My Dad is proud of the fact that all money has always been shared

[Hoodedfinger]

My parents married in 1969.

From day one everything was in joint names. The only exception since has been ISAs where you can't, and they don't like that.

Dad has always been the higher earner. Mum was SAHM while we were young, a teacher before and after.

This always seemed a good model to me. All financial decisions were completely shared, but then they were both sensible with money.

In my own marriage, things were much the same (I'd grown up to believe this was how it should be) and most was in joint accounts. However, DH had no interest in our finances. I managed everything, so although in theory he had free access to everything, he basically just asked me what we could afford.

I'm now widowed several years, in a comfortable financial position with a new partner.

Recently Dad has been in hospital. He's only met DP a couple of times previously, but he's been coming with me to visit, which Dad appreciates. They've chatted a lot and for some unknown reason Dad has explained how their finances are organised. He's usually very private about money.

Anyway, I am by far the better off partner in the new relationship and our finances are entirely seperate. I might occasionally treat him to a coffee, but generally we pay everything 50/50. This feels right to me and he hasnt queried it.

It occurs to me that "we" like shared finances when women benefit, but not so much when i'ts in favour of the men....

Your parents scenario was beneficial to both the man and woman, not just the woman.

You don't say whether you had children or sacrificed your career in any way during your marriage, but statistically you probably did, so again mutually beneficial to share finances.

Who's "we"? You and your dad? Do you live with dp? It's a pity you don't see the benefit your father or dh had from shared finances. I diminishes the input your mother had in marriage.

No, it's when one party is sacrificing their own earning potential and career to take a step back to help with kids or similar. Not when two people are older and dating.

If you have children from your first marriage I think it is sensible to keep your finances separate so that they can inherit from you. You would need to make a will to that effect. That advice would be the same if you were a man. You might decide to have a jointly owned home that passes to the remaining partner but separate savings or to give your partner a legal right to live in the house but not to own it.

I don't think it is so much women and men difference but life stage/ unequal wealth and children/second relationships.

People that have joint finances have often been together since they started out and both had nothing or not much.

It occurs to me that "we" like shared finances when women benefit, but not so much when i'ts in favour of the men

You, not "we."

I think the difference is once we become parents and then single parents.

I would not share my assets from a first marriage with a new partner who is not parent to my Dc.

A new partner needs to be as well set up as me / accept that I will leave my assets, if any remain, to my Dc.

Earlier in life: the difference is a when / if a woman sacrifices or compromises her earning potential and financial security to child rearing. As your Mum did.

No way you should share money with someone you're not married to. You are doing the right thing in that scenario. My parents shared all money but i can see a dynamic where mum feels she has to justify all spending to my dad, it makes me so uncomfortable. My husband and I have a joint account for shared expenses but all other money is ours to do what we want with.

I share everything with DH, I earn 3 x what he does. We’ve been together 25 years.

If I became single again I wouldn’t share anything financial with a new partner (not that I wouldn’t pay for things, etc, but no more than my fair share) - it would be for me/DDs to benefit from.

It's a situation that seems sensible within a marriage when there are children in the picture, either existing or on the horizon.

Outside of marriage it is madness.

Marriage is essentially a contract to share your finances, which in the context of a family where there are shared children makes sense. With other relationships where you don't want to make the commitment to share your money then it doesn't really make sense to get married IMO. Or if you don't want to share finances then don't get married - both options have risks.

I think it’s a different scenario when you enter a new relationship at an older age and have different levels of savings and income. If you are older and lose your house and savings in a break up then time is not on your side to earn and replace those assets. . Also you want your money to go to your own children. It’s a difficult one. We have always had joint accounts but then we have been married 40+ years.

Nah, it’s more if a couple start out together with both having nothing then they should share everything. They built what they have together as a single famiuly unit.

If two people meet later in life and are unequal financially then that doesn’t really work. If a women meets a wealthier man they shouldn’t expect to have half their new DPs wealth just because they are both attracted to each other.

So what you build with your new DP should be shared, but not what you had prior to meeting him. I would advise you to, if you are new DP are serious to keep your wealth for your pension, kids etc. and get a house 50:50 at whatever level DP can afford.

Yep. And as long as women are 1) paid less than men and 2) pay a motherhood penalty of earnings a double standard will persist.

You’d be mad to share finances with your DP if you have kids from your first marriage. If you don’t then the consequences are not as stark if it all goes wrong.

I think the clue is in new partner. You’d be bonkers to stsrt splitting assets early on in a relationship. I thinks it’s really just when married or are parents together that the sharing of assets should come into play.

Maybe in ten years he won’t be new? Possibly will have moved into a shared asset or you’ll have moved on who knows?

Did you and your late husband have children together?

I agree with what others have already pointed out - a marriage is a legal contract to share finances for the benefit of the family unit. Your father couldn’t have earned what he did while bringing up children without your mother’s (equal) contribution.

You and your DH sharing finances made sense as you were jointly bringing up children and securing assets (house, savings) for your joint benefit. You and your DP sharing finances would not currently make sense as you are not doing that.

If you and your DP decide that you do want to work together in a partnership towards a financial goal, then at that point you might want to share finances (and potentially get married for any benefit that might bring). But you might want to ring-fence some of your existing assets first (e.g. if you want children to inherit).

So are your married to your DP op? Do you have children together?

Otherwise it’s not remotely analogous to your Dad’s situation, nothing to do with disadvantaging men as you imply.

I sort of agree OP. I have a friend who has always been the higher earner in her marriage; her DH has expensive tastes and loves to ‘treat’ people. There have been comments in our female friendship group about him spending her money but I bet if he had been a woman and she had been a high earning man, the comments would be different.

"It occurs to me that "we" like shared finances when women benefit, but not so much when i'ts in favour of the men...."

I disagree.

We like shared finances when it benefits our children but no so much when its in favour of a man who isn't their father.

Well you are not married and I take it you don’t have children together so no, it’s not the same at all.

Good question. I was wondering exactly the same thing.

Of course it is different then.

It's completely different when you are on your 1st marriage, starting out in life (often with not very much) having children together etc, vs being older, having had your children who are possibly grown up, you've saved/invested money wisely over time. You want to protect your assets for your children to inherit. I'm very much in the everything shared camp, been with my husband since university and we built our life together, both work and have contributed equally to our nice-ish life.

If I ever divorced, I wouldn't merge assets in a new relationship, I'd be even less likely to if I was older, I also wouldn't get remarried and risk my children losing their inheritance (not that it'll be loads!). I think it is sensible to keep money separate if your first marriage ends/you are widowed.

Whilst I think 50/50 can be good, especially when 1 partner works and 1 is a SAHP, I don't think it necessarily applies to older relationships. I wouldn't say I'd never do 50/50 with an older partner, but it's very unlikely and certainly not if I had more money than the partner. Whilst you can be happy with someone I personally would never be too trusting and I wouldn't overshare. I think if someone realises you have money it can change things. I only share money-related info with my 2 adult DS. My DH feels the same.

Probably you should think of what you will need in future (none of us know how much time we have or what we will need later in life), you should also ensure your money is protected especially if you have DC or relatives that could benefit, or maybe your chosen charity. Personally, I wouldn't share money or marry again, so my DC will inherit from me.

I don't think it's anything to do with liking shared finances when women benefit (for example I was the high earner and remained working and DH was the SAHP as it suited us both). For me it's also about protecting money for my DC, nothing to do with their sex, it's also about being very careful to not be taken for granted or used - whether someone is a man or a woman.

Perhaps you are happy with that arrangement OP, but I don't do that and never have.

My relationship with my ds' dad, I was the lower earner, he earned about twice my salary. I did all the child raising. However I always chose to keep separate finances and simply share ds' costs equally.

I was raised to always be self sufficient and self reliant. Never to rely on anyone. To always have the financial freedom to provide for myself and my child.

Over time I have been extremely grateful that I was raised with that principle.

Approaching retirement, I find myself in a far better situation domestically and financially, than my friends or sisters, except one who is widowed.