|
|
You can believe that the financial columnist Jane Bryant Quinn would be aware of the need for firm understandings about money for new couples. For sure when she found herself heading for the altar. See her article below.
Slicing Up Assets in Advance
It’s one thing to write about prenups, and quite another to live through their making. Doing a prenup isn’t for sissies.
Jane Bryant Quinn
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 1:18 PM ET May 31, 2008
There I stood, in Vera Wang’s dreamy Madison Avenue shop, trying on a wedding dress. On either side, 25-year-olds, with their mothers, their bridesmaids and their 22-inch waists. In the center, me, trying to pull something white and swishy over my hips. Available wedding dates are few for brides of a certain age. You have to celebrate after your grandchildren get out of school and before your friends go away for the summer. So I’ll be a June bride. I have two more weeks and am hustling to finish the paperwork.
Oy, the paperwork!
When my husband died four years ago, I hadn’t expected love to come back into my life. It did, in the person of Carll and his children. Between us, we have eight. That raises the unromantic question faced by all parents who go to the altar, bringing families along. What do you do about the money?
If you do nothing, state law intervenes. When one of you dies, the other can claim a share of the assets, no matter what it says in your will. If you divorce (gulp), a court can divide the property in ways that seem fair. Couples wanting a different result have to draw up a prenuptial agreement—a legal contract defining the financial arrangement they prefer.
It’s one thing to write about prenups, as I have before, and quite another to live through their making. Most decisions were easy. One, however, required us to dig into feelings that were hard to talk about. Embarrassing, even. Doing prenups isn’t for sissies.
The easy things were our separate assets. Neither of us needs financial support. The prenup says that what’s mine goes to my kids when I die, and what’s his goes to his.
There’s a twist with my retirement fund. You can leave an Individual Retirement Account to anyone you want. By law, however, some or all of your 401(k) or pension trust is earmarked for your spouse. A prenup can’t change that. To free me to leave my pension trust to my kids, Carll has to sign a special waiver after we marry, not before.
So here’s the nightmare (only an obsessive financial reporter could think this one up): I say “I do,” waltz from the wedding ceremony to the party tent, trip on the dance floor, break my neck and breathe my last. Carll inherits the pension trust and can’t give it back to the kids without paying a gift tax. They rebel. I haunt the lot of them.
OK, thoughts like that mean I need calming down. Nevertheless, I asked a lawyer who’ll be at the wedding to drop his notary stamp in his pocket. I won’t take a step until the waiver is signed and legalized.
The tough decision was what to do about the weekend house we own together in upstate New York. When we bought it, we agreed that if one of us died or the relationship failed, the house would be sold and the proceeds divided. That was still OK with me. For Carll, however, the house is now our baby and he’d hate to lose it. If I gave him my half, it would take a chunk out of the assets I’m leaving for my kids. I balked.
This sudden, fierce desire to protect my children’s full inheritance came as a surprise. After all, I’m getting married—for richer, for poorer, and all that. Spouses are supposed to take care of each other financially, as well as emotionally. How could I tell him no? There’s other money for the kids.
Reaching a resolution took several uncomfortable (for me) conversations. In the end, it worked out. Each of us will be able to keep the house if we want, with the kids inheriting it, eventually. And—very important—all the children are in the loop. I don’t believe in surprises when the will is read.
Meanwhile, back at Vera Wang, I arrived for my first fitting. The gorgeous young thing at the desk looked at me and asked, “What’s your daughter’s name?” “It’s me,” I said. “I’m the bride!”
I’m a big fan of looking wherever you need to to find the love of your life. I looked all over when I was single, and in fact, Drew was the closest at 482 miles away. But the current economics of travel are making people think twice about starting up the old car or buying a plane ticket. That’s sobering when it comes to finding a mate. What do you think this will mean for your own search for love?
The toll on long-distance love As fuel prices climb, couples choose between breaking the bank and breaking hearts.
By Lini S. Kadaba
Inquirer Staff Writer
Love has its price.
Every few weeks for the last six months, Amanda Sheronas has paid $120, even $180, in airfare to see her sweetie 760 miles away.
But this month, Sheronas, 37, reached her limit.
The $219 cost of a one-way plane ticket to visit Jaime Alvarez, 40, in Jacksonville, Fla., broke the bank.
“I couldn’t afford it,” said Sheronas, who lives in Devon and works as a director at bridal gown company Alfred Angelo in Fort Washington.
Bad enough that the climbing cost of fuel has hurt school budgets, fire companies, and everyone’s grocery tab. Now, long-distance lovebirds are feeling the pinch on wallets - and hearts.
“It’s put a hold on us,” said Sheronas, who is unsure when she and her boyfriend of six months will rendezvous. “We’re seeing if we can wait it out. It’s not easy. . . . We’ve had to dial things down a little bit.”
The couple, like others, is fueling the flame - and easing the financial burden - with technologies such as texting. Others are cutting corners or choosing to meet at a halfway point.
According to an online poll conducted this month for The Inquirer at dating site OkCupid.com, nearly two-thirds of 1,179 clients said they would see a faraway mate less often as a result of higher gas costs.
About 65 percent text, call or e-mail more. More than 70 percent would cut back on extras, like a night out or gifts.
Locally, a philly.com poll posted two weeks ago found that 41 percent of 472 respondents had gone so far as to break up a long-distance relationship due to travel bills.
That might reflect Philly grumpiness more than actual love lost.
Still, said Kimberly Flemke, a couples and sex therapist with the Council for Relationships in Philadelphia, long-distance love, already complex, is “tougher now than ever before because gas prices are out of control. It really does force people to prioritize relationships. Who’s worth the money, the time? Where is my payback? . . . Who do I want to invest in, and who do I not?”
About 3.5 million dating couples consider themselves long distance, according to the Center for the Study of Long Distance Relationships, a Web site affiliated with author Dr. Gregory Guldner, who wrote the self-published Long Distance Relationships: The Complete Guide. An additional 3.6 million couples have commuter marriages, the Web site notes.
Experts say the number of LDRs, as they’re known, has grown with the rise of online dating - which increases the likelihood that Mr. Right lives three states away. The average LDR couple lives 125 miles apart, visits one to two times a month, and calls each other every three days for 30 minutes, according to a Guldner study.
As gas prices reach a nationwide average of $4.11 a gallon - more than a third higher than a year ago - nearly 60 percent of OkCupid.com poll takers would look for a match in a smaller geographic area and 70 percent would not date someone more than 50 miles away. The price of jet fuel has soared even more. In the last year, it has doubled, according to the International Air Transport Association.
Ironically, the same weak economy that might force LDRs to fizzle also could lead the number of love commutes to multiply, according to Caroline Tiger, author of The Long-Distance Relationship Guide. As jobs become scarcer, one half might have to move to chase employment, she said.
Jim Donohue and Christia Gordon, both 26, saw the financial stress mount when he left the San Diego area in late 2006 to come East, where he has family and landed a job.
“We don’t have a ton of disposable income,” said Gordon, a publicity manager. Recently, she worked the Web for a bargain to Philly. Fares hovered above $400 - double what she had paid just 18 months ago, she said. “Basically, right now, you could go to Mexico or the Caribbean for the same money.”
Even worse, those bucks go for a too-short turnaround. Donohue, who lives in Media, spent $450 for a West Coast drop-in over the July Fourth weekend - an expense he found “hard to justify” until he considered the prospect of “not seeing her for three months.” (Awww!)
Gordon was ready to quit her job and join him. Instead, she negotiated a deal as part of a promotion: She can work out of Philly for a week once a month, easing the situation.
Martha Blackburn, 29, lives in Marlton. Her boyfriend, David Williams, 25, a freelance TV station engineer, resides outside St. Louis. The couple bridges the 800 miles with video.
“It was his Valentine’s present to himself and to me,” said Blackburn, membership coordinator at the American Association of Teachers of German in Cherry Hill. “He got a little video camera, and we can see each other over Skype.”
The software allows free phone calls and videoconferencing over the Internet. Alas, “you can’t give someone a hug over Skype,” Blackburn lamented.
Ultimately, said Lisa Chase Patterson, a relationships expert at JustAnswer.com, LDR couples need to resolve the distance.
“Love is love,” said Patterson, who has seen an uptick in queries that mention the toll of gas prices on relationships. “But the reality is that you can’t do this for another five years. The person who does most of the traveling is going to get resentful.”
Tiger, the author, has had three LDRs of her own. The last, with Jon Dunsay, 36, an attorney and now her fiance, worked beautifully: He moved from Washington, D.C., to Center City, a block away from her.
“There’s really no substitute for seeing each other,” Tiger said. Besides, “we can use the money we’re saving . . . to actually travel places together.”
Others, in the meantime, are cutting corners to fund road trips and flights.
“We eat in more often and watch movies at home instead of going out as much,” said Katie Delach, 26, a public relations account manager who lives outside Boston and drives - round-trip: $120 - two, three times a month to Morristown, N.J., to spend time with Will Stokes, 24, a management associate with Subaru of America.
If she drives down more than he drives up, they split the cost of gas and tolls. “Sometimes,” she said, “we meet halfway in southern Connecticut. It gets to the point where, as much as you want to make the drive, we’re both starting out, and we can’t afford it.”
“It’s been a shock,” he said.
A few days ago, the couple caught a break (of sorts) on gas. Stokes’ company moved him to Chicago - and spontaneous, frequent drives are no longer possible.
The couple plan to rely on once-a-month flights. “We’re just going to have to see each other less,” he said. “It’s the only feasible, financially responsible option.”
Karlene Lihota, 25, a graduate student at Thomas Jefferson University who lives in Bella Vista, is luckier than most LDRers.
In another year, she’ll complete her degree and plans to join boyfriend Michael Salguero, 27, an entrepreneur, in Boston.
For now, she watches “100 percent” of income from a part-time Internet job go toward travel between the cities.
“You’ve really got to like the other person to do this,” she said.
A tightening economy is putting the pinch on dating in Britain, and probably here in the old USA. Read about how our single friends in England are doing with less in their dating budgets.
Credit Crunches Cupid’s Arrow
LONDON, July 21 /PRNewswire/ --
- Spend on Love Hits All Time Low as Men Expected to Pick up the Bill
- PARSHIP’s Cost of Love Index, Finds Singles Have Decreased Their Love Shopping Bill by 12%
Spiralling debt, soaring inflation and a stalling housing market are hurting Britain’s 8 million love-seeking singles, according to online dating firm PARSHIP’s annual Cost of Love Index.
In just 12 months British singles’ love “shopping bill” has dropped by 12%. In 2008 singles will spend just GBP11.5 billion in the pursuit of love and happiness, compared to the staggering GBP13.1 billion forked out in 2007. What’s more, the cost of love is likely to hurt men far more than women as singles revert back to traditional dating rituals with the man expected to pay on the first date.
PARSHIP.co.uk’s Love Index found that singles have decreased their spend by GBP207 per year. In 2007 they racked up an all-time high of GBP1647 per person - GBP1008 on nights out on the pull, GBP156 on internet dating services, and a further GBP602 on first dates. However, 2008 has seen the average spend per person drop to just GBP1440.
At the height of the dating boom last year, singles went on seven dates over a 12-month period. 2008 sees a return to more modest dating patterns, with singles clocking up just four dates. Likewise, the cost of a first date has dramatically decreased in the same period from GBP69 in 2007 to GBP48 in 2008. Men now spend GBP49, compared to GBP46 spent by women. All things being equal, you would expect the bill at the end of the evening to be split, however only 40% of women were prepared to go Dutch. No less than 42% now expect the man to pay and only 1% of women would be prepared to pick up the bill, preferring to spend their budget on a new pair of shoes.
Although the average single man now spends GBP146.50 a month in his quest for love, one fifth of men (19%) claim to spend over GBP300, while 9% splash out GBP500 or more. By contrast, only 2% of women are prepared to invest over GBP500 a month in love, with their average spend falling to just GBP93.50, over one third (36%) less than the man.
Dr Victoria Lukats, psychiatrist and PARSHIP’s dating expert, commented:
“The rise of online dating as a way of finding a partner may partly explain the reported reduced spend on an average date. When dating on the internet, people may be less likely to spend excessive amounts of money on a first date - because it’s with someone they’ve never met before. Going out for dinner remains a popular choice for a first date, but more and more people tend to opt for lunch, coffee or a drink in a bar. They opt for a less pressured first date to determine if there’s any chemistry before committing to spending a whole evening together.”
“It’s also interesting, but perhaps unsurprising, that men and women alike still expect either the man to pick up the bill on a first date, or for the bill to be split - rather than the woman being expected to pay. Some may feel this is old-fashioned but it’s far from outdated: previous surveys have repeatedly shown that men rate good looks in a partner more highly than women do, while women rate generosity and income of a partner more highly than men do. While these distinct differences exist, it seems that we’re a long way off from women being just as likely to pick up the bill on a first date. Many men still feel a need to demonstrate their generous side on a first date and figures show that many women are still impressed by this.”
The Cost of Love Index survey of 1,000 British singles seeking a long-term relationship was commissioned by PARSHIP, Europe’s largest serious online dating service for single men and women, which features a unique psychometric compatibility test and a methodology that matches you with people who are genuinely right for you.
Cost of love monthly spend Single Men Single Women GBP50 49% 63% GBP100 20% 23% GBP200 12% 8% GBP300 7% 3% GBP400 3% 1% GBP500 9% 2% Cost of a date Region London GBP61 South GBP56 Midlands & Wales GBP38 North GBP41 Scotland GBP55 Northern Ireland GBP118
Notes to editors:
About the survey
The survey was conducted by Innofact in June 2008 and YouGov in August 2007 with 1,000 British adults over the age of 18.
About Dr Victoria Lukats (http://www.drlukats.com) Dr Victoria Lukats, MBBS MRCPsych MSc is a psychiatrist, agony aunt and dating and expert. Dr Lukats is a Specialist Registrar working in the NHS and dating expert for PARSHIP.
About PARSHIP
PARSHIP.co.uk is the UK’s largest compatibility-based online dating service, specifically for people who are serious about forming a lasting relationship. It is the British subsidiary of Europe’s most successful serious online dating service, now with millions of members, predominantly affluent, educated men and women between 28 and 55 years old.
Here’s a very interesting survey by a British dating site about what singles like about. A whopping 29% lied about the level of their debt! I rarely hear about debt as being of concern. Most folks get angry about lies that concern looks, like old photos or guys who say they are taller than they are. Maybe Brits worry less about being over 6 feet—this survey says only 5% lie about height anyway. What’s the purpose of a lie about height, when anyone can tell on a first meeting? Come to think of it, debt likely is easier to hide.
BeNaughty.com Survey Exposes Britain’s Top Fibs
LONDON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Britain’s top fibs exposed in BeNaughty.com survey.
1. Debt (29%)
2. Smoking/drinking (28%)
3. Weight (24%)
4. Number of sexual partners (14%)
5. Age (13%)
6. Salary (11%)
7. Fidelity (9%)
8. Hobbies (8%)
9. Job/employment (8%)
10. Education/qualifications (7%)
11. Travel experience (5%)
12. Height (5%)
13. Where you live (5%)
14. Physical endowments (4%)
The number one thing we lie about in the UK is our own personal level of debt, according to a new national survey into our biggest fibs.
The Truth Be Told survey, commissioned by online dating site http://www.benaughty.com, revealed that nearly a third (29%) of the 1,028 people between 16 and 64 that were interviewed said they lied about how much money they owe*.
Running a close second (28%) of the things people lied most about was how much we drink and smoke.
And third in the benaughty.com survey, with just under a quarter of votes (24%), were lies about how much we weigh.
Number of sexual partners comes fourth in the list (14%), while a person’s age is fifth (13%).
Surprisingly, the thing both men and women lied about least was the size of their physical endowments.
Men versus Women – who are the biggest liars?
While just one in seven men lie about their weight, the figure leaps to more than one in three women.
The benaughty.com survey also reveals women lie slightly more than men when it comes to debt (30% compared to 28%), and are similar when lying about their smoking and drinking habits (28% and 27%).
Max Polyakov, EasyDate Ltd chief operating officer, said: “I admit I was surprised by the results of our survey because to be honest I expected most people to say they lied about their age or their educational qualifications.
“People must feel pretty ashamed of their financial situation or how much they drink or smoke if they feel the need to lie about it. These are really important things and honesty between people is really very important for relationships to survive and develop.”
http://www.benaughty.com will offer its website users the opportunity to compare themselves against the survey results, to see how they compare with the various national and regional trends.
Notes to editors
*Research conducted by TNS OnLineBus among 1,028 GB adults aged 16-64.
Interviewing was by CAWI over the internet between 24 and 26 June 2008.
I’ve thought for a long time that it would be the money that gay people have to spend that would be the key to unlock the proverbial closet. Gay folks, particularly gay male couples, have a lot of money to get rid of—just think about it: Usually two wage earners, both men, who tend to get paid more than women, and most often, no financial responsibility for children. Gay male couples can be economic powerhouses, and just look at ads in the New York Times to see how the tonier businesses are going after their bank accounts.
This article below spotlights businesses that are leaving gay money on the table, eHarmony being number one. eHarmony may be getting enough straight dollars to pooh pooh potential gay clients, but in this economic downturn, no markets can be ignored.
What I don’t like about this article is the use of the word “cater.” The word implies “giving special treatment to” and that is just what the political right tries to portray gays as trying to get: Special treatment. It is not special treatment to get the same service—or rights—as anyone else. The dollars may be gay ones, but they are worth exactly the same whether a gay or straight person spends them, and the money is indistinguishable once it is spent.
Homosexuals’ Money Is No Good Here
Some Businesses Don’t Cater to Gays, Lesbians at a Cost to the Bottom Line
By CLOE SHASHA
June 19, 2008 —
Some businesses still don’t cater to homosexuals, ignoring a potentially lucrative source of revenue, says University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee economist Keith A. Bender.
One of the most well-known examples is eHarmony.com, even as California, the country’s most populated state, began performing same-sex marriages this week. The online dating Web site bills itself as a provider of what it calls unique measurements for compatibility that, according to a representative, do not cater to same-sex partnering.
“The research is based on six Ph.D. psychologists and 29 variables for compatibility called the compatibility matching system,” said David D., an eHarmony representative who refused to give his full name.
The Pasadena, Calif.-based site, which began in 2000, says it serves about 20 million members across the United States, Canada and Australia.
On the sexual orientation issue, “It is false to say eHarmony discriminates against gays or lesbians,” the company said in a statement. “Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future. It’s just not a service we offer now.”
The Web site’s measurements for matches were developed by Neil Clark Warren, who says that eHarmony is the first online dating service to use relationship science to pair its singles.
Bender, the Wisconsin economist, believes that the Web site eHarmony and other companies could be more profitable if they offered their services to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
“These companies are cutting out a certain segment of the population that they could be getting revenue from,” Bender said. “Statistics I’ve heard say that around 10 percent of the population expresses some homosexual tendencies. One way to think about these businesses is that companies like eHarmony could increase their revenues by about 10 percent, assuming that the same rates of homosexuals as heterosexuals would take advantage of these kinds of dating sites.”
There are 417,044 pairs of unmarried male partners and 362,823 pairs of unmarried female partners living together in this country, according to a 2006 American Community Survey from the U.S. Census Bureau. That does not take into account homosexual singles or married couples.
Robert Lee, the owner and editor of aLoveLinksPlus.com—a dating service directory—said that while some dating Web sites explicitly exclude homosexual singles, others do not make their policies as obvious.
“EHarmony.com is a standout,” Lee said. “But there are also some smaller niche sites that are only for straights, which are not as vigilant in saying you have to be straight to join.”
Some fitness centers, resorts and other services continue to exclude homosexuals as well.
Recent examples include:
In New Mexico, Elaine Huguenin, a professional photographer from Albuquerque, told a lesbian couple in April that she would not photograph them because she only works with straight couples.
In July 2007, Rochester, N.Y., couple Amy and Sarah Monson were refused membership at the Rochester Athletic Club. These two women said that they were in a committed relationship and that they should be allowed to buy a membership.
It took until June 2007 for the University of Virginia to allow same-sex couples to join its gym, according to the Washington Post.
In May 2008, Drs. Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton refused to give infertility treatment to a lesbian couple because of their religious views. One of the patients wanted to be artificially inseminated, and the doctors’ refusal led to a case that reached the Supreme Court.
Clinical Coordinator Christopher Johnson of the Gay Men of African Descent advocacy group says these practices are offensive and discriminatory.
“In terms of a social decision, it keeps people who are of the lesbian-gay-transsexual-bisexual community outside of society where they can’t connect to one another through those institutions or those businesses,” he said.
“That is discrimination. Although society has made some progress, there is still a lot of work to do to make people know that gay people have rights as well. The decision to have people keep us out of their businesses is unconstitutional.”
But the legal issues are unresolved, said Emma Dickson, a New York attorney.
“There has been discussion about whether sexual orientation is necessarily included under our civil rights laws,” she said. “As we are moving towards recognizing gay rights as civil rights, we could make a parallel between not serving a black person in a diner because of his or her race and not being able to participate in a dating Web site because of one’s sexual orientation.”
Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures
Now, if the following piece isn’t enough to put you off those millionaire sites, I don’t know what is. This guy was able to swindle eight women by posing as a music mogul. It seems pretty clear that these women assumed that the guy was telling the truth. Likely, that he had presented himself as rich and that these women were looking for rich (since both were listed on MillionaireMatch) blinded these ladies. The guy was HOMELESS. They sent the money to his ex-wife’s address! A simple background search would have alerted a wise single.
I’m working all the time to help singles avoid being scammed. Take a look at my One Page $1 Wonders ... Not only will you be better able to protect yourself with my concise, digestible reports on scamming, but also, you get a 25% discount from my favorite background checking source, AssetSearchPros.com
Homeless man gets more than $100,000 from online conquests
By Sofia Diogo Mateus
Last updated: 1:17 PM BST 05/06/2008
A homeless man posing as a millionaire was arrested for scamming 13 women for more than $100,000.
Through the website MillionaireMatch.com, Paul Kruger, 50, met and convinced eight women that he was a Grammy-nominated music mogul who had worked with Michael Jackson and Quincy Jones, amongst others.
He met the other five alleged victims through one of the women he met on the website.
Later he said needed money for a CD and DVD manufacturing investment, for which the women sent him a total $102,000.
One of the victims was even shown a false stock reports, the court heard, since the operation apparently involved group investment in stock options.
“He did have a good story,” said one victim, a sales manager in Costa Mesa, Calif., who records show gave him $10,000.
The website, which describes itself as the “number one dating site for succesful singles and admirers”, is free and unregulated and anyone can join and claim to be a millionaire, simply by saying that they win $150,000 or more annually.
Steve Kasper, the marketing vice president of Successfulmatch.com, the parent company of MillionaireMatch.com, both bases in Toronto, said it was up to users to self-police.
“We do tell all of our members on all of our sites that you have to take precautions when you’re on the Internet and looking at people that you’re going to meet,” he said.
Charges were filed in Souderton, Pennsylvania, because that is where he told women to send him money; it is also the address of the home of his ex-wife, authorities said.
The money was used to fuel his gambling addiction, since he had various VIP casino accounts, authorities said.
Mr Krueger declined to comment to reporters as he was arraigned on charges of theft by unlawful taking or disposition, theft by deception, deceptive or fraudulent business practices and Pennsylvania Securities Act violations.
The Californian woman said she was willing to be a witness but that the experience had not put her off online dating.
“You have to be careful whereever you go,” said the woman, who is in her 30s. “You could get scammed meeting someone at a bar. It doesn’t matter. You just have to do your due diligence, and I didn’t.”
In Internet dating, the caveat is always “Buyer beware!” and here is another good example of why. I haven’t the vaguest idea why any millionaire would list on a dating site like MillionaireMatch.com, or why anyone would believe the riches story. But clearly folks do—believe, I mean. Remember the other adage, “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.” Underlines below are mine.
Homeless man gets more than $100,000 from online conquests
By Sofia Diogo Mateus
A homeless man posing as a millionaire was arrested for scamming 13 women for more than $100,000.
Through the website MillionaireMatch.com, Paul Kruger, 50, met and convinced eight women that he was a Grammy-nominated music mogul who had worked with Michael Jackson and Quincy Jones, amongst others.
He met the other five alleged victims through one of the women he met on the website.
Later he said needed money for a CD and DVD manufacturing investment, for which the women sent him a total $102,000.
One of the victims was even shown a false stock reports, the court heard, since the operation apparently involved group investment in stock options.
“He did have a good story,” said one victim, a sales manager in Costa Mesa, Calif., who records show gave him $10,000.
The website, which describes itself as the “number one dating site for succesful singles and admirers”, is free and unregulated and anyone can join and claim to be a millionaire, simply by saying that they win $150,000 or more annually.
Steve Kasper, the marketing vice president of Successfulmatch.com, the parent company of MillionaireMatch.com, both bases in Toronto, said it was up to users to self-police.
“We do tell all of our members on all of our sites that you have to take precautions when you’re on the Internet and looking at people that you’re going to meet,” he said.
Charges were filed in Souderton, Pennsylvania, because that is where he told women to send him money; it is also the address of the home of his ex-wife, authorities said.
The money was used to fuel his gambling addiction, since he had various VIP casino accounts, authorities said.
Mr Krueger declined to comment to reporters as he was arraigned on charges of theft by unlawful taking or disposition, theft by deception, deceptive or fraudulent business practices and Pennsylvania Securities Act violations.
The Californian woman said she was willing to be a witness but that the experience had not put her off online dating.
“You have to be careful whereever you go,” said the woman, who is in her 30s. “You could get scammed meeting someone at a bar. It doesn’t matter. You just have to do your due diligence, and I didn’t.”
Here you go, rich ladies and gorgeous men, a dating site just for you. PocketChange.com hosts a speed dating section: Men 35 and under can apply, based solely on appearance. They must submit 5 photos for judgment. Women must be over 35 can apply,and must qualify (solely based on wealth) in one of four ways: Must make more than $500K, have liquid assets, entrusted assets, or a divorce settlement of $4MM+. (I’ll show my ignorance: How much is $4MM? I guess if I don’t know, I haven’t got it.)
I always recommend that singles pick a big, established, well-trafficked dating site, one that charges a fee. And of course, if you join, you should pay. Here’s a report that backs up some of my rationale—that people who join and pay a fee are more serious and see others posting on the site as more serious too. Underlining below is mine.
The typical online dater is serious, says report
People who date on the internet tend to be serious about the endeavour, a new report asserts.
According to eMarketer, those who use paid-for subscription services to meet prospective romantic mates are doing so because they want to find a specific sort of person who takes the venture as seriously as they do.
Citing comScore figures that reveal 97 million people visited matchmaking websites in December of last year, representing a ten per cent year-on-year fall, the report comments that a specific demographic is drawn to such resources.
“Online dating site users are looking for a pool of other people who are serious about dating, and pay for access to that pool,” the publication notes.
Meanwhile, an International Herald-Tribune article is cited in which the chief executive of Match.com, Thomas Enraght-Moony, describes internet dating as “highly underpenetrated”.
Hitwise has reported that the term ‘Valentine’s poems’ was the most popular search phrase containing the word Valentine in February 2007.
Eee-yuck. See the press release below:
Certified Millionaire (TM) lets members contact the real millionaire singles verified by MillionaireFriends.com. Millions of MillionaireFriends.com members can find the real certified millionaire singles. Millionaires show their tax return or bank statement certifying under penalty of perjury that either:
1) During the last financial year they earned over $150,000,
2) They have already earned over $150,000 during this current financial year; or
3) They have net assets (after deducting all liabilities) of over $1 million.
If they are verified, a red flashing diamond logo will be displayed beside their profiles. It is safe for members to contact those persons. And the certified millionaires can get much more contacts.
This little piece below is pretty dense with the financial talk, but interesting. Just keep in mind that even if Match slips a knotch or two, you are still talking about millions of singles who are registered.
Match.com earnings show major decline in subscribers.
Match.com Released their earnings a few days ago. Is this their way of saying subscribers in the US decreased at least 12% year over year? One assumes the US accounts for far more than 50% of their subscribers.
“Revenue growth was driven by a 1% increase in worldwide subscribers, including 13% growth in international subscribers, most notably in the UK, combined with higher average prices in North America. Operating Income Before Amortization grew faster than revenue due to a lower cost of acquisition as a percentage of revenue in North America and flat operating costs, partially offset by higher international cost of acquisition. Operating income in the second quarter of 2007 included amortization of non-cash marketing of $7.2 million.”
Dating sites are springing up all over to hook up the small percentage of the truly rich with the seemingly huge number of men and women who would love a free ride. Here’s an article from Money magazine that will tell you just what you need to know. PS I think this whole business of looking for a wealthy spouse is hogwash and says mountains about the searchers—none of it good.
How to marry a billionaire
Sure, the challenge is steep. But this field guide to the mating habits of the ultrarich shows just what it takes to land Mr. or Ms. Big.
Money Magazine
By Marlys Harris, Money Magazine senior editor
June 21 2007: 12:40 PM EDT
(Money Magazine)—Work hard, take risks, maybe build your own business. That’s the traditional route to financial success. Of course, there’s another highly traditional path to acquiring wealth that isn’t talked about quite as much these days: Marry money.
Real money. As in not a mere millionaire (a dime a dozen these days) but an honest-to-goodness billionaire - make that 10 figures after the dollar sign, please.
True, it’s not politically correct to go hunting for a marital meal ticket (or for that matter, to write about it). But just for a moment imagine the life that could be yours if you did.
Forget the fabulous baubles, designer clothing, cutting-edge electronics and palatial mansions that your golden goose - uh, spouse - might heap upon you.
Quiz: Are you the right match for a billionaire?
Consider the more pragmatic bonuses of the good life. No more scrimping and scraping to make your annual Roth IRA contribution. No more working until you drop to ensure a comfortable retirement. And no more worries about where your children will get into college (or how to pay for it).
A seven-figure donation from your beloved to the school of your choice and your kids are in the door, even if they’re no smarter than grapefruit.
Sold? Of course you are. But how realistic is it for you, an ordinary wage slave with no more ties to the jet set than a business trip to Cleveland last month, to even meet, much less marry, a billionaire?
As a matter of scientific inquiry, Money Magazine decided to find out. To that end we analyzed the mating habits of 50 of the mega-monied to learn how they met their spouses.
We scoured the how-to-marry-rich literature and talked to society watchers, upscale matchmakers and wealth experts. And we pored over divorce news to see how spouse No. 1 was supplanted by spouse No. 2 (or 3).
Unfortunately, those who had already made it to Fat City refused to say how they got there. “I am just not telling,” said one billionaire’s wife over her cellphone before hanging up.
Nonetheless, our findings were encouraging. Marrying a billionaire is not beyond your grasp, as long as you’re willing to work hard toward your goal. (Yes, hard work - albeit of a different kind - is still a requisite for achieving wealth.)
You will first need to identify the billionaires in your area (or their relatives) and learn their marital status. Then you’ll have to study their businesses, hangouts, pets, favorite philanthropies, artists, music and vacation spots. (Google is a gold digger’s best friend.)
Also required: an investment in the type of home, clothing, grooming and charity events that will help you mix among the high and mighty hoity-toity.
One cautionary note: Before you start making repeated visits to your target’s golf club or home, remember that stalking is a crime in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
Learn to live with less
First, some bad news. Forbes magazine, which has made a cottage industry of compiling lists of wealthy folks, declared this year that there are a paltry 946 billionaires in the entire world. Worse, most of them are currently married (though that does not necessarily discourage the most determined gold diggers).
The picture gets even grimmer for men. A scant 38 women appear on the list of U.S. billionaires. Average age: 63.
Lower your sights. Fortunately, the ranks of those who are filthy rich, if not quite in the billionaire stratosphere, are increasing daily.
According to Merrill Lynch and CapGemini, a consulting company, there were 85,400 ultrahigh net worth individuals (UHNWIs) in 2005, the most recent year for which data were collected. (UHNWIs are defined as those with $30 million or more.)
Many of them - up-and-coming hedge fund managers, telecom barons and Internet tycoons - may have amassed only a hundred million or so but could easily hit the Big B in a few years.
For male fortune hunters, there are widows and armies of ex-wives with humongous divorce settlements. (Yes, for all of the strides women have made in the workplace, most superrich gals do acquire their wealth through their relationships with men - and stereotypically, many of their husbands dump them when they reach a certain age.)
Take Janet Burkle, ex-wife of Ron, a Los Angeles supermarket mogul ($2.5 billion). Last year she lost her appeal to nullify a divorce agreement she claimed was unfair. The court forced her to make do with a pitiful $30 million, plus interest.
Don’t forget the kids. The scions of billionaires are also numerous. While marrying less pecunious offspring may look like you’re just making do, it’s not a bad deal (and think about the scads they’ll inherit).
New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman, for example, when berated by Bill O’Reilly from the right and the Washington Monthly from the left, can sob into a pillow at the $9.5 million, 11,400-square-foot house he owns with his wife Ann Bucksbaum, a shopping-center heiress.
Get down to business - his
Next step: Land the right job - one that allows you to circulate among the wealthy, of course. Just over half of the billionaires in our study met their spouses at work.
Examples: Melinda Gates was a Microsoft manager when she met Bill at a company press event. Both Anna Torv (wife No. 2) and Wendy Deng (No. 3) worked for companies owned by Rupert Murdoch ($7.7 billion), the first as a reporter, the second as a TV executive. And corporate raider Carl Icahn ($9.7 billion) made Gail Golden, his longtime assistant, wife numero dos.
The reason is obvious. Ambitious Type A+ billionaires rarely leave their offices long enough to chat up women at bars or to attend a mature singles hayride at their local church or temple.
Get an M.B.A. ASAP. To worm your way into a billionaire’s business, and eventually his heart, you need the right career. An M.B.A. will give you the most flexibility. Since people think that it qualifies you to do just about anything, you can get hired just about anywhere.
Focus on industries with the most billionaires: finance (52), investments (51), service (42), media and entertainment (38), real estate (33) and oil and gas (30).
Show off your brain… Ultrarich men once gravitated toward women with the showiest plumage - or plastic surgery. That has changed, says Richard Conniff, author of The Natural History of the Rich: A Field Guide.
“Arm candy is now seen as d�class�,” he notes. These days, the more prestigious your credentials and the brainier you are, the better.
Consider Anne Wojcicki, who only this May sealed the deal with Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founder ($14.1 billion). She graduated with a B.S. in biology from Yale, conducted molecular biology research at the National Institutes of Health and the Weizmann Institute, and recently founded 23andMe, a genetic-research company. She met Brin through her sister Susan, a Google marketing exec with - see, we told you! - an M.B.A. from UCLA.
Women too seem to favor the brainy over the muscle-bound. Ebay’s Meg Whitman ($1.2 billion), for example, is married to a neurosurgeon.
...Or make consumption your career. If you (or your close relatives) have little aptitude for Excel spreadsheets and turned in unimpressive GRE scores, you’ll have to select a career that focuses on a billionaire’s second-greatest preoccupation after his business: spending.
While alpha overearners may not visit their mother for months, they will gladly leave their corner office and computer screen to lavish money on pet luxuries.
Among the careers that will put you in contact with them at this vulnerable moment: real estate (with a specialty in mansions); luxury-car, private-jet or yacht sales; work at museums, galleries or high-end antique shops; interior design or architecture (again, specialize in mansions); and race-horse training.
Timeworn but still good: personal trainer or golf or tennis pro.
Join the leisure class
Don’t despair if your job takes you no closer to wealth than the dollar store. There are plenty of other activities that the resolute billionaire hunter can pursue to mix with the excessively prosperous during evenings or on weekends.
Move close to where they live. “You need to move into a rich environment,” says Ginie Sayles, a Houston marital consultant and author of How to Marry the Rich. “If you want to be rich, you must live where the rich live, even if it’s in an attic.”
She claims that no matter what your budget, you can find a hidey-hole “within 16 blocks of the big money.”
By hanging out in a ritzy neighborhood, you’ll get comfortable with wealthy people and attuned to what they like. And you’ll greatly increase your chances of running into a billionaire at, say, the local Starbucks.
Get thee to a gallery. Billionaires’ expansive estates, urban pieds-�-terre and quaint 30,000-square-foot country homes confront them with the task of covering vast stretches of empty walls and filling echoing foyers with something. That means they are constantly on the prowl for paintings, sculptures and other objets d’art that will do the job. So prowl where they prowl.
For starters, cultivate a taste for museums and become a member, not a visitor. At the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, for example, you can become a supporting member for $250 a year. That entitles you to attend hosted exhibition previews and receptions where you can elbow your way into the elite.
If you’re willing to go without dinner for a few months, invest in a $1,500 membership in the Artist’s Circle, which provides much greater mingling opportunities, including evening receptions, private viewings for major exhibitions and priority invitations to special events such as the biennial art auction.
Christopher London, editor of the website ManhattanSociety.com, which covers cultural and philanthropic events in New York City, recommends that you attend as many gallery openings as possible.
“A chance encounter could easily lead to dinner,” he says.
Every major city has a Web site that lists openings. For instance, if you visit ArtSceneCal.com, which covers galleries in Southern California, you’d find that you could view a new artist almost any night of the week. Better yet, you’ll avoid another Chinese takeout dinner by scarfing the wine and hors d’oeuvres that galleries serve to ease buyers’ grip on their wallets.
Show them the Monet. If you can’t tell the difference between Jasper Johns and Johns Hopkins, study up so you can converse. It doesn’t matter what you say specifically as long as you sound knowledgeable.
Even though he collected Impressionist works, hedge fund biggie Ken Griffin ($1.7 billion) didn’t get mad when his date, Anne Dias, dismissed the movement as something she’d outgrown. Instead, he married her.
Money Magazine suggests that you specialize in the eras that interest the greatest number of billionaires. For example, Milt Esterow, editor and publisher of ARTnews, counsels that you focus on modern (late 19th century to 1970 or so) and contemporary art (post-1970), which are what le tout billionairage have been buying. Indeed, 85% of ARTnews’ annual list of the 200 top collectors listed those two periods among their specialties.
Change the world
Getting and spending might be enough to fill your life with satisfaction, but for those who are loaded, there’s a greater joy - and an even bigger tax deduction: giving money to others.
What other tasteful way is there to prove that you are truly a moneybags than to fork over a few mil to the Nature Conservancy, your alma mater or the hospital that performed Granny’s hip replacement?
Look for good benefits. The fervor to give fuels an endless round of charity balls, silent auctions and golf tournaments in every town. There aggressive overachievers compete with one another to donate the most in what Milton Pedraza, head of the Luxury Institute, a market research company that studies the wealthy, calls the “alms race.”
Now thanks to the Internet, you can ferret out those shindigs. Just type “charity events” and your city’s name into a search engine and press “Go.”
Not all charities are created equal in the hearts and wallets of the superrich. To figure out which nonprofits are most likely to put you in touch with people of ultrahigh net worth, peruse the Chronicle of Philanthropy to see what causes top givers favor.
You would learn, for example, that Veronica Atkins, widow of low-carb diet guru Robert, has a $400 million fortune to share. Her philanthropic cause: obesity research (duh). She is bound to visit - even be honored by - the hospitals and universities to which she has given dough.
Cultivate dowagers. In some cities there’s an unspoken hierarchy of charities, says Richard Conniff. Newcomers to Palm Beach usually join the Opera Guild, which, he says, accepts anybody whose check doesn’t bounce.
But it may take a few years to learn that the Preservation Foundation and the Rehabilitation Center for Children and Adults are considered the most prestigious and are more likely to win you invitations to private parties. Study the society pages and ask around to learn which charities are best for your purpose.
Shelby Hodge, society columnist for the Houston Chronicle, likes the American Heart Association and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center’s Board of Visitors, among other charities.
She recommends that you attend the annual gala or dinner. That usually costs about $1,000, but doing so is worthwhile. Even if you wind up seated with a group of dowagers instead of wealthy bachelors, Hodge says, “those women can be your entry point.”
There’s no way the average Joe or Jane can cough up $1,000 every night or even every week, but Christopher London suggests that you can cut your costs by as much as 75% if you attend the so-called junior events - cocktail parties and dances that occur before and after the big charity dinner. Don’t let the word junior put you off; most who attend are in their late thirties and forties, London says.
Become a charity yourself. Usually you can just buy a ticket - after all, it is a benefit. But some events admit only those with invitations. A person of your humble means is not likely to be included unless you are a regular volunteer -"but not stuffing envelopes,” says Hodge.
Instead, she advises, you should set your sights on more highfalutin activities that will vault you into the upper echelons of the philanthropy - say, fund raising. Unfortunately, to sit on a committee you may have to donate $10,000 or so to the cause.
Another possibility: Become a grantee yourself. Pedraza suggests that you develop your own do-gooder project, such as a documentary on the environment, and take it around to charities, foundations and arts councils that might fund it. You may not meet a billionaire, but who knows, maybe you’ll become the next Al Gore.
Hire a professional
Not everybody wants to deal with the hassle and expense of sussing out an appropriate ultrahigh net worthy. For such people there are experts who, for a fee, will help you.
Ginie Sayles offers seminars around the country on marrying rich ($50 to $150 a person), as well as $500-an-hour private sessions. Using a 14-point system to help hoi polloi ramp up their classiness, she says, her clients have married several multimillionaires in her 20 years in business. (If you can’t afford her, study her books or buy the seminar on DVD.)
Patti Stanger, founder and CEO of MillionairesClub123.com, with offices in California, Florida, Canada and the United Kingdom, charges nothing for women aspiring to marry well to be part of her pool of eligibles.
But rich clients looking for love pay from $10,000 to $150,000, depending on the amount of territory the zillionaire expects her and her staff to cover in their search. (The top charge is for a worldwide hunt.)
Stanger counsels customers to “date for love, just in a rich pond. You do not marry for money because, at the end of the day, he could lose his money, and you end up with a toad.”
Janis Spindel, owner of Serious Matchmaking in New York City, charges her clients, all of them affluent men, $20,000 for introductions to the right kind of marriageable women.
To get on her list of eligibles, you’ll have to fill out a 14-page questionnaire (available in her book Get Serious About Getting Married: 365 Proven Ways to Find Love in Less Than a Year) or meet privately with her (charge: $1,000) or an assistant ($500) for half an hour. But there’s no guarantee you’ll be accepted.
Become a status faker
You’ll never be able to close the deal, however, unless you look and act the part of a suitable spouse to serious money.
Be a class act. To attract the attention of the wealthy guys and gals who pique your interest, you have to dress appropriately. Montgomery Frazier, a New York image consultant who says he revamped Katie Couric for CBS, recommends taking your inspiration from designers Calvin Klein and Carolina Herrera, whose clothes, he says, “are sexy but with some sophistication.”
Marc Jacobs, Christian LouBoutin and Dior are his favorites for shoes, but good-looking knockoffs are available from Banana Republic and Zara.
Pearls are “too preppy,” Frazier says. “Wear small diamond earrings.”
Men, as you might guess, need less: Good hygiene, a black suit, a tux and some gray slacks are enough, says Christopher London.
Be into what he’s into. Once you zero in on a prospect, you’ll have to look as if you’re interested in what he or she likes. So spend some time boning up on thoroughbred horses, JAR jewelry, Modigliani and your billionaire’s business.
Should you play hard to get or hop into the sack on the first date? Those are questions better left to Cosmo and Esquire. But Money Magazine is confident in advising this: If you do make it to the altar, hire a smart lawyer to negotiate the best terms on your prenup.
Despite all the luxuries that marriage ultimately heaps upon you, don’t expect the proverbial bed of roses, counsels David Patrick Columbia, editor of NewYorkSocialDiary.com, a Web site devoted to the doings of the fabulously classy.
Having observed many who married for money over the years, he says, “The rich person can be a pain in the ass,” adding that he or she often demands to be waited on hand and foot, arm and toe.
But no matter how difficult things get, hang in there. The longer you stay, the more the court will award you if the marriage fails. There’s no reason, after all, that your divorce shouldn’t be every bit as lucrative as your marriage.
Amanda Gengler contributed to this article.
I don’t know what the big deal is with new couples and money—why is it so hard to talk about? Of course, if folks grew up in families like mine, money was a dirtier topic than sex. And sex was pretty bad.
How you and your intended handle (or don’t handle) money is a very big deal. I love this quote from Money Guru Suze Orman in the Newsweek article below: If Orman had her way, people with poor credit ratings (known in the business as FICO scores) wouldn’t be allowed to get married until they demonstrated at least two years of steady financial improvement. “There’s exceptions to every rule,” Orman says, “but I always say, FICO first, then sex.”
Now wouldn’t that make for an interesting pre-sex discussion?
Best, Kathryn
Marriage & Money: What You Should Know
Getting hitched? Don’t even think of it before you’ve had ‘the talk’ with your beloved. No, not that talk. The one about money.
By Jennifer Ordonez
Newsweek
April 9, 2007 issue - Tax time can tax even the strongest marriages, but newlyweds Brad and Drew Erb, who took their vows last October, should be feeling particularly in love as April 15 approaches. Over the past six months, the couple has done nearly everything possible to avoid the kind of financial conflicts that often lead to nasty fights between husbands and wives: they combined their checking and investment accounts, made each other beneficiaries of their respective 401(k)s and are bumping up their life insurance. Brad, who is now on his wife’s medical plan, saves a few hundred dollars a month. Even better, filing a joint tax return this year gave them a 15 percent higher refund. “Our situation is probably luckier than a lot of people’s,” says Brad, a Winter Park, Fla.-based financial adviser for Edward Jones.
He’s right. All over the country, freshly married couples, confronting that cold 1040 “EZ” form for the first time together, are finding out the hard way that when it comes to marital stress, sex has nothing on money. “Money is the last taboo,” says Olivia Mellan, a psychotherapist and author of “Money Harmony: Resolving Money Conflicts in Your Life and Relationships.” “Money is never about money. It’s about love, power, security, control, old age, self-esteem, freedom, independence.” That, financial advisers say, is why squabbling over finances tops the list of reasons couples divorce.
So how can married couples—or those about to get hitched—keep money worries from ruining their love lives? The quick answer is that old cliché: communication. Preferably the brutally honest type. It may not be easy to come clean about your financial shortcomings. But your mate will find out sooner or later—probably when you’re sitting down to do your taxes—and if it’s later, it’s going to get ugly. Now’s the time to exercise that “better or worse” clause in your wedding vows. What’s your real income—not your “dating inflated” version? How much debt do you really have on those credit cards? Does the repo man carry your picture in his wallet? With marriage and money, advisers warn, ignorance is definitely not bliss.
That’s advice Amie Provencher and James Schiffner, who just tied the knot, are determined to take to heart. The two met online three years ago through eHarmony, the matchmaking Web site. Provencher and Schiffner are like-minded about a lot things, but it’s hard to imagine that money is one of them. Like the cobbler whose children have holes in their shoes, Provencher is a finance manager who, by her own admission, “hates bills.” Schiffner, 38, a computer security analyst, doesn’t. “We actually have really different philosophies. He pays a bill as soon as he gets it. I don’t,” Provencher says. Both are “addicted” to their chiropractor (not cheap) and like to go out for sushi dinners at least once a week. But while Provencher will spend $200 on a haircut and has a newfound fondness for pricey moisturizers (she recently turned 40), Schiffner spends almost nothing on grooming.
That may not seem like such a big deal; but month after month the differences can add up. Financial adviser Suze Orman urges people to pay close attention to little clues like these before they decide to walk down the aisle. Does your boyfriend over-tip at restaurants, even though he has credit-card debt? Orman says that may mean he doesn’t respect his money and will take the same approach to yours.
Provencher and Schiffner are evolving. She says he has helped raise her money consciousness. “James came into the relationship clean, with no debt and a really high credit score. He’s enabled me to get in pretty good financial shape.” Provencher’s willingness to change is a good sign, says Orman, whose latest book, “Women & Money,” urges women to confront money fears instilled in them by a historically patriarchal society. If Orman had her way, people with poor credit ratings (known in the business as FICO scores) wouldn’t be allowed to get married until they demonstrated at least two years of steady financial improvement. “There’s exceptions to every rule,” Orman says, “but I always say, FICO first, then sex.” Orman believes that when spouses have very different credit ratings, it often means trouble down the road. Consider the consequences, she says, of buying a house with your credit-challenged spouse. Your mortgage rate will likely be based on the lower credit score—or, at best, an average of the two. That means more debt and higher monthly payments, not the sort of thing you want to find out for the first time when you sit down with the mortgage broker. “You have to be able to address things beforehand,” Orman says. “Everything.”
Of course, as long as opposites attract, spendthrifts will couple with hoarders—and people like Ruth Hayden, a St. Paul, Minn.-based financial consultant, will have clients. The author of “For Richer, Not Poorer: The Money Book for Couples,” Hayden says the key to marital happiness is compromise. “What I teach to my couples is that 30 percent of their challenges will actually be resolved. The other 70 percent have to be managed.” Brad and Drew Erb have some things to work out. Brad’s father, a university professor, grew up in a Mennonite household where frugality was next to godliness. “Our parents never made a whole lot of money, but they were always conscientious about living below their means,” says Brad, 33. “Debt makes my skin crawl.”
Drew, 28, says her kin couldn’t be more different. They’re “the classic American family where credit cards rule everything.” The first in her family to go to college, Drew says her parents “wanted to help me but their attitude was, ‘Get loans and we’ll help you pay it back’.” During college and afterward, while working as a horticulturist, Drew amassed lots of credit-card debt. But when she and Brad got engaged, she decided to get serious about her finances. She quit horticulture and took a higher-paying job as an office manager. “I felt that I wasn’t contributing very much to our marriage and that Brad would be bearing the brunt of it.” So far, the couple, who live in the house Brad bought before they met, can think of only one real splurge: new furniture. Since they got engaged, they have been able to pay down about half of Drew’s debt.
Another secret to avoiding financial stress: deciding together if one spouse is going to stop working to stay home with the kids. Married last June, Filipa and Eric Bryson moved from her hometown in New York state to her husband’s in Rhode Island. She left behind her job as an elementary-school teacher. She thought she’d find a new job, but after giving birth to their son she had a change of heart. Surprisingly, she loves being a stay-at-home mom. “Now it’s all about, ‘Can we afford for me to stay home?’ “ Filipa says. “I never thought I would be like that.”
For the Brysons, the decision has worked out well, because they both agree it’s what they want for their family. For young couples trying to make every dollar count, it’s especially important to map out short-and long-term savings goals. Amie Provencher and James Schiffner already do this. They both plan to start saving for a house, and would like to have a rainy-day fund. But first, Provencher has to finish paying off her student loans and old credit-card debt. Schiffner, meanwhile, has his own debt to retire. He splurged and bought Provencher’s $10,000 engagement ring on credit. “The way to save money for a home is to just save money,” he says. “And we’re not there yet.” The important thing is, they’re “not there” together.
With Raina Kelley
We never seem to get tired of rehashing the subject of “Who pays?”
From InsideBayArea.com, an interesting discussion on the age old “Who pays?”
Rule 1: The Guy Always Pays. Rule 2: Change the rules later
Q:SHOULD the guy pay for the date? I’m struggling with a money issue with a guy I’ve been dating a few months. We make similar money — not much, but not minimum wage. We were splitting the bill when we started dating.
After we had been dating for a while, I asked if we could treat each other to dates rather than split the bill, because it’s nicer. We started doing this, and he does take me out sometimes, but not all the time. Now I’m anxious every time we go out: Is he going to pay? Isn’t he?
The truth is, I prefer to be taken out by the guy. I know it’s antiquated, but it makes me feel wanted, taken care of, special. I don’t mind paying for dinner or drinks every second or third time. Most guys seem to take it as a point of pride that they’re paying. This guy doesn’t.
Even after several months, and my paying every other time for nicer dinners, etc., he still makes it known at times that we are going Dutch or that he’s not paying for the entire evening. It brings him down in my esteem, but I don’t know if I’m being overly demanding. Is he a tightwad? Or am I ridiculously old-fashioned?
— S.A., San Jose
A: This is an endlessly fascinating topic, since it raises all sorts of questions about fairness, feminism, the shackles inherent in a patriarchal society, mathematics and, perhaps most important in the long run, monetary policy at the Fed.
Luckily, we won’t go anywhere near most of those issues. What do we look like, Mother Jones? No, we prefer to keep things simple, because that’s just the way we roll, and also because we have no idea what “the Fed” is, anyway. Does “Fannie Mae” live there with “Freddie Mac”? If so, who pays for dinner at “Trader Vic’s”? Never mind. We don’t really want to know.
First things first, S.A. Yes, the guy is a tightwad. He also must have missed the first day of Guy School 101, where he would have learned that The Guy Always Pays (at least at first).
We didn’t say it was fair; it just is. For some reason, feminism was able to stamp out inequality in many areas, but this one hangs on. Why it remains — and, for instance, smoking-hot stewardesses have disappeared — is a mystery and, needless to say, a disappointment to us.
But most guys (though not, apparently, your McCheapo) will set aside the incongruity and go with tradition. They want to make a good impression, and they know part of that entails paying for those first few Beef Burrito Supremes, even if it means diving into the nether regions of the couch for spare change. (Tip for guys: Unscrew the top of the agitator assembly inside your washer and lift it off. You’ll find at least $1.50 in quarters under there, plus maybe that Paris Hilton flash drive you thought you had misplaced.)
So yes, S.A. — if indeed that is your real name — your position is antiquated and ridiculously old-fashioned. But we mean that in a good way. In your case anyway. Because you at least offer to pay some of the time. Nothing turns a guy off more than a woman who never ever offers to chip in. And, just FYI, the opposite is true as well — a guy who hears, “Honey, tonight is on me ... OK, no, not actually ON me, but I’m paying,” is likely to be very appreciative of the gesture. If you know what we mean. If not, ask Freddie Mac.
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
First dates, later dates, and who pays? Big topic of discussion amongst both men and women. Guys watch what women do, ladies. So be ready.
From InsideBayArea.com
Rule No. 3 (see last week): First date has to be cheap
WE GOT some interesting feedback on last week’s column about whether a guy should be expected to pay for most everything in the initial phases of courtship.
(Our position: The guy pays, especially if he does the asking, but we encourage even a halfheartedly mumbled attempt by the woman to spring for something — a round of drinks, the tip, 10 percent of the bail bond — mainly because such a gesture works wonders as a relationship, um, lubricant.)
Nearly all the responses were from guys, most of whom felt victimized to some degree by women who wanted a free lunch or dinner or gourmet picnic in a verdant meadow (more about that later). Interestingly, no women wrote in outraged about how our opinion perpetuates the stereotype of men having to coddle and take care of the opposite sex because they can’t take care of themselves. But then again, maybe our postman — er, letter carrier — has been ill lately.
In any case, one of the missives stood out from the rest, and not just because it sailed through the transom affixed to a brick. It was from a guy named Rob (we won’t identify him further, in case he might ever want to try dating again), who felt we weren’t hard enough on women who seem to expect to be wined and dined ad infinitum. To illustrate his argument, he broke down his expenses for a recent first date, from $7 for parking to $95 for a comedy show and drinks. Oh, and with a high-end dinner in between. The total was around $200 for, he said, “someone I barely even know.”
To which we can only respond: What, no private jet to Maui for a hot-stone massage in Hana?
Say what you will about who should pay for first dates (please discuss among yourselves, because we’re officially sick of the topic), but Rob caused his own problem by going too far, too fast. And that’s not something you’ll hear very often from this space.
Which brings us to today’s lesson: What is an appropriate activity for a first date?
Let’s stipulate that this is not an online-dating first date, for which the only acceptable venue is a Starbucks or a crowded bar with two exits, preferably one near the restrooms. No, this is a true first date, arrived at only after a certain amount of flirting, e-mailing and driving by her house 50 times.
-The movies: No. Too much time spent in tortured silence. There will be plenty of opportunity for that later in the relationship.
-Gourmet picnic in a verdant meadow: No. This smacks of trying too hard. And what if she doesn’t even like beefalo jerky and Coors Light?
-Parking, drinks, dinner, comedy show: No. See above. And Rob, enough with the dating cost/analysis spreadsheets. OK? Thanks.
-Dinner: Yes. Provided it’s at a modest place (sometimes known as a “joint") that doesn’t serve a diminutive entree on a plate the size of a manhole cover. The fact is, most women are uncomfortable with first dates that are too lavish. (Or have we been misinformed yet again? Ladies?)
-Bowling: Yes. Because if one of you is demonstrably better than the other, you can put up the gutter bumpers and increase beer frames from one to three. In fact, we recommend that from the outset.
-The Boardwalk: Yes, if it’s at night. Everyone looks better in the glow of pulsating neon. Particularly those who’ve just come from a grueling session at the Stardust Lanes.
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
One reason surely is that the big sites have been spending a lot more on advertising. See this article from BrandWeek.com:
NEW YORK—Spending on advertising for online dating services has risen dramatically since 2004, according to data released today from Nielsen Monitor-Plus.
The advertising intelligence service said that while total media spend for such efforts was $149 million in the U.S. in 2004, it rose to $310 million the following year, and hit $430 million from January to November of 2006.
“The dating services industry has shown tremendous growth in terms of ad spending across all media, but most especially cable TV, online and local TV and local radio,” Brian Lane, svp-client strategy & product management for Nielsen Monitor-Plus, said in a statement.
NMP said the most recent figures for media chosen showed cable TV led the pack with $130.6 million in reported ad spending last year. The Internet was a close second at $127.3 million, and spot TV ads were third with $75.1 million spent.
Ubiquitous online dating service eHarmony.com was the biggest advertiser overall, spending $110 million in 2006. It was followed by IAC/InterActiveCorp, the parent company of Match.com, which spent $66 million on ads. In third place for overall spending was Teligence (parent company of Live Links, Tango, Redhot, Vibeline and Fonchat), which spent nearly $43 million.
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
Is it about love or money? Well, at least sites like SeekingArrangement.com make it absolutely clear, that on this site at least, it’s about money. Here’s what the site says about itself: “SeekingArrangement is the premier Sugar Daddy Dating site. We are a matchmaking website for wealthy benefactors, and attractive guys & gals.” And “An Arrangement is short for “Mutually Beneficial Relationship” between two people. Such a relationship is usually between an older and wealthy individual who gives a young person expensive gifts or financial assistance in return for friendship, intimacy or sex.”
This site is certainly a step or so beyond the already obnoxious millionaire matching sites I have already written about.
Okay, in some ways I can see how this can be good. Another route to get those who are not serious about looking for a long term, faithful, equal and honest relationship can go. And it is surely capitalistic: if you’ve got the money, flaunt it and buy what you want.
One of the most popular postings on my blog comment-wise is a short one about sugar mamas I have one guy after another (and at least one woman) who would love to find a woman to support them.
It is hard to believe. But look at the evidence.
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
From a story on Internet scamming on WCBSTV.com:
… for Julia Abrantes, it was her heart that was stolen, and her wallet wasn’t far behind. “At the end of the day he got about $650 from me,” she said. She found what she thought was the love of her life online after just two months of Internet dating.
But there were warning signs the whole way that her lover was not the man he said he was. “We call it scammer grammar because although they say they’re from the U.S. their writing is atrocious, the words they are using are totally false,” Abrantes says.
Another tell tale sign he’s only looking to empty your bank account: he describes himself as Native American when trying to tell you he was born in the United States, and can’t answer basic questions about his profile—like he lives in Los Angeles but doesn’t know anything about the L.A. Dodgers.
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
A tool to estimate what your Sweetie could be worth, or at least his/her house: Go to Zillow.com and plug in the address. Zillow will make an estimate, based on sales prices for houses in the area.
Caveat: Zillow.com could not find the house we just sold in Mississippi, but did find our house in Tallahassee, with a pretty close and realistic value.
What Zillow does NOT show is what is owed on the house (mortgages, etc). Or whether the resident actually owns the house. But the market value has some interest.
Read here how one single used Zillow to check out her Sweetheart.
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
The total dollars that scammers are getting are going up. First, a story out of Ghana where a man posing as a woman was looking “for a Christian man” to marry. The scammer knit a convoluted series of stories that eventually got over $150,000 from his American victim. Read the article to get a sense of what twists and turns were invented to keep the victim paying up.
Then, a Jacksonville, FL, lawyer (48) has made lemonade out of lemons with his new book “How Not to get Burned By Internet Dating and Mail-Order Brides: A Guide for the Potential Victim.” Anthony Penoso shelled out $75,000 in cash and gifts for his Romanian girlfriend, who literally ditched him at the alter and flew on to California with her new/old boyfriend. Perhaps the fact that the woman was 26 to his 48 ought to have been a bit of a red flag.
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
From daughter Mishelle:
eloan.com will give you your credit score free, once a year. Loook under “Tools and Calculators.”
annualcreditreport.com will give you your free credit report, once a year. Have to fill out a bunch of online forms, but you get your free report from each of the three services. It’s highly recommended that we all do this once a year. One in four people have an error in their credit report.
I got this note from a client who has met a great sounding guy on Match.com. He has asked her out on a real date, and she needs to find a babysitter:
Assuming I get one, and he and I go out, is it appropriate for him to pay for the date? (we’ll probably go out to dinner) I’m no longer sure about any of this. I used to rely on The Rules. And my instinct still says ‘yes, he should pay’. What I bring
to the date will be great care in looking my absolute best, and being there for him as a pleasant, cordial, gra |
