That ‘s also my vision and my spouse vision. So you need to discuss the topic before settling.
However, you may want it but your spouse may not be able to find a job in Switzerland bcos she is working in a very competitive industry with few positions (aka art, marketing, communication…), or doesn’t speak the native language … not everyone has a spouse working in IT, banking nor finance.
So you are better finding someone you can trust and confront life challenges together.
What if I earn twice as much? Wouldn‘t it make more sense going for 100/40 instead of 70/70? Thus reducing income by 20% instead of 30%?
That’s exactly why I said it was more convenient for the main income earner to stay at 100%. 
My second point could partially be resolved, by filling up the spouses pillar 3 to the max and even buying into her/his pillar 2 with the income gain of this care model.
IMHO, the other points I mentioned remain.
Financially on the short term, yes. But it depends on the extent to which the partner that goes to 40% is happy with that choice, now and in the future.
If in a few years she ends up feeling regret or even resentful (for any of the reasons pointed out above), it might end up causing a break in your relationship, costing you far more than that 10%.
For the married people here:
Did you do a pre-nup?
If no, why?
If yes, what points did you regulate in the contract?
Married, didn’t do a prenup. Reason: I guess, because I love my wife more than my money.
Married, no pre-nup.
I understand pre-nup is insurance of rogue divorce in case one half is able to generate much bigger income. Otherwise what’s the point? What was mine before marriage would remain mine. Gifts/inheritance to me during marriage is mine. Please correct me if I’m wrong?
It’s seems fair to share everything 50/50 what’s gained during marriage if no other conditions.
I’ve heard people put in pre-nup not only financial part, but like how much time one can spend with friends. Not sure if it’s true, but that’s would be over my head.
Married with pre-nup.
You know who you marry now but who knows who it will become in 30 years. Based on divorce statistics why take an unnecessary risk ?
As said, it is an insurance especially if you have a revenu discrepancy.
Your children will be protected by an allowance until they complete their studies.
Your wife will get a finance compensation based on the loss of life quality (in France).
If you intend to create a company it could protect your family from bankruptcy.
This is not really true now, at least with the recent jurisprudence in Switzerland.
Nevertheless, it would be the case if your wife didn’t work for a long time because of the mariage and the organisation of your mariage, for instance if you both agree to a traditional way of life where the husband work and bring money at home and the wife take care of the house and the children.
If not, and if both parents are working, your partner should not be allowed to claim a pension for him/her (each case is specific). But with the recent jurisprudence, the Court should encourage the partner to work and earn his/her own money instead of depending on the money of his/her ex-partener.
Times are changing guys 
and of course, the best things would be to have a partner with ambition and not someone who hope to live on your revenue ad aeternam.
I’d prefer to never have to use a pre-nup.
If one day it is needed, there will probably not be much love left. 
So if both earn ± the same amount and one side saves way more of their salary than the other, it seems fair to split it 50:50?
and who knows who it will become during a divorce.
IMO there is no downside to do a prenup.
That’s where I have a fundamentally different mindset than you do. After marriage, it was not my salary and her salary anymore, it was our salary. I don’t save money for myself, I save money for our family. Especially know with our small daughter, imo there’s no salary in the world to pay for what my wife does for our daughter.
Well, this is fundamental question of how you want to structure marriage. Ie. frugal person meeting non frugal. For me that’s like diesel in petrol engine, big no no.
Of course, some girls like lui vuiton and laboutini while single, but change after marriage/family/child, but you need to see this willingness early in friendship and not hope the change strictly after marriage.
As @Burningstone said, wife gives something more than partnership in standard family with childs.
I probably, would strongly argue for pre-nup in partnership without kids, as there in divorce you don’t have common denominator which would encourage both to search for best solution.
No
I was in love. Regret having not done one back then.
Seriously, if you consider having kids with somebody and you’re not married yet, consider having a pre-nup. Women can change significantly due to having kids (as in 180 degrees). Doing one during the marriage will only lead to drama.
If one believes a prenup makes sense, for FIRE marriages it seems a no brainer to do it. Especially for the other side.
On the typical family you all mentioned, if the male stop working because of FIRE, but the woman still works, it’s her that will gain from having a prenup.
It is also way better to discuss terms when both are loving and willing to discuss them. Especially when one is really lean to organise the wedding.
When things start to get ugly, it will be too late to attempt to negotiate anything. Hopefully ending will be shorter (smoother?) because part of it was already agreed.
I do the same, saving money always gives financial security to a family.
People can change over time and not only for the better…
I totally agree on that one. Though my wife doesn’t want to have to rely on me and I don’t want her to have to rely on me either, so I prefer her to be “independent” of me. This means she will work also and we take care of our little one together.
In case it’s still relevant:
You can still do one after the marriage.
I’m unfortunately very well aware of that, and this pretty much happend in my case.
As I see it:
The only I could imagine if wife unilaterally changes 50/50 to 80/20 work/income and/or dramatically changes lifestyle to expensive side and still would expect 50/50 divorce. But this would give reason to re-negotiate marriage “setup” and possible pre-nup.
I somehow always return to my initial thought that pre-nup is good when there is big income disparity and you afraid that she will cheat on you.
Would you share in abstract what were the changes/problems if possible? I’d really would like to be prepared as statistics is rather not on my side
Men change too. If you ask my wife, she can tell you how much I changed since I learned about FIRE :).
So, is it the whole 2nd pillar that gets split, or only the obligatory part?
The 2nd pillar with all contributions and extra contributions made during your years of mariage .