To not see the difference between saving and inheritance?

@vibecheck

I think the vast majority of posters simply have no concept of your family wealth or what it means to have the provisions in place that you do.

the rudeness comes from ignorance (& envy)

it's unusual not to marry someone from
a similar background. You & your DH couldn't be further apart in the way you were brought up. I don't think either of you can truly understand fully each other's position.

you're going to have to do some serious thinking about your marriage.

He doesn't want to share/pool money, he wants to THINK he's independent (even though he's not) He doesn't want it to seem like he's taking money from you, but he is (things like you buying your house means he's mortgage free, so 'getting' money from you every month. Plus other things you mentioned.

He (while living in your house etc) wants you to make your life smaller & less pleasant. He wants to control your life/lifestyle.

you're well set up to enjoy your life (as your parents intended & were able to do for you) whilst still working & earning your own income.

Do you really want to be with someone who is trying to control you so much & make you feel bad about your good fortune??

well you might, but her DH doesn't have that worry- at all.

Because? It's already happened once - and if I were him that would be a sore spot for me since she had agreed to save it and just didn't. That was very selfish of her. I would be pissed off at indications that that mentality was still there.

I’ve acknowledged that she can’t force him to view money the same way that she does.

A lot of the advice being given is coming from the perspective that OP is wrong, needs to change to suit him, and see it from his perspective. Yet there’s no expectation for him to return the favour.

As with so many MN threads, the issue isn't actually whether 1000 randoms think you are BU or not.

Your DH thinks you are. You can't see why. I'm not sure this is something you can resolve or work around long term.

@aSofaNearYou

well you might, but her DH doesn't have that worry- at all.

Just to add on to my earlier posts – I also come from a very different financial background to DH and don't understand (honestly secretly find annoying) the morality he attaches to money. Just read a few histories of money, or ask any economist – it's ultimately a made-up concept, a useful fiction engineered by those at the top to keep the masses in thrall. If you can have a bigger bite of the pie, why not?

But think about it as an exercise in teamwork, rather than concerning the money itself. Sharing and working towards a joint goal is always fruitful and bonding. I also find DIY and home maintenance utterly unappealing and pointless, but enjoy working alongside DH for an outcome he finds worthwhile. He finds a lot of my predilections, passions and hang-ups odd too, but is always there with me for the journey, in a respectful and non-condescending manner.

And the OP also hasn't mentioned amounts. We have no idea whether she is just comfortably provided for, or UHNW.

The OP hasn't said what kind of trust it is though. It could just be a bare trust that she got access to at 25, with no provision made for longevity.

I would be pissed off with you given you've done this before and he ended up bailing you out. I'd be seeing a future where you don't save and I have to pay for everything.

It also sounds like many people don't know what a trust fund is. The whole point is longevity and stability. Plus again, some wedding money and a holiday is hardly splashing it on being a casino high-roller. The critical issue here is marital, not financial.

you come from completely different worlds, but rather than accepting this he’s resentful, and expects you to change your outlook to match his

But you could say exactly the same about the OP. She is showing no understanding of his perspective at all.

This. From what OP’s described she is absolutely not some wastrel blowing through her family’s accumulated wealth.

You’re going to get a lot of criticism OP, unfortunately. Not many people will be able to relate to your background, and many will have preconceived notions about the type of person you are and what you should be/should be doing. Rather than it being considered a perspective based on a different financial reality, you will be ‘wrong’ and required to justify yourself. I’ve encountered it myself, but thankfully not in my personal relationships. It is one of the reasons why I looked to date men, and married one, from a similar financial background to me. Being on the same page financially IS important, more so than is often acknowledged.

I do think the problem is that you come from completely different worlds, but rather than accepting this he’s resentful, and expects you to change your outlook to match his. At the very least I think it would be valuable to sit down and talk through it all with him, ideally with the help of a neutral third party that isn’t going to take a side. It isn’t fair of him to put his expectations on you like he is doing, trying to force you to adhere to his way because he considers it to be the right one. Just as it wouldn’t be fair of you to try and change him.

Former HNW / trusts and probate solicitor here. Unsure what everyone is on about. Even 10 holidays a year aren't going to bankrupt most trusts, let alone make a dent in the capital – especially as it doesn't sound like OP and DH are living it up in The Plaza royal suite or anything like that. That isn't the issue here at all.

The main issue is both parties in the couple reassuring each other that they perceive each other's labour as equally worthwhile (in our arbitrary but inescapable context of capitalist morality)...

Reading this OP, you come across as pretty selfish and arrogant, living and spending with the assumption others will hand you ££, did you pay your DH the £3k back for your wedding?
Living within your means isn't borrowing and living off other peoples money.

To be honest, if me and OH had agreed to "save" money, i.e. by definition, go without and make sacrifices, I'd be severely pissed off to find out that he'd continued to spend and spend and rely on a gift/inheritance, when I'd restricted my own spending, gone without treats, or whatever. I think OP is being very unreasonable to basically lie about the saving (or lack of it).

Before, it was a bit of cash for a wedding.

This year, its a small percentage of one investment for a holiday.

What about next year's holiday? What about when you want a new car? Or want to do something big as part of your expensive hobby?

If you can't save, all of that stuff will be coming from your capital. Unless it's an absolutely huge pot, you will burn through a lot of the family wealth.

for most people "living within your means" means not raiding savings or buying it on credit. it doesn't mean you don't use a credit card but that you pay credit card bill in full every month. It also means that all expenditure comes from income including holidays car repairs presents etc

Yes - 100%

"Living within your means" means that you live on your revenue streams. Lots of things could be included in that - property income, dividend income etc., but it needs to be revenue not capital.

for most people "living within your means" means not raiding savings or buying it on credit. it doesn't mean you don't use a credit card but that you pay credit card bill in full every month. It also means that all expenditure comes from income including holidays car repairs presents etc
I think her DH wants to see that she can live on her income and use it for holidays without using her savings / funds etc as there can be stock market crashes so her trust fund is worth 50 % less than it was last year sometimes banks collapse etc maybe he worries that her back up could fail that for some reason she doesn't inherit. Obviously OP says many things are in her name now she is 25 but if the pension fund performed poorly or there was an accident that prevented working it would be needed
I think he was looking for evidence that they could do what they wanted on income without raiding the nest egg even if it is hers to do with as she pleased
it is just knowing that we are responsible enough with money that if worst came to worst they can survive and thrive on income alone. Possibly he thinks that in their 20's the nest egg should be growing from investment so they can retire early buy property outright rather than dwindling.

Maybe this is me being the same as her DH with the view that often we start our 20's with debt student loans etc maybe to get first car as we need it for first job but have no money to buy it with but gradually we start to pay off debt and build savings to the point ( using some as house deposit) then building savings again both for retirement and if children their education or uni or deposits as well, we expect savings to be at maximum level when we want to retire then we start using them, or if very wealthy taking the interest to add to income rather than reinvesting the interest as before

TarantinoIsAMisogynist
You've hit the nail on the head.

I wonder if her DH can see potentially intergenerational levels of life transforming wealth getting pissed up a wall because it's easier to take out of investments than save a little towards a holiday.

Sure, but that doesn’t mean that’s what’s happening here. I’m also not seeing the husband being one that wants to preserve it rather than someone who wants nothing to do with it.

we don’t know how much money is in play here, or how it’s managed. OP may only be accessing a small amount of certain funds on the occasions that she is accessing them and not relying on her income.

You must have all read books about old families who have one wastrel son, and the whole fortune is gone? This is how it happens. You spend your capital at your peril.

The OP's DH has his head screwed on and wants to preserve the security they have. That is definitely more worthy than just spending it.

Those who are saying "who cares where the money comes from" are displaying a fair bit of ignorance when it comes to finances. There is a vast difference between spending revenue (your salary, interest or dividend income, drawdowns that leave your capital intact) and spending your capital. The OP is spending her capital.

Financially savvy people, even if they are very wealthy, usually take the view that short term pleasures such as holidays or expensive hobbies should only be funded from revenue. You don't deplete your capital for the sake of a holiday or some new clothes.

Whereas capital should be used to buy assets. "Assets" in this sense means something that is expected to generate income/growth for you in the long term. Houses, land, businesses, investments etc.

The OP is using her capital to buy luxuries that should be funded with revenue, and if she continues doing that, and teaches her children to do that, the family money will be gone in a generation or two at most.

So I can totally see why her DH doesn't trust her and is unhappy with her approach.