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?

Guys remember this is just hypothetical for now. Thanks for all responses so far, I agree I'd feel more comfortable with a 66% / 33% split on all joint bills IF this was a situation I ended up in, in the future. I am 40 years old. I don't know what Bob's thoughts are as I haven't discussed it at this point.

At the moment I live in my own mortgaged home and run my own financial system. I have lived alone (mostly happily) for almost 20 years so I don't have a clue what would be right or wrong or if I would change my current circumstances at all. I have never been anywhere NEAR married before.

So was just after opinions and advice. Thank you x

Dh and I had financial discrepancy from day 1, firstly I earned more than him then he earned way, way more than me. When we moved in together we split bills proportionally. Once married it remained the same.

All monies into the bill paying joint account leaving ourselves with the exact same amount of free spends in our personal accounts for clothes, haircuts, whatever. All meals out, holidays or savings came from the joint account. Dh had a car and everything for that came out of the joint account too. When I learned to drive and got a car then that also came out of the joint account.

I think proportional bill splitting is the way to do it. I think from the outside it is unfair to Mary to pay 50% of the mortgage etc when they earn far less than Bob.

No. I've been married thirty years and at times I've earned nothing, or he has, I've been the higher earner, or he has. All money is divided equally no matter who earns what.

I can't imagine being in a serious partnership where one has more money and a better standard of living than the other. How can anyone live like that? Counting your money knowing the person you're meant to love most in the world doesn't have any, it has less than you? I don't get it.

If it works for both, it's their business. But I think it's a very strange way to live.

We have a joint account for bills and a joint savings account. We both work but earn different amounts, and pay any excess salary into the savings account so we both have the same amount of "fun" money.
Were married so why should one person have less access to money. Weve always done it like this even when I was a SAHM.

We have always split all joint outgoings 50/50 regardless of who was earning what at the time.

The reason is because you are paying for that thing based on its fixed cost, not a sliding scale of what you earn. Electricity isn't cheaper for people on 33k than people on 60k. You're still using half of it and benefiting from half of it. Plus you reap the benefits of being able to live in a nicer place than you could afford on your own or with a clone earning the same etc., and the long term benefits of investments such as property equity since you wouldn't have qualified for the mortgage/mortgage rate without the higher salary backing.

If you were both on 33k you'd be splitting things exactly equally without questioning it.

I've always earned at least double what dh has .we have had 1 account all the money goes into it .Have worked this way for nearly 40yrs .We are a team .Assuming both parties are trustworthy why do it differently.

To me anything bar all in one axcount use as you see fit is deeply weird for a married couple. If you divorce it’s all in the table.

@LeedsUniPlanning

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

If I resented my husband over money yes I would end my marriage.

I did make a bit of an assumption that discussions would have taken place though. Most grown adults do that,'surely?

It’s unfair to Mary. All money should be paid into joint accounts proportionately to income. So Bob should be paying twice as much into both accounts. And no ‘treating’. That seems weird. They are married adults with not one but seemingly two joint accounts. If they go out for a meal, it’s paid from the joint account like every other joint expense, that way it’s always equitably shared.

Mary shouldn't be paying a penny towards the bills - I think that's the man's job. I know I'm going to get slated for this!

That doesn't really make sense to me - if you're reaping the benefits of living "somewhere nicer", bills are likely higher and therefore more burdensome for the lower income person? (Nicer house, bigger bills, bigger mortgage, higher council tax etc?)

If they're living the lifestyle of a couple earning £90K between them, but Mary the £30K person is paying the same as Bob the £60K person, it's far less affordable for Mary and she ends up really squeezed & unable to save, pay into her pensions etc as much.

They could live the lifestyle of a couple earning £60K between them, and pay in equally, but few people do that 😂

I don’t understand marriages where the money is separate. It only make sense if you are planning on splitting up but that’s no way to enter a marriage.

We have joint accounts for bills and general expenses, aside from that, our earnings are our own. We earn similar and I like to have my own money. No detriment to our marriage, it's how we prefer it. Marriage is about a lot more than money for me.

In my previous marriage, all of our money went into a joint account, which my ex enjoyed, me not so much. I wouldn't do that again.

If one of us became unable to work, we'd support each other financially but whilst we are both earning, this works for us.

We have never had a joint account, it’s roughly proportionate. We do have quite a complex financial set up. DH has more savings and investments but due to decisions made I’m currently making more money on mine.

I would say as an individual of 40, how likely are children? Forget bills what are your assets overall? Are you in inheritance tax territory, higher rate tax payer? Marriage when kids are a possibility always but there are some exceptions when it’s best not to marry.

I love you 🤣

Are you being serious?

I'm not slating you because I think that's exactly what you want. You can just have an eyeroll from me.

To everyone writing it’s not a marriage unless joint accounts, to those of us that don’t share an account it’s no less of a marriage. As long as there is fairness around access to money it’s not relevant. There was a time I had a money go round involving a few accounts to maximise interest and perks like free travel insurance. There was no way I could have done this with a joint account.

We do all income into joint account for bills/savings/kids stuff then the same amount each into a personal account for spending.

That said we own the house we live in equally. That can be a factor in paying unequal shares if you move in together later - whose house will you be living in and will it be 50/50?

I think getting together later in life is very different from starting together. Also if any of them have children or they plan to have children.

From family experience I would say put proportional amounts to all bills. Then each can do whatever with their “spare money” . If everything goes into one pot there is the potential for financial control which my DD1 experienced even though she was the highest earner. They then change to 50/50 as she had her own child to pay for separately. They then put monthly payments into a separate account for trips out,meals and takeaways.
From her own account she put some money into savings for a “ducks in a row” potential scenario and eventually this was needed so that is something I would recommend too.

In the absence of children and the (usually woman's) income being impacted by that, then I think it should be 50:50 as no adult is responsible for supporting another adult. I'd have zero respect for an adult that wasn't prepared to pay their way financially.

That said, that means that the couple have to live to the affordability of the lower earner. If the higher earner wants to upgrade (house/lifestyle/holidays etc) then they have to pay for that upgrade in full if it's beyond the means of the lower earner. That's a choice they have to make.

So with your latest update, if you and bob were to move in together I would do the following.

Keep your mortgaged property and rent it out. The money from the rent covers maintenance on that property. Assuming Bob has his own property (mortgaged or unmortgaged), he manages the expenses of his property including maintenance and renovations. This gives you a property if something goes wrong. Not that it necessarily will but it’ll be much harder to get your own property if you pool resources, then split them if you break up.

If Bob doesn’t have his own property and he moves into yours, you keep paying all costs for that property and keep the house in your name. It will mean Bob has much more disposable income in the short term but you are protected if you break up. If Bob doesn’t have a property but does have significant savings and you wish to buy a property together, you earmark who put what equity into the house and split legal costs evenly.

I would then say that bills including holidays are split 33/66 but ideally you would both have the same disposable income left each month and be putting the same into savings/pensions with a view to joint retirement. Bob needs to be mindful to live at your pace though, which means if you can’t afford 3 weeks in the Maldives every year, then Bob goes by himself or he settles for something that you can afford. If Bob wants to maintain a more extravagant lifestyle than you can afford, he needs to consider the one big pot approach but keeping properties separate given your ages.

If split 33/66 but Bob benefits because you have a more flexible role, you can be there to get the boiler serviced or collect parcels, then he also needs to acknowledge that and your contribution isn’t purely financial and you offer flexibility to make your lives easier.

I see relationships that function like that as very transactional.

It is what works for us, so yes, I guess I am. We have also always had separate bank accounts. What do I give him I'm return you may be wondering? I sleep with him.