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?