When my husband and I got together, then engaged and married, we did not have much financially or in terms of assets. Therefore, anything we have now has been built together through both of our hard work and dedication to our finances.

My situation is quite common when you marry younger and don’t have a whole lot to begin with. However, that is not always the case, some relationships begin with significant debt from student loans, child support from a first marriage, or significant assets from family estates or simply from your own hard work.

With that said, I was recently listening to a Dave Ramsey podcast and heard a call that presented a complex dilemma.

The caller, who was financially secure, sought advice after her recent engagement. Despite their three-year relationship, her partner was in a precarious financial position due to debt, substantial support payments from his divorce, and an unstable career, leaving him with very little monthly income to get by.

Her dilemma was: should she call off the engagement, as she was concerned that his situation might indicate what their long-term future could look like, or should she go all in and help clear his obligations so they could move in a positive financial direction together?

The fact is that not all relationships begin financially equal. The question that must be asked in this situation is: do you go all in and assume your partner's financial burden, or not?

When you enter into a marriage or long-term commitment, it is, at its core, a profound union of two lives; a merging of dreams, homes, and, inevitably, finances.

Therefore, the decision to actively take on a partner's financial burden, whether it be student loans, credit card debt, or other liabilities, is complex and carries several practical implications.

This decision is less a simple calculation and more a strategic navigation of shared values, with distinct benefits and disadvantages that can shape the foundation of a partnership.

The primary benefit of assuming a partner’s debt is the powerful reinforcement of the “team” concept. From the outset, if you choose to walk down the aisle, it embodies the “for better or worse” vow in tangible terms, fostering profound trust and demonstrating unwavering commitment.

This act can dissolve potential power imbalances that debt can create, preventing a dynamic where one partner feels like a creditor and the other a debtor.

Financially, a unified approach often allows for more efficient debt management. Combining incomes can accelerate repayment, saving on interest in the long run. Furthermore, addressing the debt together with a clear strategy can serve as a crucial foundation for future financial planning.

It forces necessary, if difficult, conversations about spending habits, risk tolerance, and life goals, establishing transparency and joint responsibility from day one. This shared mission can build a strong sense of accomplishment and partnership as milestones are reached.

Additionally, clearing high-interest debt can dramatically improve the couple’s collective financial health. It can help secure better borrowing rates for future necessities like a mortgage.

It also frees up cashflow sooner, allowing the couple to build an emergency fund, save for a home, or invest for retirement, goals that might otherwise be delayed for years.

Emotionally, for the indebted partner, the relief from carrying the burden alone can be immense, reducing stress and allowing both individuals to focus emotional energy on building their life together rather than dwelling on past financial choices.

However, this path is not without considerable risks and disadvantages. The most immediate is the sheer financial strain.

Assuming significant debt can delay other life goals, from buying a house to starting a family, and can limit lifestyle choices and career flexibility.

The partner taking on the burden may feel pressured to pursue higher-paying, less-satisfying work, creating underlying resentment.

This financial pressure is often compounded by legal realities; in many jurisdictions, debt acquired before marriage remains the legal responsibility of the individual who incurred it. Yet, by using marital assets (joint income) to repay it, the other partner effectively assumes the economic weight, if not the legal responsibility.

Should the marriage end, they may have no legal claim to recoup those contributions, representing a potential net financial loss.

Beyond the balance sheet, the psychological disadvantages can be corrosive. Even with the best intentions, resentment can silently fester if the debt repayment requires sustained sacrifice.

The indebted partner may feel guilt or a loss of autonomy, while the other might subconsciously adopt a posture of financial superiority, undermining equality. This dynamic can be particularly damaging if the root cause of the debt is financial irresponsibility.

Taking on the debt without a mutual, behavioural change plan is merely treating a symptom, not the disease. It risks enabling poor habits and sets a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to further financial discord and often a parting of ways.

Ultimately, the decision transcends into a pros and cons list of the relationship itself. The benefits of unity, accelerated goals, and deepened trust are real and powerful, but they are sustainable only if built upon a foundation of absolute honesty, a shared financial philosophy, and a concrete plan.

The disadvantages of potential resentment, financial jeopardy, and enabling behaviour are severe warnings, not to be ignored.

There is no right or wrong answer to the question, because it is a personal choice on how you handle it. But one question must be asked: why did she invest so much time into the relationship (three years) only to start questioning the end game?

It makes you wonder: was she fully aware of his financial situation, or was there a lack of disclosure?

It goes without saying that couples must engage in unflinching financial disclosures from both sides. Once you know, then you can make decisions both from the heart and from the bank account.

If you decide to take on the financial burden, it is imperative to create a detailed, written repayment plan that feels fair to both, and to commit to ongoing communication.

The goal is not merely to share financial responsibilities, but to build a shared future. That requires ensuring the burden lifted from one partner does not become the anchor that holds the marriage or long-term partnership back.

The true benefit is found not in the act of assumption, but in the strength, transparency, and mutual respect forged in making the decision together.

So, what was Dave Ramsey's advice in the end?

He told her to walk away, because she viewed her partner as inferior and inadequate, and she had just wasted three years of his life thinking their relationship was something, that it clearly was not — ouch!

• Carla Seely has 25 years of experience in the international financial services, wealth management, and insurance industries. During her career, she has obtained several investment licenses through the Canadian Securities Institute. She holds the ACSI qualification through the Chartered Institute for Securities and Investments (UK), the qualified associate financial planner (QAFP) designation through FP Canada, and the associate in insurance (AINS) designation through The Institutes. She also completed a Master’s Degree in Business and Management through University of Essex.

• For further inquiries or suggested topics, e-mail: justaskcarla@outlook.com