Advice on financial situation...

[Midnightspecial]

A & B are a couple, together 7 years and living together.

Person A earns £25k a year and has approximately £10k in savings.

Person B earns £76k a year and has £94k in savings, plus a further £18k inheritance just recieved.

Couple need to put money towards something this will cost roughly £18-20k and is to be split 50/50 so each person pays £9-10k each towards it.

Person A has piped up now the inheritance has come through and said that they feel it isn’t ‘fair’ that they have to wipe out their life savings completely and that they want to pay less than half. When asked why, they have just said it doesn’t feel right that one person is left with nothing and the other left with a lot.

Person B thinks that it isn’t fair that they pay more. That it was agreed half and, really, that’s that.

Thoughts?

If person A was happy paying half when they agreed originally the fact person B has since got more money is irrelevant. Half and half is fair

About time B decided if they want a partner or not....

If I was person A, I would be seriously considering whether I wanted to marry person B, given their views on shared finances.

Person B also needs to wake up and decide if they are in a committed relationship or not.

Having been Person B, I can acknowledge this is painful, but it has to be done.

Have they discussed finicial sharing after wedding? How things will be shared? What happens if kids are wanted? More important to get all that sorted before a wedding

Didn’t see it was a wedding before I posted. If I was person A I would be insisting the cost of the wedding be reduced so that I was comfortable paying it. Wouldn’t spend essentially all of my savings on a wedding.
If that isn’t possible, person B should be paying more, the money will all be joint after the weddinganyway. I wouldn’t want to marry someone who viewed money as “this is mine and this is yours.”

Presumably A wants to keep their savings intact and rather than have a much small wedding thinks B should fund the big day? Entitled much.

If the money was to pay for a wedding and I was person A, I would be having second thoughts about going ahead.

Person B also needs to wake up and decide if they are in a committed relationship or not.

I don't see what money has got to do with being in a committed relationship. My DH and I are fairly financially independent, although we do have a joint account. How are we any less committed than a couple who share all their assets/debts?

Yes that is tight of person B. It's unfair. You need to get married and pool your money together.

I think if the two people are already so at odds over the wedding cost then the wedding shouldn’t be going ahead. All financial aspects in their lives going forward should be agreed and both parties reasonably happy with it. Sounds like this isn’t the case at the moment so put the wedding on hold.

Not married, no joint account, possible for either party to walk away...person b is under no obligation whatsoever.

Peron B is being really unfair. I bet they don't think Mackenzie Bezos should get half of Jeff's money either.

Person b is being massively mean but it won't make any difference anyway because once they are married, person A will own half of person B's savings anyway.

If B says it's a no, A needs to determine what they are willing to pay and assert that the wedding price comes down accordingly.

And they really, really need to reconcile their financial boundaries before they get married or it's a recipe for disaster!

I'd also be having second thoughts about the whole wedding if I was A. How will maternity leave be sorted? They will never get to accrue savings again as they will be too busy matching B's extra spending power.

If they are in a long term committed relationship and it's for their wedding, then A should run fast and far from B.

B is mean. Meanness gets worse in a relationship, especially if children come along.

Now if A is the one who wants a BIG flashy £20k wedding AND wants B to pay for everything, then I'd actually suggest B should reconsider... A wants something that is not necessary and well out of A's income bracket. A should be suggesting something smaller and less costly. It's a day.

I'm afraid I think that if they are committed enough to marry, they can share assets. If B doesn't want to wipe out 1/6 of their savings on a wedding then they need to re-evaluate their choice of celebration.

Agree the Person A / Person B BS is annoying.

What exactly does Mr / Mrs Moneybags intend to do with finances after the wedding? I can only assume that they intend to keep a tight grip on their money?

There's no way I'd marry someone who had that attitude. It's just horrible.

Presumably A wants to keep their savings intact and rather than have a much small wedding thinks B should fund the big day? Entitled much.

Depends who wants the wedding to cost this much. Might be that person A is actually pushing for a smaller wedding but person B doesn’t want it. We don’t know from OP

I've almost always been the lower earner in my relationship, and would never expect my partner to pay more than 50% share. If I was concerned about maxing out my savings then I would just cut my cloth accordingly and lower the budget of whatever we were both investing into.

If I were person B I'd be very wary of person A and frankly insulted that they'd be totting up how much money I have in my bank account. It's up to person B to offer to pay more, not person A to manipulate person B into paying it.

That having been said, the situation changes if person A has had to make non-monetary sacrifices in the past to accommodate person B (such as relocating or passing up career opportunities) or if they both have children (in which case money should be more pooled).

Whose idea was it to spend that much on the wedding? If it' s the higher earner, is s/he going to pool finances after the wedding, or is the idea to increase the lower earner's financial dependence on the higher earner's goodwill?

If the lower earner wants the fancy wedding but for the partner to pay for most of it, then maybe the lower earner does see the higher earner as a bit of a meal ticket. Perhaps what they need to do is revisit the wedding budget and do something cheaper.

Your marriage is not going to work.

There also sounds like a risk of the higher earner insisting that things like rent/bills/food are split 50-50 rather than as a proportion of individual income, which is particularly dodgy if the higher earner insists on an expensive home and high quality food, while also spending disposable income on treats and just expecting the lower earner to keep up...

If the idea is that A and B keep completely separate finances once married then I think it would be a terrible idea for A to spend all their savings on a wedding, given their comparatively low income.

If I were A's friend I would suggest scaling back massively on the wedding. I'm not going to bang on about how I did it for £2.50 in my dressing gown and slippers with a chippy tea afterwards but honestly spending 4/5ths of your annual income on one day and leaving yourself with no safety net is mad.

If B really wants a £20k wedding B, as the higher earner and the one with loads of savings, should pay for the majority of it partly because they're the one with the cash and partly because marriage is about partnership. You don't have to split literally everything 50/50 but where there is a massive imbalance one person shouldn't be hunting change down the back of the sofa while the other is living on caviar - which is what this relationship sounds like to me.

In conclusion, B is a tight bastard and A should think hard about whether this is the person they want to marry.

I wouldn’t want to marry B.