Latest news with #Dinks
Singapore Law Watch
23-06-2025
- Business
- Singapore Law Watch
When a dual-income, no-kids couple fight over $2.3m cash
When a dual-income, no-kids couple fight over $2.3m cash Source: Straits Times Article Date: 22 Jun 2025 Author: Tan Ooi Boon Man tries but fails to deny ex-wife share of commission earned for brokering a company takeover. There's usually plenty of money to fight over when Dinks – dual income, no kids – couples split up, but a Singapore pair took that to a new level when they fought over even the $15,000 spent on their pampered dogs. The dog fight was just a sideshow; the real battle was over savings in excess of $2 million. The conflict – sadly all too common among divorcing spouses, no matter what money is at stake – became a sort of legal benchmark here because it is rare for the High Court to hear cases involving such couples, especially when large sums of cash are involved. Their occupations were not disclosed in the court ruling but all attention was on the $2.8 million in sales commission the husband earned for brokering the takeover of a company. That sum alone, which attracted income tax of over $500,000, dwarfed all other assets they owned during their relatively short union of about eight years. The couple, who lived with the husband's parents, had other combined assets of about $900,000, which included a $132,000 net gain from the sale of their HDB flat. They had married in 2011 but barely a year after that, there were signs that not all was well, with allegations of infidelity and a general drifting apart. In 2020, the wife moved out and, in 2022, they filed for divorce. During the hearing for the division of assets, the Family Justice Court looked only at the couple's financial contributions, as they did not have any children. The husband had close to $3 million in his name while his ex-wife's assets amounted to $213,000, so the division ratio was about 93 to 7 in the husband's favour. When the case came before High Court Judge Mohamed Faizal, he saw no reason to adjust this ruling. But he noted that even in the case of a childless marriage, a spouse's indirect contribution must still be considered, otherwise the efforts in caring for each other would be rendered 'worthless'. 'Even in the context of a childless marriage, the parties would have ordinarily invested deeply in each other's personal and professional growth,' he said, adding that the law would 'honour the shared journey and investment made as a partnership'. In the end, the division ratio for the couple was adjusted to 85 to 15, which doubled the wife's initial share. Here are three points relating to matrimonial assets that all couples should know. Proof of income and expenses With a windfall as high as $2.8 million, it was only human that the husband would claim the money was not entirely his in order to prevent his ex-wife from having a share. He said the commission was earned by 'a group of people' who brokered the deal. To prove his point, he retained only $50,000 and transferred the rest of it to a friend. If this was true, it would not make sense to declare the bulk of the commission to the taxman as his own income, which attracted a levy of over $500,000. If the sum was earned by a group of people, they would collectively pay a lot less tax if they each declared their share of the commission to the taxman. Not surprisingly, Judge Faizal did not believe the husband's story, especially when the documents he submitted to support his claim were seen 'as poor, at best'. 'He was only able to produce an undated letter entitled 'Invoice', where he stated that all the commission was to be paid to him, without reference to anyone else.' As a result, about $2.3 million of the commission was added to the pool for sharing, after paying tax. The wife could also not prove her claim that $15,000 was paid to a pet clinic to treat their dogs. She had withdrawn about $42,000 from their joint bank account after the sale of their HDB flat and claimed that part was spent on the dogs. As she could not produce receipts, it was presumed she spent the whole amount on herself. Living in parents' home When a couple live in a home owned entirely by one of them, both are likely to have shares in the property, which will be viewed as their matrimonial home. But living in a residence belonging to a set of parents will not transform this property into a couple's matrimonial home as the assets are not theirs in the first place. Even if they have contributed to renovating their bedroom, for example, it is still hard for an ex-spouse to make a claim on the in-laws' property. At most, the sum spent would be considered in the matrimonial division. In this case, the wife had no claim on her former in-laws' property as she was living there as a tenant who was also served by their domestic helpers. But she could stake a claim to a private apartment that her ex-husband bought as an investment because this was done during their marriage. Contributions in childless marriages As the law views a marriage as a partnership, the successes and achievements attained in a Dinks marriage should not be seen as the result of one spouse's hard work and effort, but a collective effort of both parties. As Judge Faizal put it: 'This can manifest in a multitude of ways, from one partner taking on more domestic responsibilities to allow the other to excel in their career, to providing important emotional support to each other when facing the many hurdles of life.' So in this instance, he found that a 50-50 ratio for indirect contributions would be appropriate, as both sides also did their part before the marriage broke down. That said, such contributions would not be viewed as having the same weightage as financial contributions, especially for short marriages. Judge Faizal cited two previous cases and noted that the court gave a 50 per cent weightage for a childless marriage that lasted over 11 years, and a 25 per cent weightage for one of five years with one child. As the couple were effectively together for about eight years, he said a 20 per cent weightage for indirect contributions would not be at odds with the precedents and was also appropriate on the facts. So after considering the overall contributions, he adjusted the wife's earlier share of about 7 per cent to 15 cent. Since the total value of the matrimonial assets, which included the sales commission, was about $3.2 million, the wife would be entitled to about $480,000 and the husband $2.72 million. While a divorce may be a painful experience for estranged spouses, the law strives to be fair to all parties by compensating the efforts that both sides have invested in their marriage. Tan Ooi Boon is the Invest Editor of The Straits Times Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
Straits Times
21-06-2025
- Business
- Straits Times
Double-income and no-kids (Dinks) couples fight over $2 million cash
The double-income and no-kids couple were tussling over the husband's $2.8 million income plus their expenses. PHOTO: ISTOCKPHOTO There's usually plenty of money to fight over when Dinks – dual income, no kids – couples split up, but a Singapore pair took that to a new level when they fought over even the $15,000 spent on their pampered dogs. The dog fight was just a sideshow; the real battle was over savings in excess of $2 million. Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Business Times
04-06-2025
- Business
- Business Times
Employers should encourage employees to start retirement planning early
AS A trainer with MoneySense's Institute for Financial Literacy (IFL) for almost eight years, I have taught dozens of retirement planning classes to hundreds of people. One common feature? An overwhelming majority of participants are not prepared for life after full-time work. This gels with virtually all surveys into retirement adequacy. For instance, OCBC's Financial Wellness Index findings, published last November, showed that although more people are investing, retirement planning is still a problem. The survey found that only 54 per cent of respondents have started making financial plans for retirement, down six percentage points from 2023, while 24 per cent said they either intend to start or started planning for their retirement only in their 50s or later, which realistically, does not leave much time to accumulate sufficient funds. OCBC also found the problem to be more acute among 'Dinks'' – those with dual incomes and no kids. These findings have actually been fairly consistent over the years, so nothing new perhaps. But in a rapidly ageing society, it has to be troubling. Although financial planners advise individuals to start investing and planning for their retirement as early as possible in order to maximise the benefits of compound interest and ride out volatility in financial markets, most people do not. Individuals who are in the early stages of their working life and are just starting their families tend to be shouldering numerous financial commitments ranging from mortgage repayments to setting aside funds for children's education, to the point that investing and retirement planning tend to be relegated to secondary importance. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Many also believe they lack the time and funds to do proper planning. The result is the majority relies on simple savings to build retirement nest eggs. This is far from ideal and presents a problem for a greying population that has to grapple with persistent inflation, at least for the foreseeable future. When there is insufficient investment and advance financial planning, what happens is that as retirement looms and people realise they have a significant shortfall in funds, the tendency is to search for quick solutions via complex instruments that offer high returns but come with plenty of risks. If these securities do not perform as hoped, large losses are incurred, and the problem is worsened. But the OCBC study also found that getting proper help, whether in terms of advice or tools, has had a positive impact on improving scores. For instance, almost half of investors who sought qualified financial advice from financial institutions were on track with their investments. In this connection, employers, particularly human resource departments, can play an important role by encouraging employees to start gearing up for retirement from a young age. If cost is a consideration, there are available, for instance, free and unbiased courses offered by IFL on money management, insurance, investing and retirement planning. A key plank of these courses is how the oft-misunderstood Central Provident Fund scheme can provide everyone with the foundation for a comfortable retirement. Also taught is how one's nest egg can be supplemented by investing in various instruments and tapping into government schemes such as the Silver Housing Bonus and Lease Buyback Scheme. Given how pervasive the problem apparently is, employers certainly can help spur awareness and action by including (perhaps even emphasising) retirement planning in their suite of employee benefits.
The Guardian
18-04-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Melbourne nurse Sarah is trying to save for a home near work – neither party's housing plan will get her any closer
When Sarah* opens her banking app, she sees an account labelled Home Saver. After years of trying to save, there's still $0 in it. The 30-year-old works as a nurse at a major hospital in Melbourne. She normally makes between $2,100 and $2,300 a fortnight. Her last pay, because she got sick, was $1,900. 'I don't think there are any nurses in my demographic – young, single people – who are like, 'Yep, buying a house is a realistic dream,'' she says. 'I don't know many people who are buying. In fact, it's just a lot of people [in] rental stress.' Sarah is exactly the type of voter the major parties are trying to court with competing housing policies – a millennial who would love to secure the status of first home buyer. Advocates wonder why the new commitments have targeted a small number of first home buyers over the larger number of lower-income people living in rental stress. And industry experts warn the situation has become so dire, they are only seeing Dinks (dual income, no kids) or people with inheritance make it on to the property ladder. After paying for rent, groceries, petrol and bills, Sarah says she has hardly anything to put aside. Last year, she stopped living by herself and moved back into a share house to keep her rent down. Labor has promised to lift the caps on the current federal scheme, allowing every first home buyer to secure a mortgage with a 5% deposit without paying lenders' mortgage insurance (LMI), and to build 100,000 homes across the country reserved for first home buyers. The Coalition has said it will allow first home buyers who purchase new builds to deduct the interest from their repayments from their income tax, capped at the first $650,000 of the mortgage. They've also promised to unlock $50,000 of super to help with a deposit. Sarah says neither plan would really help her. She now rents 10 minutes away from the hospital, but this is a necessity, not a luxury – like many nurses, her shifts often finish at 10pm and start again at 7am. 'I've looked at the median house price around my area, for a two-bedroom apartment, and it's $500,000. So 5% of that is $25,000,' she says. 'It would take many, many years.' Taking out super could help get her into the market earlier, but she worries it could impact on her livelihood in retirement – or even earlier, if she got sick and needed to access it sooner. 'It is a Band-Aid solution,' she says. Natasha Janssens, a financial educator, says both policies would 'boost demand' but neither addresses the key problem – 'how overextended families are becoming in order to buy a home'. 'The Coalition policy is offering a cash benefit once you buy a home, the Labor policy is reducing the cost of entry,' Janssens says. Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter She says the tax deduction won't help people struggling to see out the end of the year, while the 5% deposit passes on more risk to the homebuyer if the market dives. 'In both cases, politicians are asking young Australians to put themselves at risk … Whether that is by risking their income in retirement or by overextending themselves and purchasing with a small deposit.' In the early 2000s, the average house price was four times the average income. Now, it's more than eight. As prices have skyrocketed, saving has become even harder: it now takes more than 12 years for an average household to save a 20% deposit, up from six in the early 1990s. Janssens says this means people often have to be coupled to get into the housing market. Zena and her partner count themselves very lucky. They are Dinks – with a double income of about $250,000 and no kids. They know they are in a position many aren't. They want to buy an already-built home in Melbourne's inner north, so think Labor's policy will get them in the door faster. Because of their income, they are locked out of the existing scheme. 'If they [Labor] win the election, we would benefit from that,' she says. 'Because I think we'll be in a position to have more than a 10% deposit, but we probably won't be able to get to 20%, so that means that we would be able to save on the LMI cost. 'If we're looking at a house which costs $950,000, the LMI on, if we had a 10% deposit, would [depending on the lender] be like $16,000 or $17,000 added to the loan.' Sign up to Afternoon Update: Election 2025 Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key election campaign stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion She believes both parties should support the building of nicer apartments in cities, and focus on policies that help first home buyers, 'compared to them being outbid by boomers who are investing'. Melissa Gielnik, the managing director of Smart Lending Mortgage Brokers, says the biggest winners would be those who take advantage of the Coalition's plan and buy a new-build. 'It's almost like being an investor,' she says. 'It's tax-deductible interest.' Gielnik says it will be a 'massive combo' with the federal government's current first home guarantee scheme, which wipes LMI and stamp duty to those with a 5% deposit under certain incomes. She thinks 'it's very positive for first-time buyers', whoever gets in. Still, some of those buyers aren't convinced. Louise Smith, 34, has been saving for a home almost 20 years, since she started working at 15. She wants to buy in the next year. Labor's policy won't help her further, because she already has the deposit to purchase in the area she wants. But the Coalition's policy also doesn't appeal, because she has a low income, and it won't help with the high mortgage repayments. The main thing Smith wants to see is lower house prices. Last week she inspected a two-bedroom home in Reservoir, in Melbourne's north, that needed substantial renovations, had no garden and bouncy floorboards. It had a price tag of almost $1m. 'What would actually help would be regulation to the housing market so that these absolutely exorbitant prices weren't the norm,' she said. 'It's outrageous.' The CEO of Homelessness Australia, Kate Colvin, wants everyone to look at the numbers. Over the year to 2024, there were 117,000 first home buyers, and more than half a million renters on commonwealth rent assistance who were paying more than 30% of their income in rent. 'We should really be talking about renters and homelessness,' she says. 'We've got 280,000 people coming to homeless services every year, which is more than twice as many first home buyers.' Colvin says 'the lion's share' of the housing crisis could be dealt with by building more social housing. 'If we got to the point where we had one in 10 properties that were social or affordable housing, then people like [Sarah] could be paying more affordable rent and saving for home ownership. 'It's the policy solution to rule them all.' While Labor has made inroads, with February figures showing 340 new social homes have been built and about 5,400 are under construction, 'it needs to scale up', Colvin says. 'We're in the middle of a federal election, we've got to be aspiring to be a country that's better than Australian families raising their children in tents.' * Name has been changed for privacy
