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?

[Johnnyfinland]

But that’s exactly what it is! I wouldn’t want a partner to have unchecked access to my salary, that I earned, neither would I expect that kind of access to their finances. I’d rather give them a lump sum they can do what they like with, than worry about how much they’re spending from my bank account. The way I see it is, someone has to be paid to look after kids, whether you give that money to a nursery/nanny or a SAHP. Either way, whoever’s doing that job gets a monthly lump sum. In the case of a partner, the earner is single handedly paying for the house, bills, food and child. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to want to oversee exactly how much of their money is going where when they’re funding the upkeep of another adult

[confusedmomm]

Keep what's yours to yourself both now and after marriage. Tell him it's in a fund that you can't access for X years and if he wants to put his 1-2k towards joints savings you can match that. But keep the rest separate. I did that

[serbska]

100% do not move your flat sale money to a joint account.

[MingeUterusMingeMingeYoni]

If two people are equal partners johnny, with one doing 100% of the important job of earning and the other doing 100% of the important job of looking after the children while the other works, then neither of you is giving the other an allowance. That is entirely the wrong way to look at it.

You both have equal right to the same amount of spending money, whether you choose to access that through separate or a joint account. The wage earner is not giving an allowance to the other partner, and if either of them think they are, the couple have a large problem.

[Missingstreetlife]

Where is op?

[Johnnyfinland]

I don’t believe each partner should have equal spending money just because they’re married. Take kids out the equation for a minute, if one earns £60k and the other £20k, I wouldn’t expect the higher earner to give a portion of their disposable income to the other just to make it equal. They should obviously pay a higher percentage towards outgoings but if the lower earner wants more spending money they can frankly go and look for a better paid job. Back to the example I used of the working partner giving a monthly lump sum to the SAHP, that is their spending money, and would probably be about half of whatever’s left over after everything’s paid for as that’s the easiest way to work it out, so in that scenario both partners would end up with equal spends. I can’t really see what’s wrong or unfair about that

[MingeUterusMingeMingeYoni]

In the example we were talking about johnny, ie a SAHP, one party is doing more childcare than the other and thus earning less. Which is of course the majority of the threads where the question of family money comes up.

If one party is earning less because they're doing a disproportionate share of childcare (be it SAHP, part time or just being the one who does all sick days, drop offs and collection etc) then it's grossly inequitable for the other partner to solely reap the benefits of the higher salary, with no recognition of the contribution of the other. I'm afraid you either recognise this or be wrong. Those are your choices.

[MingeUterusMingeMingeYoni]

As for your second paragraph, as has already been explained, it's the way you're framing it as the earner doling out money like they're the adult and the SAHP is the child. Your framing of the issue is the problem. I.notice that you're not using word allowance any more though, so perhaps that means you're getting it a bit?

[Johnnyfinland]

Don’t be ridiculous that it’s either your way or wrong. It’s a difference of opinion. The earner is keeping a grown adult, there’s no getting away from that. Whether you call it an allowance, a lump sum, a payment or whatever, that’s what it is. How is the earner singularly reaping the benefits of their salary when half of the money left after paying bills is being paid to the other adult for their upkeep? EVERYONE has to do housework and look after their kids whether they stay at home or not, it’s not equal to a paid job, it’s a fact of life! Yes it may be easier than paying a nanny or a nursery but the fact is that as well as paying for mortgage or rent, food and provisions for a child, they’re keeping another adult who is presumably capable of going out and earning their own wage. If one person alone has he huge responsibility of paying to keep not only a child but another adult fed and watered and making sure they have money to spend on themselves then I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to decide how to distribute their wage. The calling it an allowance is neither here nor there, it adequately describes what it is. I’ve just discussed this with my boyfriend and he agrees that if one of us were to stay at home if we had kids that this would be a fair set uo

[Bluelady]

It's not about you, Johnny and OP doesn't have children. This has just turned into yet another SAHP bashing thread.

[ShumpaLumpa]

Where is OP?

OP was happy with the unanimous response she got, not sure she needs this thread anymore.

The dp sounds dodgy though.

[FlatPackFurnitureCompAnyone]

I’ve just discussed this with my boyfriend and he agrees that if one of us were to stay at home if we had kids that this would be a fair set up

Oh well that settles that then 😂

You’ll learn love.

[Bluelady]

Yup, the possessor of a penis is always right.

[Johnnyfinland]

Just because someone has a different opinion on how to handle finances doesn’t mean it’s wrong! As for the OP I said from the start I agree she should keep it separate

[ShumpaLumpa]

EVERYONE has to do housework and look after their kids whether they stay at home or not, it’s not equal to a paid job, it’s a fact of life!

Eh? A WOOH parent can't look after their kids, a SAHP can.

The SAHP is sacrificing career profession, a pension, mental stimulation and doing the bulk of the housework and childcare.

The very least the WOHP can do is ensure SAHP has equal access to money.

And if two people are working and one earns £60k, the other earns £20k, what happens when the higher earner wants to on a luxury holiday and poorer half can't afford it? There should be an expectation in a couple that you have access to the same opportunities and standard of living as eachother. Otherwise, it's not a partnership, it's an unequal arrangement.

[SillySallySingsSongs]

I believe assets you had before marriage remain your own afterward

That isnt true!

[Bluelady]

It is if they're in individual names.

[Jeippinghmip]

It's only in a divorce court that everything is declared and shared.

[Alienspaceship]

As someone said upthread, if he asks/mentions it again say no because ‘it’s not as if we’re married. We live together, that’s completely different’.

[HollyBollyBooBoo]

Please keep it separate forever!

[Bluelady]

Premarital assets in individual names aren't shared in divorce as they were never marital assets, they sit outside the pot.

[Johnnyfinland]

ShumpaLumpa in that scenario the higher earner would obviously have to pay more towards the holiday!

[ShumpaLumpa]

Why is it obvious, Johnny? Why doesn't the higher earner just say if you can't afford it, I'll go on my own or with a friend?

[Isleepinahedgefund]

The thing is, you’re NOT married, are you. If he wants everything to be as if you were married, he needs to marry you. Given you’ve planned a wedding but there’s been no proposal (have you proposed to him??), it doesn’t look likely at the moment does it.

If you want to give your savings, then by all means put it in the joint account. Either party can draw on the joint account how ever much they want - he could take it all tomorrow if you put it in there.

Keep it separate. He stands to gain from you putting it in the account, you do not.

Incidentally, if you do use that money to improve the house, make sure you keep a note of what you paid for personally, as it could affect the split of the house equity if you sell.

[MingeUterusMingeMingeYoni]

Don’t be ridiculous that it’s either your way or wrong.

I'm not being ridiculous, I'm being right. Your arguments are strangulated nonsense, which is why they're being picked apart by several of us, and terminology matters whether you think it does or not. And really, your boyfriend agrees? He must be as clueless as you then!

Also, I note the 'if'. Does this by any chance mean there aren't any children in your setup yet?