Loan agreement for only one person: advantages / disadvantages

Then marriage is not right for you, as it is simply legally different.

Marriage is not primarily a romantic affair but the establishment of an economic relationship, in which it is assumed that both parties contribute equally valuable services (which does not necessarily involve money). Under this premise, the standard arrangements are logical and fair. Anyone who values the contributions of one partner less than those of the other can agree on different arrangements within certain limits. Or forego marriage and have a flower meadow ceremony for the sake of romance. I would never agree to marriage with separate accounts, especially when children are involved. Apart from the fact that, in my view, it poisons the family atmosphere, the woman is usually financially disadvantaged if everything is not calculated very precisely (and what stories I have heard! Tax classes 5/3 and the refund is then split 1:1. Both agree on his initiative that she stays at home with the children for three years; her only income is the child benefit, she increasingly falls into debt while he spontaneously buys an e-bike. Things like that.)

But the woman has it good too, living for years in a nice house without ever having to pay rent or anything else. So naturally, she also has more money in her pocket for years. Still, she gets a share of the house. Then I would actually have to involve the woman in the repayment by 50% and save the money to possibly pay her out later. But I don’t want my girlfriend/wife to have to help pay off the house; she should spend her money nicely for herself.

My goodness, you have such a twisted view of women. We should honor our German women who are expected to run the household, have children, give up a career, earn less money and pension (thanks to the children), and then also watch as the man amasses more and more wealth. But you do want children, right? Or is it already regulated in the contract who lives where in the event of a divorce? I am grateful to my wife, a prenuptial agreement was never a topic for us, why should it be. There was never an inheritance, more likely we will inherit something from her side. She has always had my back (evening studies), we have two great healthy children and a property. If I have to work longer sometimes, she knows why. I always wonder how this kind of thinking arises. Is it a family attitude from the parental home that if something is inherited it must stay in the direct line and not enrich the evil lazy wife? My colleague was so clever to only pay the woman half of the then purchase price by prenuptial agreement. That was shockingly low because it was an unrenovated apartment in Frankfurt am Main. With the exploded prices and renovated (which he mostly paid for/did), she would have had to forgo about €50,000. She had a good dirty lawyer. He challenged the contract and won. So be careful.

Has this now turned into a fundamental discussion about marriage here? So, people, if you see marriage only as a legal transaction... then just leave it. Then regulate the financial arrangements of your cohabitation contractually and that’s it.

For me, marriage is something more than a legal transaction. For me, my wife and I are "one" in marriage and not "two," as it is nicely said. And I am for everything earned during the marriage to belong to both of us. No matter who provides what service. My contribution is (regardless of payment) not worth more than my wife's. That’s how I want it. If I hadn’t wanted that, we would have made a marriage contract. I also understand making one if there were already significant assets beforehand. I can only recommend a marriage contract to everyone in that case. There are enough examples where companies have gone bankrupt because money had to flow out due to a divorce, and much more is at stake there. But there are also enough examples where the wife didn’t get a good deal...

sums it up nicely. That's how most long-term marriages are set up. It may work differently, but I really wouldn't be interested in that. The best couples are really those who pay for their food separately in restaurants or at least split the bill down to the last cent. Only then can it be a successful marriage. At least children from such a relationship quickly learn to do math.

I think I am being misunderstood here. I am definitely pro marriage and if it’s just about everyone having the same last name, wife, husband, child. I also think a joint account is good in marriage, but personally I would still set up a "pocket money account," otherwise everything is pooled together. What is earned together then belongs to both husband and wife and should also be absolutely fairly divided in the event of a divorce.

But to me it is not fair if I bring a house into the marriage that I pay off laboriously by myself and when it is finally paid off and a divorce happens for whatever reason, that I then have to take out a new loan to pay my (ex) wife her share of the house. That is supposed to be fairly divided? No one can tell me that here.

It is also not about me wanting to take advantage of anyone.