Married couple bill splitting. Hypothetically is this the best way?

[OverthinkingOlive]

Bob and Mary are married. Bob earns £60,000 and Mary earns £30,000. They have two joint accounts. No children or intention of them.

The first is for the boring bits, so mortgage and bills, maintenance and insurance etc. They pay 50% each into this account.

The second is for holidays and more fun things like a new sofa, carpets etc. Just general luxuries. Bob pays 66% into this and Mary pays 33%

Any other money is their own so they pay for their own cars, phones, separate hobbies and expenses etc.

When it comes to nights and meals out etc nobody keeps score they just kind of go with the flow but Bob tends to treat a bit more as he's the higher earner.

Is this fair enough?

Normally in this situation the woman is earning less because of motherhood affecting her career options but with no kids that is not the case here. Is Bob earning more because he has benefited from the gender pay gap? Do they both like their jobs?

My view too.

There's no right or wrong, it's what works for each couple (and as mumsnet has demonstrated many times, that varies hugely!). For us though, DH earns 2-3 times what I do (both full time) & it all goes into one account. All bills come out (including both cars, both phones etc etc). Agreed amounts go to joint spending for the month (food shop, house bits, meals out etc) and joint savings and remainder is split equally between us both for our own 'spending money'. His stance is he wouldn't feel right seeing me have less just because he earns more, he wouldn't view that as a fair partnership and nor would I. I'm dropping to part time soon due to childcare & this won't change the above. Not sure DC is relevant, we have always done it this way even before DC.

I think of you are at the point of resenting your husband/wife it's time to end the marriage, not relook at the finances.

It's a personal choice. I wouldn't tell anyone else what they should do. We can spend our own money on whatever we want (him - a better car, beer money, me - whatever I want including helping out grandchildren at university) without any resentment.

If this is a long term relationship with a view to staying together then I'd say 33/66 split is fair, Definitely if there's kids involved.

We have joint bills and joint savings although we still have a separate account each for personal spend. But we end up with the same money left over at the end of the month. Dh earns 5x what I do but I take on more of home and childcare.

I’ve always earned more than my DH, similar % to you. I’ve always paid 2/3 and he 1/3. This seems fair to us.

It wouldn’t suit me and DH, we put everything in to a joint account and joint savings. But if Bob and Mary are happy with the arrangement, then I guess it’s fine.

The only worry I have when married couples comment that they keep their finances separate is what would happen if one spouse fell ill and was unable to work long term? How would the financial separation work then? We see enough posts on here from women saying their partner expects them to cover their share even when on maternity to know that some couples aren’t really working as a married couple, at least financially.

Doesn't sound very fair to me.

Bob and Mary could put all earnings into joint account, and each receive same amount of disposable income into individual accounts.

We have a joint account, where all joint spending comes from. We also have our own accounts for personal spending, we have about the same going into these each month.

No need for a spilt in money. Everything is shared.

This.

In a nutshell shell, they either need to live in a way that is entirely realistic both long and short term for the lower earner.

or, balance things so that the higher earner pays more.

personally, I’d look to adjust things so personal money is relatively equal. Which is different to splitting based on gross %.

It doesn't seem fair that the lower earner is contributing 50:50.

We have one joint account and use it for everything. I earn 100% of the income, DH 0% - not how we planned it, but that's life and we signed up to be a team. Also no kids.

There is no keeping score, no grief about DH spending money on himself. A bit of budgeting and checking out with each other for large spends but that's it.

If Mary and Bob want to keep their joint + personal accounts system, then Bob should be contributing 66% to everything, and the 'boring bits' should include ensuring Mary has equal pension contributions.

That’s bad. She pays 50% of the mortgage and bills, yet earns 50% less than Bob.

The 3 fair options for me, would be;

1. Both put in to all joint bills/purchases in proportion to salary.
2. All money goes into a joint account, and the same amount of personal spending money goes into each of their personal accounts.
3. Everything goes into a joint transaction account, an agreed amount goes out into a joint savings account then they just pay for things from the joint account.

Bill is taking the piss, and should be paying 66% of bills. I earn more than my husband so pay more, but when I was earning less due to part time I paid less. It's part of the partnership, neither party should be disadvantaged financially.

Jeez...just end the marriage...
What about, you know, talking about it?

OP is there a reason for one of them earning less?

It's not that easy to get a better paying job. 🙄 Particularly a £30K jump in salary to match his.

Just discussed this with DH after I responded and he pointed something else out. By doing it the way above, the couple as a whole are then limited by the lower partners earnings ie can only afford house/bills in line with what lower earner can afford 50% of. In our situation, that would completely change what was possible. If we did it like you have suggested above, DH would have more spending/saving money than he could make use of but we'd be in a smaller house, limited to cheaper cars, less able to go on holiday etc. Not why we do it this way, our earnings were more equal when we started this, but worth noting.

He did also point out, if men like Bob want to see it like above, it's worth remembering that if Bob ends up single for being such an arse, he'll pay 100% of everything for his troubles.

Sharing finances is a tricky one. We paid proportionally but that all came crashing down when my partner got made redundant. I now pay everything and as he earned a lot more than me it's a stretch. It's whatever arrangements you are happy with. Im very funny about money and always preferred to keep my own account, that's my preference, but again it's all down to whether you are happy with your arrangement or feel it's not working.

What matters is if Bob and Mary are happy with the arrangement.

I find it odd to be married and not share all of everything as that's sort of the point of marriage which is basically a contract, but I can't really preach as me and dh have seperate accounts and I dont even know what he earns.

I think it depends how much is spare and how established you are. Plenty left over to save or spend, an affordable mortgage and decent pension pots, fine. If the lower earner is scrimping to keep up, it's obviously not going to work

If the couple are happy with it, that's all that matters.

Personally, I couldn't be with someone who didn't want to share everything equally and for their partner to have the same financial freedoms and luxuries they do. I certainly wouldn't be with someone who felt I should financially disadvantaged compared to them (which is what splitting 50-50 means if one person is a lower earner)