to think it is perfectly acceptable for a married couple to have separate finances?

[Flexibilityisquay]

DH and I have always kept our own bank accounts. Over the years we have ended up with a joint mortgage, and have a current account that all the household bills come out of, that we both pay into every month. Apart from that, all our money is kept separate. I am fairly sure that if we shared all our money it would be something we would fall out about, fairly often.

The reason I am asking is because there is one couple we see often, and if we make any mention of, who is going to pay for dinner etc they will always comment on how odd it is. It is an opinion I have often seen on here too, that all finances should be shared, and I just don't get it. It feels very important to me to be financially independent.

We have completely joint finances, it works for us. Neither of us are big spenders and it doesn't matter which account the money is in because we both tend to spend it towards the same things: holidays, meals out, home etc. husband earns way more than me, but I'm hoping to catch up!

Separate finances would just mean unnecessary multiple bank accounts for us. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Horses for courses. Anyone who thinks it's weird needs to get out more.

Whatever floats your boat. I doesn't matter as long as everyone us happy with the arrangement.

We only have joint accounts the only things that are separate are our shares. We have very similar attitudes to money and only really check with each other for biggish purchases say $500 up.

Seems to work.

We have separate accounts and a joint account that we pay into for bills & joint expenses as well as a joint mortgage & a joint savings account. We adjust the payments into the joint account to even out what's leftover for each individual. I wouldn't class us as having 'separate finances' tbh

FWIW the reasons we do this are that we have radically different approaching to managing our current accounts and for a long time, we both had piles of work expenses trickling through, making a 'single pot' hard to manage.

I don't really understand married couples who split costs 50/50 regardless of income, or who maintain a situation where one person can afford Gucci while the other gets Primark. That, to me is odd.

Transferring into a joint account vs transferring out vs one single account? That's surely just preference.

I think this issue is really only an issue if you have quite a lot of money, which is fine. Because it seems, we are basically talking 'spending money' over and over the daily living expenses which means mortgage, bills, food, clothes, gifts - which would obviously be joint.

I remember BIL 'buying' SIL a car which I found a bit but now I think they must have separate accounts. I'd just say, I need a car, can we afford one?

Separate finances is, I think, more than a separate spending account. I would say it is probably properties in separate names, separate savings accounts which the other would not have access to etc.

How do you manage, say an inheritance? My parents have given us a considerable sum of money. They gave it to us, but they are my parents? Do I have more of a claim? Does it go into an account in my name? If we divorced, I guess dh would get half anyway?

To me it simplifies the finances, and also means we have grown together in our attitude towards money (dh has become more generous and I have become more careful). I just don't know how we'd separate 'the big stuff'. I don't work at the moment, but I have contributed financially (I sold a flat which I had before I got married, which enabled us to get a smaller mortgage which means I don't need to work etc.).

I do find it strange but I would never say that to you at dinner as it's none of my business how you organise your finances. Everything here is joint other than ISAs obviously. I was a sahm for many years and simply would not have considered giving up work if we had not both had equal access to our family income. Even when working f/t, I'm a teacher and DH is a lawyer so he earns roughly 4x my salary. Making the decision to marry meant (to us) that everything belonged to both of us.

I paid everything for the first year as DH was at law school so all that came in from him was a student loan but he still had joint access to the account even though we weren't married then just living together. I would have found it strange and mean to insist he lived off his student loan whilst I worked full time.

As a sahm, I needed to know I could access funds whenever and never have to tell him I was running low. Now I'm back working p/t there's obviously still a massive difference in what we bring in but we still look at it as joint. I'm clearly better off financially this way but DH wouldn't have it any other way either. I also think it's far easier to keep track of everything than I would if we were moving stuff around each month and had different bills coming out of different accounts. Big purchases are always discussed but I never have to justify buying anything to him although I always mention anything over about £70. I'm still the one purchasing kids shoes and coats and Christmas gifts so it totally makes sense to me.

I buy his presents on my credit card then pay it off from the current account so he doesn't see how much or where from. He does the same.

Merry, I agree. When my parents died, the money just went into joint savings. If we divorced, half would be his. I just think we are 'joint' in every way possible and it would be strange if this didn't include finances.

Merry When my mother died I "gifted" some to DH (tax complications from being, at the time, a dual US/UK citizen) but the rest is in my name. I keep meaning to write down a list of what I have where because I do have an irrational fear that I will be run down by a bus and DH won't have a clue as to where anything is. It's partly in my name only because the money is a legacy that isn't really mine- it's money to be handed down to DC, not money to be spent (at least the capital isn't and I try to limit what I take from the growth)- and partly because I have a much greater tolerance to risk and DH would have sleepless nights if he were managing it.

That's interesting, thanks Taz

If it works for you then of course that's great. Personally I would never tolerate it. DH earns a lot more than I do, but I have made a lot of sacrifices to enable him to do that. There are many ways to work for a family and not all of it has a cash value.

Different things work for different people, but I thought the point of being married was that you share everything?
It is not important which account the money is in as long as both have access to it if needed (because it is theirs too) and the arrangement is fair.

I should add, DH genuinely doesn't want to know what I do with the money. I put some in an AIM VCT in his name a few months ago. It needed to be in his name for the tax advantage but when I started explaining what it was and the conditions around it, he cut me off and said, "Is it something you want to do? Good, I don't need the detail, do I, just give me the letter to sign."

Risk makes him stress so I promise I won't play about with too much. It's just that we haven't defined "too much".

How is the money my partner earns 'mine too'? Is my ISA his?

And why is signing a marriage licence also a licence to 'share everything'? I thought the reason people got married was to establish a legal partnership and/or to express a commitment to a long-term relationship. Not to give another person open access to their bank account. That's why we have a Married Women's Property Act, surely?

How do you do surprise online presents if you have only one joint account?

We have a shared account for bills which we pay into in proportion to our earnings so we have about the same spending money each.

We're married and have entirely separate accounts - all our current accounts, savings accounts, ISAs, shares, etc. are held separately. Only our mortgage is in joint names. Couples should do whatever feels right for them and their circumstances.

There are some slightly odd ideas on here though. Just because we keep it in separate names, doesn't mean it isn't shared. We don't need to negotiate who pays for what and we certainly don't bother working out what is 'fair'. We just pay for stuff and if one is a bit short, the other gives them the money they need.

"I CANNOT get my head around asking him for money to buy my pants" -

Why would you, if you have joint finances?
My DH is a SAHD, that was a joint decision as I was not comfortable putting DS into childcare just yet. So he does not have an income at the moment. If we didn't have joint accounts, he would either

• have to use his savings? Not fair.
• ask me for money every time he needs to buy a pair of pants?
• I would need to transfer him an allowance, pocket money? Honestly, that would feel really odd. Whatever I earn is his just as much as mine.

As we have joint accounts, all money goes there and we both spend as needed. The point is that it's joint and he does not need to ask me if he can buy his pants.

How do you do surprise online presents if you have only one joint account?

Pay for them on an individual credit card that is paid off every month from the joint account.

Hazle - why would it be an "allowance" if you transferred money to him? Of course it seems like a patronising thing to do if you choose such a patronising term to describe it. DH transfers money to my account each month. It isn't an 'allowance' (especially as I earn considerably more than he does), it is his share of the bills paid from my account (mostly our mortgage).

Personally I think it works for you because you both have equal incomes.

I imagine for most couples, after having kids at least one income takes a hit because of reducing hours/SAHMing. That is usually the woman. Hence its easier to pool money.

My DH always earned more than me, but now he earns three times what I do because I only work 4 days a week since having our son.

It would be pointless (to us) for him to have access to oodles of cash and me to be struggling, so we pool the lot.

I am so relieved to see how many people do keep their finances separate. Usually threads like these get filled with people saying 'oh, you weirdos, you're obviously not a real couple if you can't share your money'.

DH and I are both on our second marriages. My first husband was a disaster with money and it's left me in a lot of trouble, which I've just about sorted out now, years later. I'm not brilliant with money either but it's very important to me to have control of my own finances.

We have an account for bills - I pay 2/3 and he pays 1/3 as I earn quite a bit more. I pay the mortgage and pay for the main food shop, he tops up food throughout the month.

And it really works for us. We're very happy.

Separate accounts work fine for us too. Dh earns way more than me as I went part time.
We have a joint account which only dh puts into which all the bills, shopping and petrol comes out of.

I don't pay any bills with my money but tend to pay for all the kids stuff and the rest is mine.

I've just been made redundant so I've told dh that he needs to start putting money into my account too now. Neither of us are big spenders or controlling with money so it works fine.

Permanent, in our case it would not be my share of bills, but only his spending money. We can call it whatever we want, but it would still mean that he gets a pre-determined sum to spend on his pants, while I have the control over the rest of the money.

But surely his pants are part of the bills? Or do you consider them a luxury item? What about stuff he buys/pays for when looking after your DS? I'm not suggesting there is anything odd or wrong about the way you are choosing to manage things. Just that IMO it's odd to think of transferring money to your DH to pay for everyday stuff as an 'allowance'. It's only an 'allowance' if you want it to be an allowance.

I'd consider pants 'personal purchases' - the ones that posters here don't want to discuss with their partners, and what they want to have their own personal spending money for. If one partner is not earning, the earning partner has to provide this and for me it seems easier just to put it into one pot.

DH and I have two joint accounts, our own personal accounts and a joint credit card.

We each put a set amount of money into one joint account for the mortgage and utility bills. We do most of our spending, both personal and home stuff on the credit card, which is paid off in full each month from the other joint account.

The idea is that we each keep a 'float' of money in our personal accounts, which is maintained to that level once a month. Any surplus is put into the other joint account, from which the credit card is paid and from which we make cash withdrawals.

I am self employed, and if I have a lean month, DH puts money from his float into the joint account to cover the credit card bill.

It sounds complicated but is quite simple in practice and means that we have equal access to spending money, but can also spend without the other person knowing. We discuss purchases over about £100-£150, but we have a similar attitude to money so trust each other not to fritter it away.

For me, financial responsibility is a huge part of compatibility, and I could not have married someone whom I did not trust with finances, so yes, I do find it a bit odd when a married couple don't share finances, but accept that it might be such a big deal for others to have financial trust.

You have described exactly what we do, and it works for us.

we discuss joint spending, but separate bank accounts and savings. It also makes presents and surprises easier and nicer.

Also, we surprise and upset friends as the house (and mortgage) is solely mine. my little FY-fund (2nd DH, once bitten and all that).

No-one else's business, surely?