to ask you how you split your money in your marriage/partnership?

[Objection]

I always thought Oh and my arrangement was pretty normal - we calculate our shared costs (mortgage, bills, food etc) and split them in two. We then both put that about plus about 5% or so into a joint account. The rest of our money is for ourselves and treat each other as we see fit.
But after some previous advice here and from reading other threads it seems this method is largely viewed as selfish or weird...
We don't have children but I imagine when we do we'll just roughly calculate the extra costs and split them too.

How do other people manage theirs?

All money in to joint account, spend as see fit

DH earns more than me and for several years was the only earner. We've had a joint account since having children. All bills and mortgage go out by DD. We draw from the joint account what we need to when we need to. We have a kind of unspoken rule that we don't spend over £100 on something without consulting the other. Mostly we make joint purchases for the house or entertainment anyway. It works for us. Neither of us are big spenders.

I sometimes have to force DH to go and spend some money on himself on clothes/shoes etc...! I definitely spend more on clothes and hair cuts than he does. I can see our way might be problematic if either partner were less sensible with money. One advantage for us is that we think of the money so much as joint money that we tend to touch less of it for ourselves and seem to be able to save for holidays and big purchases for the house more easily.

All money into joint account, same credit card account too. I've always worked full time and we've always earned roughly the same (apart from when I was on maternity leave).

We both spend what we want, when we want and only discuss major purchases. Back when the kids were small though, we were living on a very tight budget so every penny counted, at that point we each had "pocket money" every week (same amount each) to spend on whatever we wanted (this was only for a year or 2 though).

Marriage is a legal and economical contract.

If you wish to cohabit you can do so while still being completely independent. You can split things however you like as long as you both agree on that split. If you get married, you make the decision to become one economic unit and will be viewed as such in the eyes of the law.

Being one economic unit does not mean you have to have joint bank accounts. IMO it simply means total economic transparency between partners and parity of living standards. If one earns £20,000 and the other £40,000 it should not be the case that the higher earner has a secret savings account and is dressed head to toe in Gucci while the lower earner has hidden debts and buys from Primark for example. It is the principle that resources are pooled. This can be achieved by transferring money between separate accounts just as easily as it can be by having a joint account. In fact, because separate accounts remove the need to check that your spouse hasn't just used the last £60 in the account to fill up the car when you want to go shopping, it can be simpler and easier to maintain separate accounts. If you have a case where one partner has a previously bad credit rating, or chooses to spend money on frivolities, it can also be a good idea. As long as each partner has equal spending money, separate accounts can mean one partner can have the freedom to save their leftover funds for a luxury of their choice while the other may spend theirs on day-to-day frivolities.

To my mind, prior to children it doesn't really matter how you organise things. After children, however, everything changes. Children add to the number of individuals in a household unit but don't contribute financially. Their costs have to be borne by others in the relationship - the adults. The trouble is, not all of those costs are quantifiable. Time and effort spend caring for children, loss of career progression (nearly always affecting mum more than dad) - if they are not factored in, a 50/50 financial split simply results in a situation where one person's life is changed far more than the other's and yet that person is also worse off financially than the other. Acceptance that you are all one unit who work together for the best interests of everyone in that unit results in a much fairer outcome for all.

We have one account and all our money goes into that. No "personal" accounts at all.

We never argue about money as we treat everything as "ours" and have done so since we got married 16 years ago.

I'm clearly in the minority here. SAHM. No joint a/c. DH pays regular lump sums into my a/c during the year and I use the money to pay all our household expenses. Car, utilities, food etc. I invest/save surplus in accounts in my and DS' names My flat rental provides a monthly income.

I don't know what DH earns and we don't discuss our individual purchases. It works for us but clearly wouldn't suit everyone. DH is a partner in the family business overseas and prefers separate finances (protects us in case of bankruptcy).

We've never argued about money in over 25 years. We have broadly always earned the same but kept our finances completely separate. Each of us is solely responsible for certain household expenses which we allocated between us and which are paid from our own money. We end up paying much the same but it avoids any joint bank account which neither of us wanted.

Living in a situation where I wasn't financially independent would be intolerable. The idea I need permission or have to discuss whether I can buy something for myself is a non-starter.

In our 20 year marriage everything was in joint accounts which worked well as we had very similar views on money - saved a lot, paid off debt, wanted to buy increasingly bigger houses, pay private school fees. We never argued over money as we had the same view of it.

We did divorce (nothing to do with money) and there were disputes over how much he got them (more than I did as I earned 10x more) but that is a separate issue.

Couples need to work out what works for them.

Ori, to protect your husband in event of bankruptcy he should put everything into your name surely unless you run a risky business. If he says he is protecting you by not doing so he may not be correct. Also I keep seeing people who are avoiding paying wives on divorce because all the shares in the family name not the husband's so on divorce the wife gets nothing. i would look into this very carefully with a lawyer to ensure it is not set up to avoid your getting anything on a divorce.

Caitlin - we've also never argued about money in our 25 years together but have the complete opposite arrangement to you.

Everything goes into one shared account, we both have access to it for bills and 'personal' stuff. In strict terms I have been 'financially dependent' on my DH for many years as a SAHM but never once have I felt I needed to 'ask permission' to spend anything from the joint account. We are both grown up - we can see how much is in the account and never go overdrawn.

I think the main thing is to have a similar approach to financial matters as your partner - it must be very difficult if one of you is frugal and the other is extravagent.

oriunda, are you honestly happy with a situation where you don't actually know what your husband earns?

Doesn't it bother you that he might be able to afford for you to have a much higher 'allowance' but chooses not to give it to you?

I thought caitlins situation seemed clinical but at the end if the day if her and her husband are in the same profession then they'll both know roughly what the other earns.

Your situation seems really weird to me- you have no security and the thing about the bankruptcy seems to be back to front- surely if your husband wanted to protect the family assets from any failings of the business- they'd be in your name not his

ragwort think our circumstances are very similar to yours

Separate accounts. DP pays for stuff. I pay for stuff. Simple.

I don't usually know what my husband earns until about 18 months after he's earned it.

His earnings have grown hugely in the last 24 years but I think much of our happiness is based on the fact that neither of us are "wanters" although I do recall an occasion about 16/17 years ago when I had been buying basics and had one pair of worn shoes and finding out that he had earned £50k more than the previous year and saying "hey why didn't you tell me" and him saying something like "well if you wanted anything you only had to buy it".

24 years ago I bought clothes from high street chains and M&S with the odd good coat, bag and pair of shoes thrown in. I still spend like that because I think anything else would be silly and wasteful. I strill drive a French car and keep it for ten years, I still work out in advance how much I will spend at the food shop and rejig the list if there is something on offer, etc. But I did that even when I was single.

I could afford to have everything from L K Bennet and equivalents and buy Mulberry handbags and drive a very expensive car but I wouldn't because it doesn't matter to me.

We have a very nice home and a holiday home and are totally secure but I see the reason for that being that neither of us has ever felt the need to spend money on unnecessary or silly things. LauraB and I disagree about a great deal but that is one bit of common ground I think we have and one very good reason why both of us have probably always been able to lay our hands on a couple of grand (or three) when we have needed to.

I have plenty of security thanks very much! My flat is mortgage free (my very mean DH paid off the mortgage as a wedding present so that I would be financially secure) so I already have a valuable asset in my name. The sums he gives me are very large (equivalent of what I was earning before I left work).

I have a rough idea of his earnings as I used to work in same field but just don't feel the need to know.

We have a son. The family business is set up to ensure no risk of potential ex wives taking money out of the business therefore my son is protected (plus subject to napoleonic law). I'm happy with that.

As I said, it wouldn't work for everyone.

We have a joint account all money goes into it and would discuss any larger discretionary purchases with DH.... he would never object just would want to discuss! he would also discuss wit me. I work 3 days and he works full time, I earn roughly 3/5 of what he does.

OP - think your arrangement is fine if both earn similar and no children. Would IMO be selfish if one person earned less esp as they'd taken a step back careerwise due to children.

Ori - "I don't know what DH earns and we don't discuss our individual purchases. It works for us but clearly wouldn't suit everyone. DH is a partner in the family business overseas and prefers separate finances (protects us in case of bankruptcy)."

Any money that isn't needed in the business should be transferred to you otherwise you risk losing everything in the event of company bankruptcy...

forever, it sounds like ori's arrangement is to protect the business from her rather than vice versa

Ori, that's fine and many of us with adult children want to protect family money. I do though know someone who had to give her husband an awful lot of her business on divorce even though he was very very wealthy because all the money was in the parents' names ( very rich family Asian business) and they ensured their children had virtually nothing in their names. On divorce he claimed of course half her business and assets and she could not claim half of his as his half was all in the family name and he was drawing a pittance of a salary.

The other situation I've seen was a client whose wife (muslim or hindu - cannot remember which ) thought she was married to him but that was only religiously - they had no civil marriage so on divorce she would get virtually nothing. He was conning her in a sense as she thought she was married. It was nothing to do with what I was advising him on but I think it's quite common and it's important women protect themselves by at least knowing where they stand. (I don't actually think if you don't earn money you should be entitled to it anyway so it's not that I am against the plans of those who want to ensure their lower earner spouse lawfully gets very little).

nearthe, yes we are similar in that respect. I was on a credit crunch thread earlier although decided not to post and was just amazed at what ehse people on the breadline with big credit card debts thought they were entitled to. One was trying to lose weight so instead of missing a meal a day or going out for a run had taken out a gym membership. Another had to have her daily £2 drink at starbucks. Others went to the hairdressers. I dye mine at home and am happy to chop the ends off it it get ragged (and I'm not poor). Meals out and take aways too - the sort of thing many of us who are better off do not take for granted inthe same way as some of those on the poverty line.

Guys, thanks for your concern (?) but I'm not the OP. I posted how finances work in my marriage in response to the OP. I'm happy with our set up and haven't asked for your views so don't get why some of you feel the need to slate/criticise me.

I don't know exactly how much DH earns. I could probably make an educated guess to the nearest £10k but I don't really know. He keeps his money separate because as long as I am an American citizen (hopefully only for a few more months!) the IRS wants to know the exact details of all of our joint accounts. DH feels this is a personal intrusion and prefers to keep his money separate. As a UK citizen he thinks it's fuck all to do with the IRS how much he earns!

I'm sure he'd tell me if I asked but I'm not all that interested. On the flip side, I guarantee he couldn't accurately guess to the nearest £50k how much money I have. He's not really interested either.

It works for us.

Ragwort one of the reasons we kept our finances separate is precisely because I'm a spendthrift and he isn't.

For many years I spent a lot more than I earned and lived permanently on overdraft. Didn't bother me in the slightest but he couldn't have slept at night in the same circumstances. I think it stemmed from his being from a respectable, working class, Council house family where overdrafts were unheard of and me from a not very respectable but mortgage free land owning (albeit in a small way) family where overdrafts were a way of life.

I didn't open bank statements, as far as I was concerned as long as the hole in the wall gave me money all was well. I didn't even realise for about a year I'd actually cleared my overdraft.

A joint account would have been a nightmare for both of us.

We pool everything, joint account and take what we need/want.

We pool everything - symbolises our life being a team effort!
Never argue about money.

I got an absolute hammering for mentioning the fact that me and DH have separate accounts a while ago. We always contributed percentages of our incomes (based on ratios) to paying the mortgage, bills etc, but kept the rest of our earnings separate to spend/save as we wished.

When my contract at work ran out, DH took over what used to be joint payments, but thankfully I'm earning again. We don't have DCs.

There are so many conflicting messages on here. Some posters think you're mercenary or not making a team effort if you don't pool all money while some think you're crazy if you don't have your own personal money, in case something happens to your DP or you need to get out of the relationship