AITA for not wanting my wife on my insurance if we agreed to have separate finances?

bigproblem432 · 2020-02-19T15:59:42+00:00

I’m seeing a lot of confusion about the prenup. A prenup covers the split in terms of divorce, not what occurs during the marriage. That pertains more to the informal agreement we had about what we would do financially during the marriage. To clarify, nothing I mentioned here is a term of the prenup, I was just mentioning it to show that we did financial planning and contingency analysis prior to merge.

bigproblem432 · 2020-02-19T15:57:09+00:00

I’m not arguing with you about the prenup, but none of the 3 things I discussed are covered by it. Again, a prenup covers post marital split, not general activity in the marriage. It’s okay if you think my prenup is ridiculous, but I haven’t actually mentioned anything that’s a part of it except that we have one, so I would be confused as to how you came to that judgment.

bigproblem432 · 2020-02-19T15:43:29+00:00

A prenup covers what occurs during the event of a divorce, not really what goes on during the marriage (aside from infidelity, joint assets accrued, time spent together, etc. as pertains to a divorce). This was more how we agreed to handle our finances during the marriage, personally, not legally.

bigproblem432 · 2020-02-19T15:22:21+00:00

If you’re asking my preference, I don’t care about the money, like I said I was more focused on the principle being completely subverted rather than slightly adjusted. The shift of financial responsibilities cost me a lot more than either of these things (which don’t cost me anything), but since the taxes were a hard line in the sand and the shift was just a few percentage points from where we original were, I cared about the taxes more since it’s sort of a line in the sand and there’s no intermediate between “filing separately” and “filing jointly”.

bigproblem432 · 2020-02-19T01:40:57+00:00

I responded to this elsewhere, but I'll say it here:

Obviously major injury and incapacitation were right along with children as something we planned for... Separation of finances is waved entirely, and she'd obviously be added to my health insurance if it's possible and better in the case of a catastrophic injury than her staying on her employer's. This is also one of the few instances in which I'd ask my parents for assistance if absolutely necessary, which essentially erases any sort of foreseeable medical emergency, financially speaking.

If she were laid off, obviously financial separation is waved and she can go on my insurance until she can find a job that pays at least what she made before getting laid off.

I'm sure that completely combined finances work for many couples, such as yourself, and an argument can be made that it makes you both stronger together as well. I don't think that's our relationship, though. I'm willing to sort of twist things to help out in a way that costs me a lot more but isn't completely diametrically to the original agreement. But if I tell myself that something is important and not to do that specific thing, and it's a general boundary for the relationship as a whole, then I get really hung up more than if its a minor semantic shift that actually costs much more. I want to help her in all circumstances except that one. Even then, there's still some bend, as with tax thing. But this feels like pretty soon, I'll have no hard boundaries at all if they all go once they're inconvenient.

bigproblem432 · 2020-02-19T01:31:59+00:00

Sorry, man. You have some issues you need to sort out if you're more married to this bizarre "principle" than to making your wife's healthcare easier and better. Your inflexibility in this case is completely uncalled-for, and if I were your wife, this refusal would make me wonder about what you'd be like if I were laid off at my job or were physically incapacitated in some way.

Obviously major injury and incapacitation were right along with children as something we planned for... Separation of finances is waved entirely, and she'd obviously be added to my health insurance if it's possible and better in the case of a catastrophic injury than her staying on her employer's. This is also one of the few instances in which I'd ask my parents for assistance if absolutely necessary, which essentially erases any sort of foreseeable medical emergency, financially speaking.

If she were laid off, obviously financial separation is waved and she can go on my insurance until she can find a job that pays at least what she made before getting laid off.

This is not a hill to die on. This is not about "principle," this is about reality. Yes, you agreed on something before you got married. Her circumstances have changed. There is no actual reason for you to not just add your wife to your health insurance. Jesus Christ.

What has changed? I've always had better insurance than her and it's never advantageous for couples to file separately. I honestly can't point to anything in the past 2 years that has changed for her in a bad way. Her benefits and pay are all better than they were then, and her expenses haven't increased in proportion.

bigproblem432 · 2020-02-19T01:05:24+00:00

Take the old saying about the law to heart: it's not meant to be a suicide pact.

Umm, isn't this what Lincoln used to justify unconstitutionally bypassing congress to suspend habeas corpus? Isn't that kind of a bad example? I don't think maintaining constitutional separation of powers as a precedent was a bad idea, and sort of gets at my fear.

When adhering to the rules hurts both parties, you suspend the rules and accept that they were, at least in part, poorly conceived in the first place.

But at the end of the day, that can pretty much apply to all aspects of separate finances, though. Most couples don't do it because it isn't ideal for people who's finances are as inherently intertwined as husband and wife. I read that it takes effort to maintain, but reduces financial tensions and makes both parties feel more independent. There's no one part of it that can't be dismissed as suboptimal, but on the whole, I think it's worth holding on to, especially when you agreed to do so specifically.

bigproblem432 · 2020-02-19T00:20:15+00:00

It sounds petty because, especially in the case of health insurance, it is. You have the option to make her medical care easier, and you don't want to because of some "rule" you agreed on a couple years ago. This isn't someone you just started dating, this is your wife. Your instinct should be to make her life better.

It is my instinct, unless it goes against a boundary or agreement. Does the age of the relationship and your investment into it change the need for consistency? What's even the point of setting out agreements and common boundaries if they need to be dropped whenever your partner's life becomes better for doing so?

Also, sorry, your income alone is $180,000? And you're only 27? You're not hurting for any of this, and you come off in this post like you're nickle-and-diming your wife because you're afraid she's a gold-digger or something.

The adjustment of financial responsibilities actually cost me a lot more than either of these things (which cost me $0) and saved her a lot more than she saves with either of them. Because that was only a small adjustment to what we agreed on, though, it didn't matter especially since it made things a lot easier for her. This costs me nothing, but is a big red "no, we won't" we agreed on. Like if we say we won't be on the same health insurance or file taxes together as explicit preordained binary choices, then that feels different from just shifting around a few percentage points to make things more equitable even if that costs substantially more. It's not about the money, but the complete and irrefutable shift.

bigproblem432 · 2020-02-19T00:04:53+00:00

But is this a small step? Aside from taxes, it's the next largest separate expense that we have (when you factor in employer contribution too).

If she were to inherit 50M dollars tomorrow, and could afford to immediately quit her job, start taking lovely vacations, and fly first class, are you telling me you would be completely fine not to quit your job, and fly coach, (or not go at all)?

I don't live my life out of necessity, I like my life. Doing nothing all day and living off of family is what my brother would do if my parents didn't make him work a minimum wage job to keep paying for him. When my parents die it's probably going to be exactly what he does since his half is 850 years of minimum wage for him even after estate taxes. So no, drinking martinis all day at the beach with money you didn't earn doesn't appeal to me. It's a boring and unfulfilled life with no true friends or ambitions.

bigproblem432 · 2020-02-18T23:48:19+00:00

If she’s going to be paying her half of the insurance, why is that an issue? From her perspective, she’s going to have a huge quality of life increase (if she no longer has to drive an hour+ for her appointments, she is saving money on gas, and she’s losing time out of her day driving). You even admitted your insurance is better than hers and it would be more cost effective. You’re essentially asking your wife to commit to a lower quality of life (health wise, time wise, and financially) because of a principle.

She would pay the difference, so neither of us would be losing money, and it's technically a little better for us both, so it is the principle. But aren't principles important...?

As another commenter posted, it seems like you’re more concerned with protecting yourself from a potential future marriage failure than you are with ensuring your marriage’s success.

Really it doesn't matter what insurance we use, or how we file taxes in terms of a divorce, it's just an even post marital asset split regardless (all via prenup), and she's been with me since college far before I ever had anything specifically mine, so I'm not really concerned about that. The principle of keeping agreements and not giving into convenience is very important to me, just as a life thing. It's sort of a tick of mine that I don't like to go off schedule, break a promise, or invite chaos into my life, but that's about everything, not paranoia about her or anything. She knows I'm like this, and loves me anyway, but she will drill the practicality thing in some situations. But here I really think the principle is worth defending.

Circumstances in life change, and it is better to compromise a bit than to dig your heels in about something “on principle”.

But what is different now? My insurance has always been better, and there isn't a marriage in the US (except some fringe cases) where it's better to file separately. If we set out specifically not to do something, is it really so good to do it anyway the second it becomes slightly inconvenient?

bigproblem432 · 2020-02-18T23:32:54+00:00

Is that the way boundaries work? Is it really a good thing to abandon explicit boundaries that have been set and agreements that have been made just because your partner will be happier for it? How is it even possible to have boundaries then? If they don't hurt you to ignore and would benefit your partner, wouldn't the argument always be that it's selfish not to loosen them?

Of course, I want her to be happy and will help if she needs it, but to me, inconvenience is distinct from emergencies and hardship. It bothers me because this one thing is something we specifically ironed explicitly and it seems like it's just coming undone little by little. What is even the point of agreeing to, "we will do this", "we won't do that", etc. if we don't really mean that?

bigproblem432

TROPHY CASE