To think that it’s absolutely fine to still have your own money when you are married?

[itsgoodtobehome]

I read so many threads on here about how all money is joint money once you are married. I don’t get it! I am married. DH and I have our salaries paid into our own individual accounts. We then make a regular payment each into a joint bills account (pays all bills, mortgage etc) and a joint spends account (pays for shopping, meals out, family activities, kids stuff etc). The rest is individually ours to do what we want with. I would hate to not have my own money to be able to spend as I like - clothes, lunches out with friends, gym, fitness classes, and DH is the same with his hobby and own pursuits.

However Mumsnet seems to think this is wrong. Am I the only one that thinks like this?

We split the maternity leave equally too! It was awesome, I can recommend it

that's great - but surely you are in a minority and it doesn't answer the question how the non earning (mat/pat pay) parent accesses money during their turn with the baby.

A R4 programme on debt last week said that not having joint accounts was a good way of protecting yourself against a spouse being pursued for debt.

As long as you are both happy with your financial arrangements, who cares, it's up to you.

What I find disturbing is that kind of comment:
It means you can spend money if you feel like it! You can buy clothes for yourself, things for the house, gifts for people, including DH.

It doesn't sound like a healthy relationship at all if you feel like you have to hide what you are doing. So you buy clothes and you hide them from your husband so he doesn't know? Or you lie on their price?
It's a very weird way to consider things.

I think this only works when both partners work and there isn’t a huge disparity in wages.

We do it, it takes 5 minutes to set up a spreadsheet to work out all the bills and the % we each pay into the joint account + some extra for meals out etc. The rest is our own but we also share it sometimes, DH had an old cc to pay off while I was able to save so I paid for a holiday and don’t begrudge this.

If one of us didn’t work then we’d pool everything.

that's great - but surely you are in a minority and it doesn't answer the question how the non earning (mat/pat pay) parent accesses money during their turn with the baby.

Sorry, just realised I didn't. It's a few years ago and I had to rack my brains. If I remember rightly we (the working parent) transferred a wodge of cash to the other each month during that time.

we (the working parent) transferred a wodge of cash to the other each month during that time.

feels like giving pocket money to a child, I can't imagine doing that to DH when I was the only one working.

OP I agree, DH and I have our own accounts, into which our earnings are paid, and we have a joint account that we contribute to in proportion to our earnings for bills/petrol/food. What's left is ours. So if we want to "waste" money on fripperies, we can, because we've already paid the bills.

It can still work if there is a big disparity in wages. Dh pays loads more per month into the joint account than I do, because he earns a lot more,leaving us both with similar amounts in our personal accounts.

OP - I can see you might regard it as one partner 'funding the lifestyle'of the other if they earned similar amounts, paid everything into a joint account, but one person was spending far more of it than the other.

But if, for example, the husband earns far more because they have agreed as a family that the wife will be sahm or part time, the money should be shared equally. It is family money from a salary tjat is enabled by the wide looking after the children (instead of paying someone else to do it). And then if the wife goes back to full time when the dc are older, but cannot earn the same because of her career break, the joint wages should still be family money because that inability to earn is a result of that joint decision.

All this percentages of this and that - who can be bothered

It takes minutes to work it out. I know from experience how much we need in the joint account each month plus a bit extra to cover non-regular items like eg the insurance on my car which I pay in one go rather than monthly. So we contribute a share each of that money. If we've had an expensive month I might ask DH to put an extra £100 in the following month and I do the same. I don't need spreadsheets.

feels like giving pocket money to a child, I can't imagine doing that to DH when I was the only one working.

Not really, it was just a way of sharing equally what we had collectively. We could have put it all in the joint account I suppose but as we were both going to be working FT again after a few months there didn't seem much point changing the system completely.

I will also say that having all your funds in one pot only really works if you both have similar attitudes to money/ spending. I'm prudent and a saver. Husband is fickle and fritters. He always spends all his fun money. If we shared the fun money in a joint account he'd keep spending until it was gone and I'd not see much of it!

He's always been crap with money. Here's the punchline: he's an accountant.

DH and I have always had our own accounts. Mortgage and childcare is split down the middle. I earned a little more than him before my first mat leave so saved so I could continue to pay my half of the mortgage. He took on all bills and shopping while I was off and it's still the same 4 years later as I went back part time. He earns significantly more than he did before my mat leave now and has more disposable income that I do, but I've got enough to pay for what I want and he's generous with buying things for me / the family. I think for us we'd have more problems if we shared all money as it would wind me up if I thought he was wasting money on things, but as it's his money it doesn't matter to me as we are comfortable overall.
I agree with PPs though that it depends on the family finances - if separate money means one always is scrimping while the other has all the luxuries then it doesn't work.

He's always been crap with money. Here's the punchline: he's an accountant.

More seriously, it still doesn't end up fair anyway: he wastes his "share", you don't. So presumably things like over-paying the mortgage, buying a new boiler or a new car, or whatever emergency or once-in-a-lifetime holiday will come from your savings?

I imagine that the fair way to do it would be save half both your share, and be free to waste the other half?

Ultimately as long as both parties are happy it doesn’t really matter how finances are organised but the separate accounts seems to lead to more unhappiness where there is one controlling partner. My husband now earns 4x what I do (it’s been more equal). He was the one that has largely driven joint accounts but even before we were married (and had separate accounts) we had joint approaches and saving goals. My sister does separate accounts and it all seems very convoluted but it also means their finances are a bit messy and their savings aren’t working as hard for them as they could be.

I really can’t get my head around one person earning loads more but then having to share it once all household things are taken into account.

I really can't get my head around someone being so selfish that they would see their partner living a much poorer lifestyle simply because they earn less.

Dh and I earned similar salaries pre-kids. I changed jobs to a more family friendly one. I went part-time for quite a number of years. I took main responsibility for the kids. This enabled his career to progress at a faster rate than mine. I'm now working full-time again but he still earns approximately 50% more than me.

Part of the reason he is earning that much more than me is because I enabled it by working part-time. He has never seen my contribution as less than his. His contribution just happens to have a higher monetary component than mine.

We have always had joint accounts and personal savings accounts. It just seems simpler to me. I have never been asked to justify my spending and vice-versa, although we will discuss large purchases as money may need to be transferred from savings for those.

I can see pluses and minuses to both approaches. It only becomes a problem when one or both doesn't see the relationship as a partnership where each person brings different contributions to the relationship or where less value is placed on non-monetary contributions.

More seriously, it still doesn't end up fair anyway: he wastes his "share", you don't. So presumably things like over-paying the mortgage, buying a new boiler or a new car, or whatever emergency or once-in-a-lifetime holiday will come from your savings?

For day to day life it is fair as our contributions to the joint account include a considerable buffer for things like family holidays, day to day household works/repairs etc. We are lucky enough not to have a mortgage. When we moved house and renovated this year though I paid the lion's share of the deposit and funded most of the renovations from my savings because H didn't really have any. So I do agree with you there. (Though I admit I was the one champing for a bigger house!)

On the other hand I have also stashed some very tidy sums into my pension and ISAs to enable me to retire at 60. H could have done that too but chose not to (and moans about having to work until he is 67 ).

I have also stashed some very tidy sums into my pension and ISAs to enable me to retire at 60. H could have done that too but chose not to (and moans about having to work until he is 67 ).

good for you, now that is a clever way to do it

I earn more than DH so put more into the pot. We both take equal ‘personal’ money out and prioritise both long and short term savings before that. Personal savings come out of our ‘personal’ money.

I guess I have the bigger pension as I earn the most And my package is more generous. But other than that it’s pretty fair.

itsgoodtobehome do you believe people should only fall in love and commit to those in the same wage bracket?
So a lawyer should never marry a teacher?

It’s not fair or morally right eg for a high earning husband with a sahm wife who enables him to have a family AND work long hours (often at short notice), travel for work etc to have hundreds even thousands as spending money while she’s left scraping pennies together to buy anything but basic essentials. Why should a wife (or indeed husband or partner) in that situation go without because they have jointly decided that this is how they will manage their family organisation?

You are missing my point. I already said that we pool our money for anything to do with the family - food, bills, activities etc. so no-one is ever going to go without on that front. I'm talking about what's leftover. It means that if I want to buy a crazy expensive pair of shoes, I can. Likewise my DH can spend stupid money on a bike. Because it's our choice - we earned it. No way would I feel comfortable spending DH's money on an expensive pair of shoes.

So a SAHM isn't allowed to have nice things while her husband can buy what he wants?

OP if you have similar salaries then surely you have a similar amount left over, in which case it makes no difference if you share it or not? If there is no need to share then by all means have separate finances, but obviously not all couples earn the same salary.

Absolutely not. I had a weekend away with my sister this month, so I don't have much money left. My choice, my money. DH didn't have a weekend away. Therefore I assume that he has much more money leftover. It doesn't affect me either way.

If you got a huge pay rise would you share it or keep it for yourself? If your DH got one and treated himself to holidays you couldn’t afford how would you feel?

It doesn't work like that as we pay for holidays together out of a joint account. But we do also do separate things that we pay for ourselves. So, yes potentially one of us could have a holiday without the other that we paid for ourselves, and neither of us would begrudge the other for it.