You’ve already avoided the biggest hit - docs who marry before or during training will in many states find their MD and license considered a marital asset. This and its earning potential will then have to be divided along with all the other community assets. So you’ve dodged at least one big bullet!
Personally I think prenup makes sense in your situation, but you’ll have to make it fair. Usually this means hiring an attorney for you and one for your fiance, and then working through them to figure out something fair and reasonable. Typically this can protect you from someone divorcing you after 1-2 years and trying to take half of your assets, but 5+ years with kids and you’re going to take a big hit regardless. Obviously future children can’t sign the prenup so their support will have to be adjudicated later. Typically there are sliding scales for years of marriage and other stipulations for various situations such as if the spouse stops working, but those all need to be fair enough to both parties to hold up in court. I’ve known a number of people who did this and the key seems to have been the dual attorneys and making sure everything was done fairly. A good prenup should also let the less monied spouse feel secure in their own financial future as well.
Basically you’re doing the same division of assets you’d do in a divorce, but you’re doing it in advance when you both still like each other. Best case you save some assets if the marriage ends super early, but if you stay together a long time and then badness goes down, you’re probably getting hosed either way.
Very reasoned post.
I would point out as well, there is a thinking about how retirement benefits are split and how the dollars flow in a marriage.
One idea is that, the other spouse's income/support/splitting of basic bills/shared costs with kids making the whole set up cheaper per person in the household/childcare, all adds to the family's finances, and also allows the greater earning spouse to contribute MORE to investments and retirement than arguably they may have otherwise been able to make. Now, someone can argue that with a cardiologist's salary the person in question could have afforded it all and on their own and it never would have affected their ability to save or invest.
But in any case there are reasons when one spouse works and the other doesn't, that they are entitled to some retirement benefits.
The idea is that, you made a contract with each other to share these things, and that reasonably affects decisions made by both parties. And in the case of someone who stayed home with the kids and supported the other person's career (when that is what happens), they had an expectation that they didn't need to be working and saving for their own retirement, as they provided support and will share in the retirement. Especially if the other spouse was working some of the time or had lower earnings but can show contribution to the household, even if it was less and not to retirement, again, you can argue that is where their otherwise retirement money went.
This is only relevant to what you are saying about retirement.
Many people are not aware, that the above rationale is why our own government, in its great benevolence, since it loves to dole out high amounts of social security monies to people who have worked and are owed it based on their working record, will allow ex spouses to claim benefits based on the other spouse's record (this is true under some conditions and not others, and does not affect the other person's payout).
In any case, you point out a couple things about fairness, like the approach with 2 lawyers and a pre-nup.
Part of that, or the other strategy I discussed was learning the laws about assets and divorce and marriage and planning accordingly, is to consider how to set up retirement plans. Contributions made in the other spouse's name can be beneficial here. It's possible while married to set things up for your other spouse's future (when you still like each other) that can allow you to effectively pay ahead rather than out the back end. If you invest for your spouse for 10 or 20 years and the money can be followed showing this, depending on what those accounts look like, this can obviate the need as far as courts are concerned about alimony or some assets being split. Obviously lots of details here and will vary greatly based on legal particulars.
It depends on your state, but some states order alimony on a basis of sorta, how much does this other spouse still need support and moving forward into retirement, accounting for the fact that this marriage may have hindered their saving. So if you've saved for them and established a reasonable pension for them, you may have to pay less or even be off the hook depending.
Pick your spouse well, take care of them (before the marriage with pre-nup and lawyers if you wish, or after the fact with lawyers) and some of this is not as big of an issue.
The thing is, you can make financial plans and estates and investments that work for you as a COUPLE, and also build contingencies in case of divorce or death where it still works for both parties.
If your approach is more about, how do we make this FAIR and care for us both no matter what happens to/with either of us, I think that can go over a lot better when you are arranging finances with someone. How do we set up a joint or individual retirement accounts or other investments or let's do the house in a way the poorer spouse still has a house, might come off better than, I made all this money and I want to make sure I make off with it in case you screw me.
It's about, how are we splitting things, rather than an approach of well I made all this money how do I keep it from you.
But at some point it seems ridiculous to even get married.
You can have kids with someone and not even get legally married. You can still split bills, assets, have power of attorney if one of you is hurt, be beneficiaries on each other's accounts, take the other's last name (name change).
Ultimately being in a relationship or a marriage is all about a choice to be with someone, it's not about paper or money. Those things don't keep people together in the end. It's a daily choice.
As others point out, values matter a lot here. Some people the legal recognition aspect matters a lot, and there are benefits to marriage that are financial and not otherwise attainable.