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....

But your and your DDad’s circumstances are different? You have a partner not a husband, plus assets from an earlier marriage that you are wise to protect whether you have children or just for your own financial security in old age. When your parents married they had (probably, next to-) nothing and chose to share from day 1.

If I were ever widowed or divorced, I would not remarry ever. Neither would my DH. We’d never risk our DCs being deprived in favour of a new partner (and possibly their unrelated children).

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

This.

Am I the only one who finds it bizarre that the OP’s father is discussing this with her DP? How she/they manage their money has nothing to do with him, her DF, and how her DParents managed their money is presumably of no interest to the OP’s DP.

Dad is being inappropriate in discussing his finances indepth.
I agree with your set up. Your wealth is from your first marriage and as a parent you will want to safeguard money for benefit of your children.
Does your partner also have children and a similar mind set?

My grandparents (and parents) have always shared finances regardless of who was the higher earner.

When my grandparents first got married and had kids my grandfather was by far the highest earner and always just came home and gave my grandma all his salary (he was paid in cash back then) for the "household". It was always theirs as a family. However, later on in life my grandmother set up a very successful easte agency and became a millionaire way out-earning my grandfather. This was also completely shared as "family money". No questions asked.

I agree with most of the posters that you're conflating 2 completely different scenarios - long term committed relationships/marriages living together, often with children (essentially your parents' set up was making sure your mother wasn't penalised for taking time off to have children rather than benefitting her), vs a fairly new "partner" later in life. It doesnt sound as if you and your new DP even live together so it would be weird if you did have completely joint finances at this stage.

Although tbf even if it does work out fairer for a woman occasionally i wouldnt be crying about it - we have to take our wins where we can get them. As the saying goes, men are lucky women just want equality and not revenge.

I suspect that your dad has seen something in your DP that he didn’t like, hence why he talked about money directly. He’s still looking out for you.

I agree, it’s you, not “we”. I am by far the better off of DH and me, everything is shared equally…in that neither of us have anything beyond what we agree as a basic minimum, everything is tied up in trusts for our DC (I will add that our basic minimum is still very comfortable, it’s just a lot less than it could be). Traditionally equal shares at the man’s expense is because women are more vulnerable: to exploitation, to need (as they’re left holding the literal babies), to compromise for pregnancies and default parenting. If there are no children in the picture it should be the same both ways.

This.

DP and I have been together for 40 years and almost everything is shared. One or two things are in individual names, but that's more of a game than anything else.

My parents shared everything. DP's parents had a joint account for expenses but otherwise jealously guarded their finances from each other. DMIL in particular was very keen that DPIL didn't know how much she had. They were married for over 50 years and died within a few months of each other. When it came to probate we were amazed how much both had squirreled away without each other knowing. It was a bit sad in a way because they could have had a much nicer retirement if they had realised how much of a nest-egg they were sitting on between them.

If I got a new partner (after nearly 40 years together now) I think it might be different. Certainly if their wealth wasn't in the same bracket as mine.

My parents married in 1958 and started a family soon after. The norm back then was Dad went out to work and mum ran the household and the children. My dad was a manual worker on low wages and my mum was a seamstress who was able to work from home. That's probably the only way we survived, like most people they did what they could on very little money. I remember on a Friday when my dad got paid, he handed his wage packet over to my mum and she recorded all in and out money in her little red book.
Family allowance day, as it was then, we always had a treat of a cake from the local bakery

I wanted someone to share everything with when I was young, money, house, kids and it worked out very well. If I was to start a new relationship in my 50's though I wouldn't do the same again regardless of who had more - because it's a completely different set up IMO. I probably wouldn't even want to live with them full time tbh
.

I met my husband when we were both young. I’ve earned more than him and he’s earned more than me and we’ve always had shared finances. Even before we were married. When we met, we both had no nothing. Neither owned a house. Neither of us even had a car! So what we’ve built, we’ve built together. It’s really easy to do shared finances in a first marriage when you’re young and you’re both building something together. Shared finances is absolutely right for us because we had children together and I earn less to accommodate childcare.

If I have another partner after DH, would I do shared finances or would I do something like 50/50? I don’t really know. I think even with a partner that was earning more than me, I would still want to protect myself and my DC. I don’t think it’s about working in my favour because I’m female but it would be so much harder to start over now. I want to protect what I already have because I have no idea how I would save for a deposit now. With another partner though I’m not going to be having more children, my career isn’t going to suffer because I’ve had our shared child. There’s a conversation to be had about what happens when someone is long term ill or unable to work.

What we see most frequently on here is women who have taken a step back in their career or left the workforce for care reasons. These women are still expected to contribute financially 50/50 and do most of the childcare and housework. Children from former relationships do complicate the matter slightly but for anyone who has taken a hit to their earning potential for care responsibilities should be financially supported by their partner with combined finances. I’d say the same for same sex relationships or if the man was a SAHP.

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

Who is 'we'? When men post about their fanny lodging partners, they are told to dump them, just as women are told to dump cocklodgers.

Most people have a sense of fairness regardless of sex.

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

Do you mean YOU? I'm not sure where the 'we' is coming from, everyone's situations are different, surely?

You're talking about apples and oranges anyway, a 'new' partner is different to a husband/wife who you commit to share your life with and make sacrifices for the good of the relationship/family, in that situation sharing finances benefits everyone, not the man or the woman automatically.. You'd be crazy to blend finances with a boyfriend when the rest of your lives are separate.

But also, you are under no obligation to practice a model of behaviour just because it is what your parents did or what worked for you in the past, every relationship is different.

It is different if you get together in your 20s and build your life & finances together, as DH & I have done. We both started with nothing so everything we have is as a result of our joint endeavours. It isn't the same later on in life when you start a relationship with assets. It is nothing to do with sex and everything to do with lifestage.

Why would you share with a new partner that you’ve started dating in later life? I would share expenses but not expect to fund him. You’re independent at this stage - you’re not raising a family together etc. so your reflection doesn’t make sense.

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

This isn't a women versus men thing. It's a 'your parents' relationship versus your relationship' thing.

Just do what feels right for you and your relationship. You don't have to do something just because your parents did.

I don't have shared bank accounts with my DP. We do share a mortgage and bills though, and we split those outgoings in proportion to our incomes. I think at the moment it's about 60-40, with him paying more than me. He pays the bills from his own current account and I just transfer a lump sum to him every month to cover my share.

If one of us was significantly wealthier than the other, I think we'd actually be more inclined, rather than less inclined, to share finances. But we've been together for over 20 years; I'm sure it would be different if it was a new relationship.

My parents were the same as yours. In fact all money was handed over to my mum as the sahm and she took care of all bills and savings.
In myrelationship I am the higher earner by a lot, our finances are separate as DH is shit with money. I also pay for most of our lifestyle as I like a certain lifestyle. Hes not that bothered. So the size of house for example, my choice to live in a larger house and pay more for it. He would be happy in a house half the size.

You mean you don’t want to pool resources whilst being the better off partner. Don’t generalise that to every woman. I was always the higher earner by miles and we considered all assets jointly owned, all income joint income. Incidentally you don’t need joint accounts to treat money as joint.

Are you actually in a marriage type relationship or do you still live in own properties, date etc?
If widowed, do you have DC you are considering in the context that you hold their DF’s estate, not just your own share of the joint assets?

As others have pointed out you are conflating multiple issues! But it feels like you are maybe saying it’s sexism because you don’t pool income with a bf which I don’t agree with at all as comparing yourself to your parents is bonkers!

Your parents were from an older generation, and they married and had children. A lot of people these days don’t pool assets fully. And for second time relationships I’d suspect that’s lower again as people have separate children they want to inherit and look out for.

If your Bf was the bigger earner I doubt he’d do anything other than 50:50 in your sort of scenario. If you were 25 and deciding on marrying and having children then yep the big earner might become the breadwinner for a while during child rearing years and share finances. Often it’s still the woman who stays home with children but not always. Shared finances can make a lot of sense for married couples juggling kids, assuming one isn’t totally feckless with money. But for a lot of relationships 50:50 is the logical, common and fair thing to do! If you live together and one massively out earns the other then you might do a different split to even up disposable income. But for a bf or gf no!

Your circumstances are totally different now. You aren't married to this new man. Do you live together? What assets do you each have? It's all relevant.

I agree with all the previous posters - shared finances make total sense in a marriage with shared children as there is a lot of unpaid labour (childcare and home) and your big expenses are all child-related (and thus mutual).

Shared finances do not make sense in later life with a new partner with whom you dont have children. Especially when you have separate children and families.

Exactly what I was going to say (but clearer!). If you'd spent your working life with your new partner and had children together you'd share finances. It's those things that are salient in the different approaches, not whether you're the man or woman. Second partners after having children with the first are not in the same situation and a degree of separation is better.

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

Does he ever treat you to anything?

Forgive me for questioning the motivations of this post

People can do what they are comfortable with as long as no one is being taken advantage of.