where I am, what I want would be north of a million. Nip up to Oklahoma and I can cut it in half. Yes I can get a job there fairly easily but I would likely take home less...so a bit of a balancing act.

More than anything I would encourage you to consider your options and goals broadly.
If for example you are locked to your current location however, much of it will be moot.

 

[MemeFan]

That is poor man's thinking in my opinion. How many rich people rent?

Owners almost always have the advantage over debtors in the long term.

Now if you have saved up enough money to buy and you have determined that the real estate conditions in the area is more favorable to renting over buying and your money will earn you a better return in another investment than home ownership then my hat is off to you.

For most people purchasing a house is the best investment they will ever make.

I am living in the house that I grew up in. My 88 year old Dad bought it for about $50K like in 1972. It has long since been paid off and now he lives in it rent free. It is worth around $2M now.

And this exactly problem. From where this comes? Your real estate agent and central banker?

Central banker has vested interest in pumping up economic bubble which requires more spending which requires people feeling wealthly which is greatly helped by raising home prices. Nevermind raising asset prices are consequences of money printing (that newly created money has to go somewhere), so it helps hide inflation theft.

And house is investment? BS. Is OK to make money on housing, but housing is neccessity. How about using same logic on food? Best investment have constanly raising prices, preferably more than wages. Somehow people sense that end result would be social revolution since people would be unable to buy any food.

Yet, in US somehow constantly raising home price causing rising homeless and inability to form families is since as fantastic thing. No wonder @theleastofthese claims older generation don't understand younger ones. She absolulety correct because Boomers have objectively nonsense beliefs (like one above).

Your own house is great example. Price has gone up 40X and how much wages have gone up? Uuummmmm, is house unaffordable now for young man? If price goes up 10X young man probably couldn't even afford property taxes on it, nevermind buy it. Would even your children be able to buy home near you? How about stopping believing real estate agents?

And by the way, Canada's secret service has concluded one of 5 biggest threats is young people figuring out they can't never buy home. And central bank have lowered rates for 40 years from early 80s. Lower rates = rising home price. It's doesn't make you good investor, just lucky one.

 

[cnystrom]

Yes, this is true. A wise couple with two incomes would set their life up in such a way that it is technically possible, even if less comfortable, for them to rearrange your lifestyle to live on just his income.

The main reason people become trapped is through debt or rent. The key is to ensure that these things can be paid for on just his income. For instance, have a mortgage that is structured in such a way that the minimum repayments can be made from just his income. The plan can be to use the additional income from the wife to pay off the mortgage much faster than that - but if at any point she has to stop working, you can just make the minimum repayments and still survive. That sort of arrangement takes full advantage of both incomes without being a trap.

But even if that is not possible in the way they're living at present, they can always move when she gets pregnant.

A couple that works hard as a team is probably going to make it one way or another. It is possible and even probable that you can do things the hard way and still make it.

But if you are giving advice to a young man starting out you want to tell him the best way to go about it, and then if you fall short and have to cut some corners you are still pretty well off.

In my opinion I gave him the best possible advice. But it is just advice. It is not written in stone, or meant to be taken as such. Everyone has their own circumstances and situation.

 

[cnystrom]

And this exactly problem. From where this comes? Your real estate agent and central banker?

I have been around over 60 years and have kept my eyes open. People who own property are wealthy and people who do not own property are not. Almost by definition. Strive to be an owner, not a debtor. This is all simple Dave Ramsey.

You are going to need wealth to obtain and provide for a family. This is not rocket science.

You can try to live a hand to mouth existence, but it is certainly not the method I would advise a young man to follow, which is the OP of this thread.

Central banker has vested interest in pumping up economic bubble which requires more spending which requires people feeling wealthly which is greatly helped by raising home prices. Nevermind raising asset prices are consequences of money printing (that newly created money has to go somewhere), so it helps hide inflation theft.

Ok great. But what has this ranting have to do with anything?

And house is investment? BS. Is OK to make money on housing, but housing is neccessity. How about using same logic on food? Best investment have constanly raising prices, preferably more than wages. Somehow people sense that end result would be social revolution since people would be unable to buy any food.

So you are trying to say that making a profit on home ownership is immoral? That is BS and idiotic. Are you some sort of communist? The Bible is strongly in favor of private property ownership.

Yet, in US somehow constantly raising home price causing rising homeless and inability to form families is since as fantastic thing. No wonder @theleastofthese claims older generation don't understand younger ones. She absolulety correct because Boomers have objectively nonsense beliefs (like one above).

First of all it is a marketplace. Home prices are not constantly rising. But if you were correct and they were guaranteed to rise you would be a fool not to invest in one.

Secondly how do you know rising home prices are the cause of homelessness? You sure it is not drug abuse, breakdown of the family structure, or church's not making an impact in their communities, or any number of other possibilities? It is only because of home prices? That is also BS, as you say.

If it is simply because of home prices then why do not these homeless people move to where the cheap homes are? There are places in the US where you can buy a house for a few thousand dollars. Let me know your price range and I will find you a cheap house.

P.S. I hope you are a Tigers/Lions/Pistons fan.

Your own house is great example. Price has gone up 40X and how much wages have gone up? Uuummmmm, is house unaffordable now for young man? If price goes up 10X young man probably couldn't even afford property taxes on it, nevermind buy it. Would even your children be able to buy home near you? How about stopping believing real estate agents?

So you can't buy house next to Mar a Lago, or even pay the property taxes on such a house doesn't mean a young man can not buy a house at all. Your argument is absurd.

Why do you have an expectation that your children will be able to buy a house next to yours? If you are in an expensive area, sell your expensive house and use the money to buy a family compound where you can all live together.

Of course, had you been renting the whole time, now you have zero chance to be able to do this. It would be a shame to work your whole life and not acquire any assets.

And by the way, Canada's secret service has concluded one of 5 biggest threats is young people figuring out they can't never buy home. And central bank have lowered rates for 40 years from early 80s. Lower rates = rising home price. It's doesn't make you good investor, just lucky one.

Canada's secret service are apparently idiots. Lots of young people are buying homes. The only smart Canadian left is Dr. Jordan Peterson and a collection of truckers.

You can not be a lucky investor if you do not invest at all, and that is the main point. Live below your means and acquire appreciating assets. A house is a good one to start with as it is very useful to live in while you are buying it.

A better alternative is to pay rent and help someone else own the house you live in? How is that better?

Again this is advice for a young man starting out who is wanting to establish his family. I am not saying there are never any good times to rent.

 

[Earth_is-]

I have been around over 60 years and have kept my eyes open. People who own property are wealthy and people who do not own property are not.

Secondly how do you know rising home prices are the cause of homelessness? You sure it is not drug abuse, breakdown of the family structure, or church's not making an impact in their communities, or any number of other possibilities?

It’s best to own your own house (paid in full), and also have other properties that pay you every month. It could be multiple rentals. It could also be short term vacation rental.

The problem is even if you 100% own your home
- you still have to deal with the ever increasing property taxes, food, water, and electric.

So you want that rental income to pay for your property taxes, food, water, and electric for the year. So that way you would have financial freedom.

They don’t teach you this in schools. Just like the 501c3 churches don’t teach you about the different marriage structures you can pursue. Why? Because they both don’t have your best interests at heart. Plain and simple. Both want to keep you slaved to the system, until one day you get cancer from eating all that GMO crap our corrupt government approved for food. “But the truth shall set you free.”

 

[MemeFan]

I have been around over 60 years and have kept my eyes open. People who own property are wealthy and people who do not own property are not. Almost by definition. Strive to be an owner, not a debtor. This is all simple Dave Ramsey.

Ramsey is idiot. I'm somewhat familiar with corporate finances, branch of finance which actually deals with money earning. Neither banks nor corporates behave as Ramsey teaches.

You get rich by having income producing assets, not by having most assets. All assets produce costs, not not all of them produce income to cover costs for them. House in which you live is great example. It only is financial problem.

You are going to need wealth to obtain and provide for a family. This is not rocket science.

You really need is capacity to produce wealth, not having wealth. Is you only having wealth without capacity to produce it's only finish as you not habing any wealth.

Ok great. But what has this ranting have to do with anything?

Becuse constanly rising prices created by central bankers create exactly your problem mindset. House is seen as investment, instead of neccessary product which must be affordable and good quality for mass of population. Housing should have mindset as food. Cheap and good.

So you are trying to say that making a profit on home ownership is immoral? That is BS and idiotic. Are you some sort of communist? The Bible is strongly in favor of private property ownership.

It's funny how person probably making most fun of commies on this forum is called commie.

First of all it is a marketplace. Home prices are not constantly rising. But if you were correct and they were guaranteed to rise you would be a fool not to invest in one.

See:

What is fornication?

the chances of you find them are very VERY slim. If you expect to run across them by “chance”, then you are absolutely correct.

www.biblicalfamilies.org

Prices as multiple of earning are going up whole century which implies prices are going faster than wages (since most people live from wages) which implies they are constantly rising.

Secondly how do you know rising home prices are the cause of homelessness? You sure it is not drug abuse, breakdown of the family structure, or church's not making an impact in their communities, or any number of other possibilities? It is only because of home prices? That is also BS, as you say.

Because where people are going to live if they can't afford home? Hello. On the street.

US currently has good enough social support network to protect people, but I remember linking zerohedge article about rising incidence of young people living in cars and having to deal with similar crap.

Why to care about young people?

If it is simply because of home prices then why do not these homeless people move to where the cheap homes are? There are places in the US where you can buy a house for a few thousand dollars. Let me know your price range and I will find you a cheap house.

There is usually good reason why price is cheap. Hint: it's unattractive due to no job prospects, love prospects, culture and crime.

So you can't buy house next to Mar a Lago, or even pay the property taxes on such a house doesn't mean a young man can not buy a house at all. Your argument is absurd.

Why do you have an expectation that your children will be able to buy a house next to yours? If you are in an expensive area, sell your expensive house and use the money to buy a family compound where you can all live together.

So your children living nearby to you is bad? It's bad wanting that area you are living stays competitive in qualiry of life so that population doesn't have to move away?

Canada's secret service are apparently idiots. Lots of young people are buying homes. The only smart Canadian left is Dr. Jordan Peterson and a collection of truckers.

Canada is in even worse situation than US. They import more people as percentage of current population and build less. So prices are astronomical and state can't do anything about it because old people will become poor which will totally crash economy.

You can not be a lucky investor if you do not invest at all, and that is the main point. Live below your means and acquire appreciating assets. A house is a good one to start with as it is very useful to live in while you are buying it.

Buy a business, not a house. And nit appreciating assets, but rising real cash flow assets.

A better alternative is to pay rent and help someone else own the house you live in? How is that better?

Best proof that your brain is run by real estate agent. You get flexibility and easy ability to move throught nation. I can change my location within month, while someownership takes a year.

 

[frederick]

Can someone tell me please, who owns those houses some of you are advocating others rent? If owning a house is a bad investment, where do the rental houses come from? And do the owners of rental houses live in a house they themselves own, or do they rent? Just wondering.... .

 

[MeganC]

It would be more efficient to earn more money.

Paying off debt is among worst way to increase free cash flow. It usually is bad return when looking on cash-on-cash return.

That's just dead wrong. Paying off debt means you stop paying interest to the banks. That's just giving away your money.

Once freed from debt the majority of people I've seen who do this are also more conscious about their spending and savings/investments and are likewise loathe to get into debt again.

It's also easier to start saving for retirement or college funds once the hundreds or thousands of dollars in monthly debt service are removed from your monthly budget.

 

[MeganC]

Neither banks nor corporates behave as Ramsey teaches.

And banks are always needing bailouts and corporations are always filing bankruptcy or else being bought out by their competitors.

In-N-Out Burger is all privately held, the company plows their profits back into expanding their firm, they own their locations and do not lease them, and they have absolutely zero exposure for hostile takeover.

They figured it out and they're doing fine.

 

[Mark C]

Debt cannot be cancelled with more debt. The Big Lie is that, in a fully fiat "economy" - the aggregate debt can literally NEVER be paid off. It is a mathematical impossibility.

The solution is to "swim at a 45 degree angle to the current," and pray...

 

[Mark C]

This story is illustrative, but no longer works. The reason WHY is important:

Quite a few years ago, I had a good friend, IBM manager, and later financial expert, who was the best "money man" I ever knew. He left IBM to become independently wealthy, and was my investment broker/adviser for a long time. Every single option he suggested that I invested was a winner.

One early plan he advocated was "keep the mortgage," and buy double-tax free muni bonds that paid near or above the mortgage interest rate.

That way, the free interest pays the mortgage (to an equivalent amount) and the deduction for the house is a net winner. (The math is easy.)

Ultimately, you find and buy enough good bonds to literally "pay off" the monthly amount, but still have all the assets. When they mature, you roll-over, or pay off, etc. But quality bonds, of course, and so on.

Here's the rub:

It's no longer possible.

When you realize WHY - the problem, and the solution, become clear.

 

[MemeFan]

This story is illustrative, but no longer works. The reason WHY is important:

Quite a few years ago, I had a good friend, IBM manager, and later financial expert, who was the best "money man" I ever knew. He left IBM to become independently wealthy, and was my investment broker/adviser for a long time. Every single option he suggested that I invested was a winner.

One early plan he advocated was "keep the mortgage," and buy double-tax free muni bonds that paid near or above the mortgage interest rate.

That way, the free interest pays the mortgage (to an equivalent amount) and the deduction for the house is a net winner. (The math is easy.)

Ultimately, you find and buy enough good bonds to literally "pay off" the monthly amount, but still have all the assets. When they mature, you roll-over, or pay off, etc. But quality bonds, of course, and so on.

Finally someone with some proper sense.

Here's the rub:

It's no longer possible.

When you realize WHY - the problem, and the solution, become clear.

Taking off/lowering tax deduction was good Trump move. It stops subsidizing local government by making their debt cheaper.

 

[MemeFan]

That's just dead wrong. Paying off debt means you stop paying interest to the banks. That's just giving away your money.

Once freed from debt the majority of people I've seen who do this are also more conscious about their spending and savings/investments and are likewise loathe to get into debt again.

It's also easier to start saving for retirement or college funds once the hundreds or thousands of dollars in monthly debt service are removed from your monthly budget.

I said debt reduction doesn't make sense from cash-on-cash return. Formula is cash-on-cash return = cash out/cash in. Cash out are lower monthly payments, while cash in is whole balance payed whole.

So if monthly payment is 400$ and remaining balance 10000$, return is 0.04. So to have more free 400$ cash I have to invest 10000$. Even if we add more realistic scenarios of looking over years, fact is time value of money reduces value of cash out since you could stop debt payments only in far future. And similar situation is for cash in.

And by the way, good investments have cash-on-cash return above 1, something which is practically impossible for accelerated debt payment.

@Mark C has way better aprroach.

And banks are always needing bailouts and corporations are always filing bankruptcy or else being bought out by their competitors.

In-N-Out Burger is all privately held, the company plows their profits back into expanding their firm, they own their locations and do not lease them, and they have absolutely zero exposure for hostile takeover.

They figured it out and they're doing fine.

And regular people go from time to time to bankrupcy. Heard successful enterpreneur has 2/3 bankrupcies.

And hostile takeover protection isn't having zero debt, but being very best creator of value. It's natural owner principle. Owner of business should be one best able to improve business. If you can improve your business by 10% and I yours by 100% it'svin our both interest for me to buy your business by 30% overcit's current value.

To avoid misunderstanding, value and improvement are stricly in financial terms.

And by the way, since US Federal government allows deduction for interest payment, it means that debt is way more cheaper that using equity for financing of business. Therefore, value creation means buying debt-free business and load it with debt since doing so will lower taxes and therefore increase free cash flow.

 

[FollowingHim]

@MemeFan, you've bought all the propaganda behind "you'll own nothing and be happy", and don't realise you've been had.

You get rich by having income producing assets, not by having most assets. All assets produce costs, not not all of them produce income to cover costs for them. House in which you live is great example. It only is financial problem.

What is income? You are only thinking in terms of something that brings money into your bank account. You are not thinking of things that stop you spending money. A house delivers a major income, in the form of providing you with somewhere to live. If you didn't own a home, you'd be paying rent. What does it cost to rent a house where you live? That is the "income" your house is providing you every single week - at least, once the mortgage is paid off.

While you're paying the mortgage, you're paying a similar amount to renting, and then once the mortgage is paid off you don't have to spend this money any more and the house is a pure "income" source.

Sure there are costs, like taxes, but the exact same costs apply to rented properties too, and you pay them also - the landlord just charges you extra to cover those also. So the costs of a home are irrelevant, as you have to pay them regardless of if you rent or own.

Of course, this all makes far more sense if you stop thinking about income / expenditure in terms of money, and start thinking about it in terms of tangible things. Money is an illusion, it's just a means of exchange. I don't need money - I need shelter, food, clothing etc. Any asset that gives me shelter, food, clothing etc is valuable. Whether it directly gives me shelter (a house), or food (e.g. a garden, a cow), or whether it earns money to let me buy those things, it's still earning me value. You are ignoring everything where that value does not come in the form of money.

This is how the powers that be want you to think, because they do not want you to have real wealth that you control, only fake money that they control.