To keep my savings separate until after marriage?

[Luki]

I think I know what the majority of MNers will say but I just want some clarification.

DP and I together for 8 years, living together for 5 years. House is in both names. We have a joint account for bills/household expenses and a joint savings account. Have discussed/planned a wedding (even down to guestlist and venue) but as yet, no proposal or date. We've had a lot of shit going on in our lives that has put everything on hold.. this is now resolved so I'm hoping this means we can move forward with things soon.

Anyway, I sold my flat a few years ago while we were in the middle of our life drama, so I have roughly 18k from that sale sitting in my personal account. Now that this drama is over, DP has mentioned moving this money into our joint savings account. At first I was happy with this idea but now I've been having second thoughts.
Note I have no intention of splitting with DP and we are both very happy in our relationship. However, the logical side of me thinks I should keep this money separate as if we were ever to split up, I would need it for paying bills/finding somewhere else to live. In the event of a split, our joint savings would obviously be halved between us. DP has a personal account too but I think he only has 1-2k in there.

Once we're married, it won't make a jot of difference but does it make me a bad person for wanting to keep my money as mine at this stage?

[Xenia]

People just differ. We just had everything joint in our marriage - all joint accounts. We would discuss holidays and big spending in advance and our biggest expenses were always mortgage and full time childcare.

[batshitbetty]

No, it's your money so keep it separate - it doesn't mean that I wouldn't spend it on joint things but I would want it recognised that I had paid for re-doing the bathroom (as an example) in the case of a split

[Johnnyfinland]

He’s probably more militant than me about splitting everything fairly. I don’t mind paying for dinner/activities etc and I always offer when I want to do something but he isn’t sure he can afford it when he’s short of money but he always insists on contributing his half. We don’t live together but if we did we’d put the same % of our salaries towards bills, obviously in real terms my contribution would be more because I earn more. Whatever’s left over in each of our accounts is ours to do what we want with. I don’t know how much personal spending money he has, he doesn’t know how much I have, I don’t feel like we need to know and I don’t think it should be exactly the same just because we’re together. I’ve been the lower earner in a relationship and lived with that guy, it wouldn’t have even crossed my mind to feel like we should both have the same amount after everything was paid. He actually wanted to open a joint account and I said no!

[MingeUterusMingeMingeYoni]

Yeah johnny has actually said she wanted to treat her boyfriend, she might be quite upset about him refusing it! I think I would be, but you can't make someone go on holiday with you.

[Bluelady]

To be honest, most MN attitudes to money are alien to me. We have completely separate finances aside from our joint ownership of the house. We each pay some of the bills and when it comes to holidays, whoever's got the money at the time pays, the other usually pays for all meals, drinks etc while we're away. Swings and roundabouts.

[MinervaSaidThar]

True, but in a long term relationship or marriage that discomfort about needing to be subsidised could get wearing.

I think it's fairer for each to pay a fair proportion of their salaries into a joint account and holidays are paid out of that.

[Bluelady]

To be fair, it's the boyfriend who says he's unhappy with the subsidy, he could have just accepted what was on offer.

[ShumpaLumpa]

JohnnyFinland

As for the holiday thing, my boyfriend and I had this recently. He earns less than me. I described a particular holiday I’d like and he said it was out of his price range. I said ok, I’ll pay a bit more towards it. He said he wasn’t comfortable with me effectively subsidising him so yes if I go it will be alone or with a friend who can afford it. I don’t really see the issues there, I offered, he declined! And no we don’t have kids, neither of us want them

It's a bit sad for your DP. You're always going to have access to opportunities that he won't have. It shouldn't matter whose money it is.

I know you say you don't want kids but this wouldn't work for a couple with kids. Will the higher earner take kids away on expensive holidays that lower earning parent can't afford?

[MingeUterusMingeMingeYoni]

So by your reckoning my friends and I aren’t allowed an opinion on things we haven’t experienced, like what we’d do with finances if we had kids?

Nope. It's a free country so you can have an opinion on whatever you want, however little you know about the subject. Other people are allowed to point out when you have no idea what you're talking about though.

Just like I can go onto forums with people who live in Australia or are unusually tall or are nurses and tell them all about how I'd arrange my life if I was in any of those situations, even though I never plan to be, and that all my friends and partner who are similarly ignorant of the topic all agree with me. And that my view is as valid as theirs. And no doubt get a similar response to the one you've had.

Seriously, do a few searches on threads about the issue of the WOHP seeing the money as their to dole out to the SAHP like an allowance. And of people having no idea of the reality of parenthood before they do it. This discussion isn't the first time it's come up!

[Xenia]

Yes as I siad it is very common indeed that in order to house children all assets marital or otherwise are used, time and time and time again in English law. Most familes do not have huge pots of money available to buy husband and wife each a nice house after divorce. Most hardly have anything. If this £18k were the only asset or a large part of their assets I am 100% certain it would be used to house children and be part of what is divided on divorce. If you don't want that to happen then you either need to ensure you don't marry or else try wit both sides having separate lawyers to get some kind of binding pre or post nuptial agreement but that will not be valid if that £18k is needed to ensure a fair settlement is arrived at that houses the children.

[PigletJohn]

...too slow.

[PigletJohn]

@CaledonianQueen

An ISA isn't a joint account.

Interest in an ISA is not taxable so it doesn't use up any of your interest tax allowance.

[Svalberg]

@CaledonianQueen I think you are confused between the interest earned in an ISA (which is tax-free, all of it) and the amount that can annually be invested in an ISA, which generally comes out of taxed income. The article you've linked to describes a situation where the annual limit invested is exceeded. Also, the interest gained from an ISA is not counted in the annual tax-free allowance on savings interest (currently £1000 for a 20% tax payer, I think)

[Johnnyfinland]

Yes AIBU is about debate but if you seriously believe that your way is the only correct way of doing things and everyone else is wrong, and carry that attitude into other topics and into real life, you’re making yourself come across as an incredibly narrow minded individual. So by your reckoning my friends and I aren’t allowed an opinion on things we haven’t experienced, like what we’d do with finances if we had kids? In that case I hope you have no views whatsoever on anything outside your little bubble

[SlipperyLizard]

Xenia isn’t chatting rubbish.

The link previously posted described what marital and non-marital assets are. But it didn’t then explain what that might mean in practice in a divorce, when the courts have wide ranging powers if couples can’t agree. This link gives a more complete picture.

www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-may-aug-2017/matrimonial-and-non-matrimonial-assets/

“Non-matrimonial assets are a little more complicated. Often you can request that they be excluded from the Financial Settlement. But this request might not always be granted. This might be because the non-matrimonial asset was used somehow in your marriage. For instance, you used the inheritance from your Great Auntie Ruby as the deposit for the family home.

Or it might be that the matrimonial assets do not sufficiently provide for your ex, or the welfare of your children. If so, the Court can rule that non-matrimonial assets be included in the Financial Settlement.”

[MingeUterusMingeMingeYoni]

Not accepting what other people think is kind of the point of AIBU johnny. If you post silly shit about your theoretical finances when you have kids you don't want and back this up by telling us your equally ignorant boyfriend and pals agree with you, people who know better than you are going to laugh.

[CaledonianQueen]

Piglet depending on her account, if it is an ISA then it could have a non taxable allowance for say £20,000 but any money saved above that is subject to being taxed by the government. The OP says they have a joint savings account, I am assuming an ISA, so she could potentially take their allowance over the non taxable limit, meaning that she pays tax on the savings that are over the allowance.

www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/isas/exceeded-2017-isa-limit-should-do/

I only suggested it as a means of excuse not to move it.

[Johnnyfinland]

Seriously why are you so bothered about what other people want to do with their finances? I don’t go around telling people who want to share money that they’re wrong and should keep it separate. You do you, just accept that not everyone thinks that’s the only correct way to do things

[MingeUterusMingeMingeYoni]

YOU think you’re right. I don’t. I’ve also had this discussion with my female friends and they feel similarly to me that they wouldn’t feel right having access to someone else’s money or giving that level of access to theirs. They all intend to keep completely separate finances if and when they get married.

As for the holiday thing, my boyfriend and I had this recently. He earns less than me. I described a particular holiday I’d like and he said it was out of his price range. I said ok, I’ll pay a bit more towards it. He said he wasn’t comfortable with me effectively subsidising him so yes if I go it will be alone or with a friend who can afford it. I don’t really see the issues there, I offered, he declined! And no we don’t have kids, neither of us want them

Awwww, so you and loads of other people who have no experience or understanding of having and managing lives around kids are all sure you're right? Bless. Explains a lot though.

Really though, if you're trying to bolster your argument by saying people I know agree with me, best not to make it people who have no more idea what they're talking about than you do.

The situation when there are no children and in particular when the couple are unmarried is a bit more complicated, that's true, and that's also why the posts complaining that people aren't talking about family money were completely misplaced. But then that's why it was so dim-witted of you to be yarning on about double standards in the first place...

[LeighaJ]

@Luki

"DP has mentioned though how happy he is in our relationship that we do share and communicate everything "as if we were already married"."

Being "almost married" is kinda like being "almost famous." I'd keep your savings as your savings.

[PigletJohn]

@CaledonianQueen

"I would refuse, if the joint account is an ISA then it could take you over your non taxable allowance anyway meaning you will pay interest on your savings twice. No way! "

what?

[Missingstreetlife]

Jesus h Christ! Can ppl not read. Op has gone, but Xenia you and others are chatting rubbish.

[Bluelady]

Not so Xenia. See the link above.

[Xenia]

If you marry and then divorce the court's priority is providing for the children. In most divorces there is hardly enough cash to house them so pre marital savings, inheritances and all sorts in English law are used to deal with that primary objective. It is not at all easy to keep separate (if you marry) those kinds of things so better they are given to a sibling, parent or in trust for the child if you marry than hope with your fingers crossed a judge won't later say - ah that £18k which is the main cash the couple have is going back to the wife only. It is very likely after a long marriage the £18k would go in the general pot. If you don't want that then you don't marry.

[MaisyPops]

Keep your money separate.
There are no children involved.
You are not married.

It's interesting that it's often the partners who are the lower earners who are always keen to have access to their partner's better finances.

I'd say the same to him and you as I do to unmarried SAHP: if you wish to have all the various access to funds, risks and protections of marriage, then marry. If you do not want to make that step, remain unmarried and protect your assets.