Why do people on MN insist on a one-size-fits-all approach to family finances? ***TITLE EDITED BY MNHQ AT OP'S REQUEST***

[MoneyBusiness]

Sorry about the goady title. I've NC'd for this.

I've noticed on here an increasing number of posters who seem to think that the only possible way to manage your finances when married is to share all of your assets.

I encounter questions like:

"What's the point of getting married if you have separate finances?"

Really? Do people find it so difficult to understand that some of us marry for love, commitment, security, religion, etc and don't equate marriage with money? To turn it around, why don't you stay as bf/gf and just share finances, which is entirely possible?

I have always been financially independent (I was brought up that way) and met my DH in my 30s so that's more than 30 years of managing my own finances. He is good with money but has debts from previous bad decisions in his early 20s. We have a joint account that we pay the same into (similar salaries) for joint expenses and individual accounts for our own purchases. His debt repayments, including mortgage repayments for a stupidly expensive house he bought with his ex, come from that. Why should I pay for that?

I am pregnant and when on maternity leave we will get by on savings and his salary and later on we will continue to use the joint account to pay for DC things.

We signed a separate property contract which means we can share what we want but in case of divorce, assets will be split easily into mine and his (which hopefully will never happen!) and it means I will never be liable for his debts. It works for us. In many countries, separate property is the default upon signing the marriage contract. Why do most MNers find that so hard to understand and say we should still be bf/gf as if marriage was only about money?

I often read this extreme too: "how can one be enjoying Caribbean holidays and fancy restaurants while the other is struggling?" We would never let the other one struggle and we take up the slack when one has less money or simply don't do the expensive thing we'd like.

If one of us earned significantly more, I imagine we would work out a percentage of salaries to pay into the joint account and that person may choose to treat the other one to nice things. It would never be demanded or expected.

So, the hypocritical part is that people here go on about us women making sure we're not financially vulnerable, not being SAHMs for too long in case our DH leaves us and we have no career. Can nobody see that by having community property (i.e completely shared assets), if your DH decided to gamble your lives away or get into debt, you would be liable, have the bailiffs knocking and end up with nothing? With community property, if you have a joint account, his bad credit rating becomes yours!

If that works for you, that's great! But can I ask you to stop knocking those of us that do things differently, telling us we shouldn't be married, which is highly offensive?

You managed your finances independently when you were a child?

Yes, I put my pocket money into a child savings account and started a paper round at 12.

Well obviously you are right. You have said so
Meanwhile a friend is mine is unmarried with 4 kids and her partner has buggered off.
He’s self employed and hiding income.
I think it’s madness to have kids if you are unmarried and have no job or very limited earnings. Nothing you have said will convince me otherwise. People want to share their genes but not their money? Crazy.

You are very bossy OP.

But can I ask you to stop knocking those of us that do things differently, telling us we shouldn't be married, which is highly offensive?

You seem to have thought carefully about your financial situation OP and out legal arrangements in place to cover you.

So you and people like you aren’t who MNers are generally irritated by or concerned for.

We worry about the unmarried woman who has been a SAHM for 10 years and isn’t on the mortgage.

We worry about the married woman whose DH is financially abusing her.

We worry about the married SAHM who has no idea what her DH earns, how the bills are paid or how much is in the bank.

We worry about the SAHM who hasn’t worked for 15 years, has no pension provision and will be financially vulnerable if her DH leaves.

We are irritated by women who haven’t discussed pension provision, life insurance or wills with their DH or DP and don’t think it’s important.

My DH and I have everything joint. I absolutely don’t think that’s the only way to do things but it works well for us. I work full time now but I was a SAHM for years and had full access to family money.

There are post after post of women on MN whose high income DH’s are off skiiing or buying expensive tech but she can’t afford to buy herself a cup of coffee.

There are pages full of posts by women who can’t afford to leave bad marriages because they have got themselves into a very vulnerable financial position.

It’s not about where your money sits. It’s about having open and honest conversations about finances and planning sensibly for the future.

For everyone, but particularly for women, financial security is vital. The message still isn’t getting through.

I think it’s madness to have kids if you are unmarried and have no job or very limited earnings.

I completely agree. This isn't about getting married or not when you have DC. This is about whether you pool everything when you are married which makes absolutely no difference to child maintenance when you divorce.

But you are paying for that OP in a roundabout way, because it's money that could be used in your household as opposed to it being used for something that is of no benefit to you.
People find their own ways of managing their finances to what suits them the best, be it a joint bank account, separate accounts but paying equal amounts or one paying one thing while the partner pays another.
I don't see what the relationship status has to do with anything.

But it makes a huge difference to spousal maintenance.
I agree with everything Miane said.
Also you sound a bit money obssesesed op.

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Miane.

I agree with everything you've said and what I love about MN is that we as women can empower each other, give great advice and help each other make good decisions, financial or otherwise.

Just as you said, my DH and I made the right decision for us and I 100% understand that it may not be the right decision for another family who have different circumstances.

It would be great if others could also keep in mind that there is not only one approach and if one couple choose something different they are still very much a "real couple".

Sorry, pressed send too soon.
Of course it's financially beneficial to be married if you have children, but how the finances are decided is down to individual choice.
However, if the husband decided to bugger off it can still leave the wife and kids penniless until maintenance is decided, in much the same way an unmarried mother would be.

But you are paying for that OP in a roundabout way, because it's money that could be used in your household as opposed to it being used for something that is of no benefit to you.

You're right and I won't pretend that I'm happy about that especially as we are expecting! But I know I would be less happy about it if it was actually coming out of my salary, IYSWIM.

I don't see what the relationship status has to do with anything.

Me neither. It's others that insist people like me shouldn't be married if we don't pool our assets.

I’m a Mnetter.
I am not a hypocrite.
HTH

Also you sound a bit money obssesesed op.

If "money obsessed" means being financially independent, trying to have savings for a rainy day and wanting a good credit rating then yes, guilty as charged!

It's others that insist people like me shouldn't be married if we don't pool our assets.

I have genuinely never seen that sentiment expressed on MN and I’ve been here a very long time.

I have seen the sentiment expressed that there should be openness and honesty about finances otherwise what’s the point of being married - but that really isn’t the same thing.

If you are married you should be able to be completely open and honest about both money and sex. If couples can’t do both those things I have grave concerns about their relationships.

So you are just ignorant about the law. Wives are not liable for their husband’s debts. And all individual assets become marital assets when you marry.

I think it isn't the married women that get the furrowed brow. More like the cohabiting woman who has given up work to SAHM, moved in with her partner and become financially vulnerable that way.

Agree, on another thread I said I worked even though I don't have to (in response to no ones comment, just the OP) and I had two SAHM's jump down my throat in a goady way to say "oh well my DH would never dream of splitting his finances with me!" I NEVER said anything about what we do about our finances (which are joint anyway!!).

Totally Miane. We have complete transparency regarding finances.

I have read many comments which are variations of "What's the point of getting married if you don't pool all your money?" so, unfortunately, it is very much a sentiment expressed here.

You do occasionally get the type of posts the OP's talking about. I've seen and responded to them over the years.

I think it's a contradiction rather than hypocrisy but yy I do agree that it exists. There's a constant but subtle pressure from certain posters for women to share finances and have joint accounts. Sometimes, I think it's a reiteration of unconscious cultural bias because it actually doesn't make sense for a lot of women. The fall-out from that blanket approach is visible on the relationships board every day.

My DM always advised to have my own money. She was very clear that she thought it was important for a woman to be financially independent so she could leave an unhappy relationship and provide for herself.

As long as we live in a patriarchal society where women carry most of the burden of childcare and the resulting impact on their earning potential, then I think women should be slower to criticise those who don't opt to enmesh every aspect of their finances with their partner's.

For those married using traditional vows in the UK, they will have said the words "With my body I honour you, all that I am I give to you and all that I have I share with you"
In then seems strange when I hear friends saying they are going out for a meal but not sure who's paying, or that they were glad that DH picked upsome shopping as normally their job and will save them some money. It sounds like you have a good arangement OP but many do not. At the end of the day, having one pot of money for everything will only ever disadvantage a woman if she is a higher earner and never has kids. For a large proportion of relationships, having one pot with equal access is a better solution for women than having her own money.

I've rarely if ever expressed an opinion on this subject. Am I a hypocrite. Fwiw I think separate finances are fine if each partner has equal earning potential and roughly equal salaries. If not then there is no defensible reason for one half of a couple to have less money than the other. Apart from old debts. So - hypocrite or what?

So you are just ignorant about the law
racecardriver you are ignorant about the fact that there isn't the law. The law is different in different countries (even different states if in the US). Not all MNers are in England.

So you are just ignorant about the law. Wives are not liable for their husband’s debts. And all individual assets become marital assets when you marry.

Did you not read the part where I said we signed a separate property contract upon getting married? This means our assets are separate.

Thank you @Fraying!

Why do you care about other women’s finances? I don’t give a damn about yours, only clicked because of the goady thread title. Get a grip OP!

For those married using traditional vows in the UK, they will have said the words "With my body I honour you, all that I am I give to you and all that I have I share with you"

Quite. Traditional vows also talked about obeying but luckily that has changed with the times! More and more people these days are writing their own vows to suit their own views on marriage which I think is fine too.