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?

Why do you care about other women’s finances?

I couldn't care less. I'm not the one telling women they do or don't have a "real marriage" depending on how they choose to organise their finances. Feel free to move onto another thread that interests you more.

Ultimately if the woman has been the main caregiver then regardless of how equitably the finances are split during the marriage, if the marriage ends, she is likely to be earning less than her ex and to have sacrificed her career and earning potential to pick up the wife work. So imo the pretence of financial parity during the marriage falls apart as soon as the marriage does.The husband can continue in his higher-earning role. The wife has to try to balance more expenses with less income (even taking into account CSA contributions) especially if she remains the primary carer.

So this is a taat? You don’t have a child yet, a BIG reason for pooling money is that a woman’s earnings so often diminish after children, usually for reasons that are of benefit to the male parent eg looking after their children, not going for promotions that involve a long commute or hours. So if you don’t pool the woman seriously loses out.
Will your property contract overrule an ordinary divorce split? I’m sure you have it looked at.

Its not so much a hypocrisy that bothers me, its that over the last few years MN seems to have become less of a place to discuss different points of view and more a place to shout down or be rude about people who post an opposing view to yours.
seen on many a thread about many a thing...
finances being one example.
Though tbf there are lovely mnetters who often say ' doing what works for you ...is the right thing to do'

I'm really interested in this separate property contract. What happens if either of you die - have you left each other your properties in your wills? How does that affect third parties claiming against either of you - how does it protect shared assets? Is it still binding if you have dc?

I think women have been screwed over by divorce for too long, so anything we can do to protect ourselves should be done. For most that will be pooling assets, but not for everyone.

In a way though, you have pooled finances, since you would never see each other left with less, whole the one with more enjoys a better lifestyle. You say you don't take that for granted, but the point about marriage is that you should be able to, however you split day to day finances.

OP, we're just nipping on here to say we've edited your thread title, as requested.

I'm really interested in this separate property contract. What happens if either of you die - have you left each other your properties in your wills? How does that affect third parties claiming against either of you - how does it protect shared assets? Is it still binding if you have dc?

Good questions. I live in a European country where in all cases (separate and community property), legally, when you die your estate is automatically divided between your parents and spouse and the majority to you DC. It's very unusual to me as it can't be overridden by a will! To provide more for your spouse, I guess you'd have to take out a life insurance policy. I think I would be able to live in our joint house until my death and then his half would be divided between me, his DP and DC as mentioned above. I'm sure you know more than me about how it works in the UK.

With separate property, we are not at all liable for any third parties coming after the other one. It also doesn't change how the inheritance is split. With regards to having DCs, it's exactly the same as community property. There shouldn't be any differences with child/spousal support either. It just makes it easier to divide things up when going through the divorce courts!

Hope that answers your questions.

So this is a taat? You don’t have a child yet, a BIG reason for pooling money is that a woman’s earnings so often diminish after children, usually for reasons that are of benefit to the male parent eg looking after their children, not going for promotions that involve a long commute or hours. So if you don’t pool the woman seriously loses out.

No, it's not a taat, it's more a thread about many comments people have said on many threads!

I see your logic re pooling money so that the woman doesn't lose out but I think it's easy to pool/not pool depending on the stage of your life and whether or not the woman is working. I don't think it needs to be static.

Most women are financially independent before children. It the being a woman and a parent part that buggers your finances but you don't appreciate this until you become one.

If your DH's career continues while yours stalls post DC's, I doubt you will feel the same. You would be surprised how much children change the dynamic in a relationship

I don't think it needs to be static.

So....

So....

So...what?

Op, YANBU at ALL. The words “family money” make me cringe more than any other. It’s embarrassing.

Why on earth is it embarrassing?

@Stinkytoe It’s embarrassing that so many (mainly) women are happy to dip into money that isn’t earned by them. Having kids is not an excuse. Why would they leave themselves so open to having issues if the worst were to happen? Why are they happy to take money out of a bank account that they didn’t earn? I would NEVER want my DP to know what I was spending and on what and I’m not interested in what he does either. As an example you’re either buying gifts for your OH out of a joint account and they can see what you’ve spent and where from or they are putting money into your account and you’re effectively buying them a present out of their money. I would be embarrassed to do such a thing.

What the actual? If a joint decision is made for one of you to stay home, or work part time, or not work long hours/travel to allow someone else to do those things - then the decision has been made that it is a family income. So absolutely the partner is allowed to use it.

Wow, that’s a really backwards way of thinking.