[jbcjr14]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

But it's the how money gets spent part that CAUSES the divorce in the first place. The argument over how money gets split happens AFTER a marriage already heads down the road to splitsville.

I don't see how having a prenup would reduce divorce rates. People don't get divorced because they think they're getting a good deal on the division of assets - some Warpath lawyers can correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge you can't just up and get divorced for no good reason and collect half the assets. You have to catch your spouse cheating, prove your spouse is abusive, or get your spouse to sign divorce papers for irreconcilable differences. So if a wife makes way less money than a husband, she can't just divorce him for nothing and take home 50% of the assets. She's got to either get his consent (and a divorce settlement for an agreed upon portion of assets), or prove he broke the marriage laws and force him to give 50% of assets.

Having a prenup would help protect your wallet once you get divorced. But it does nothing to help prevent the financial disputes that CAUSE divorce: the inability to agree upon financial priorities, ie spenders vs savers.

All I am saying is that a prenup would null and void any arguements regarding the spending vs savers, which potentially lead to other bad habits that cause divorce. But I agree with most of your assessment and its only needed when there are substantial assets involved.