Stephanos90
2018-04-19 21:02:31
- #1
I can already tell that some people really take the actually secondary topic seriously. We have a one-year-old child and not yet three. Yes, those would be nice, but we are far from that. Thanks to equality, both of us are able to earn money and share housework and family duties. My partner wanted to stay at home for two years and focus exclusively on the child, her decision. I have a 35-hour workweek, so other models are possible. Conversely, it was always clear that there would be no wedding. Accordingly, we can both live with that; otherwise, there would have been no child. In the worst case, the boundaries are clearly set. I have the house, she can save her money because she doesn’t pay rent or maintenance, and she has no loan obligations. I don’t see any unfair treatment there? With divorce rates above 40%, followed by bitter battles over assets, it would be rationally unwise to agree on joint financing. My partner shares this approach as well. In the end, otherwise it would be the lawyer, the state, and the new owner from a forced sale who earn. We both see the money much better invested in our son. We will now first plan the house more concretely and assign numbers to the positions. If we necessarily exceed the maximum set limit of 440,000€, I will not carry out the project but consider other alternatives. PS @ Wilhelm: With 3 children, we are talking about 5-8 years in the future. The salary will be in a different league, and there is no "compensation" for non-marital partnerships. That cannot be justified by any judge, because that is exactly the difference between a marriage and a non-marital partnership.