Financial status should be a major criterion for marrying someone

[Etini]

This post might be controversial and unconventional. I think that as a financially conscious person, you should not place any other factor above financial status as a yardstick for marrying someone. And my belief holds true both men and women. For someone interested in growing his/her finances, love, beauty, and other factors should be relegated to the back burner. The factor that should be prioritized is financial status. Is he/she from a financially stable family? How is he/she going to improve your financial life? These are the questions that every financially conscious person should sincerely answer himself/herself before deciding to marry anyone.

The current prime minister of the Uk, Rishi Sunak is where he is today because he married his wife, Akshata Murty. The lady is the daughter of a billionaire Indian tech guru. Rishi was a complete nobody but his marriage in 2009 gave him a chance to achieve greatness. He was given shares at Infosys, his wife's father's company immediately after he married the lady. Today, from nowhere, he is prime minister and it all started with the marriage.

My take is that you should marry someone who is financially secure or has the potential to be financially secure. Love is never enough.

 

[Rubz]

I totally agree with you. With the way the economy is going, i don't think anyone would want to marry a liability. So financial status of a person should be a major criteria for marriage. Don't get me wrong. I believe in love. You have to love the person you are getting married to off course, but you also need money for you to be happy in a marriage. Marrying someone who isn't financially stable could lead to a failed marriage because both of you would be struggling to get by day by day. Most women have this mindset of marrying a wealthy man. It isn't right. As a woman, you should also work so as to support your husband so the burden isn't too much for him to hear.

 

[eldavis]

You have a point there though but at the same time i have seen cases where people who are not from financially stable families have been able to fend well for themselves and change their status. So i believe your main aim should not be on the family they are from but rather if he or she has the capacity and ideas to support and grow not just their own financial status but also yours as well. At the same time, thats not to say love is not important when it comes to marriage, i believe it should not be throw at the back but all should be considered properly. Cause a person who does not love you, would not be able or willing to put in their very best to support you.

 

[Yusra3]

I think financial status should be a major criterion for marrying someone. It's not about how much money you have, it's about the person you are with. If you're looking for someone to support your family and give you kids, then that's one thing. But if you're looking for someone who can take care of themselves and their life, then they need to have a certain amount of income so that they don't feel like they're taking advantage of the other person.

When deciding whether or not to marry someone, you should look at their financial status. If they're in a good place and can afford to support you, then you're probably doing alright on your own.

It's also important to make sure that your partner has a stable job and isn't living check-to-check. A person who is financially unstable is more likely to have issues with commitment, which can lead to instability in a relationship.

 

[moonchild]

Well, marriage is seen as an utopia for women, so your line of thought will definitely makes sense to you, the burden of commitment is always on the man which finance makes the most of, financial status should never be a yardstick for marriage partnership, as an African, my ancestors married out of love and loyalty, it was never about the money, besides in the ancient times, people mostly are poor, living based on their craftsmanship and they were all married with kids and grand kids.

It is no surprise why our societies are filled with post wall women that have passed their prime, they are mostly waiting for a millionaire to put a ring on their finger, y'all see marriage as a ticket to a good life you didn't work for, I understand that being financially stable should be a requisite for a good union but should never be a yardstick.

 

[Augusta]

This has always been my stance right from time immemorial but it seems we are not ready for this discussion. because this is just the truth.

Love is never enough when the bills start piling up especially when the children start arriving. Nobody is saying you should wait for a billionaire to get married what we are saying is that get married to someone that is financially secure, a man with financial potentials that is either working or doing a business this is the truth that the society needs to tell everyone.

They're a lot of suffering children today because the parent thought love was all the needed but when the bills start comes it will bring a lot of issues and can even cause separation but this were persons that felt love was enough.

We will always need the basic things of life and we can only get it when we have the money to buy them.