To think it's ok not to share money

[ToooRevealing]

Right, so this thing about "family money". My DH was one of those, a long time ago, who wanted to keep absolutely everything separate. We got a joint account for bills when we had DS1. Then after two years we sat down and recalculated things because I was always having to ask him for more money each month (I was the lower earner and on mat leave). He was happy to sling me an extra thousand quid every few months ad hoc, but that didn't work for me, I wanted us both to contribute to the children's upkeep more obviously, so he could see clothes trips treats football lessons etc all coming out of our joint money and never have any vague feeling that I'd just "overspent". He was of course fine with this (this isn't a thread about financial control, our communication is fine & power balance good!)

He still says, though, that he has "chosen a higher earning job than me"; which to be fair he did, before we ever had kids or even met each other. So while we should contribute proportionally to our joint family, we should each keep our discretionary money for ourselves. In practice he puts loads in his savings (so I'm sure I'll get it in the end, ha ha!)

But is he right? Part of me thinks yes, as long as neither if you is in financial trouble or hasn't got enough, and if you take the long view, the higher earner can stash their spare cash away in accounts the other has no access to.

But then I think it's a grey area- I'm not progressing as fast in my career as I would have done if I didn't have children, and that's not quantifiable. I am part time, so we know what we save on childcare and the value of that. But... I was part time before kids too! I like being part time & would want to stay that way. He likes being full time.

If we were both full time and both absolutely went for it, he would be earning say £100k a year and I would be earning say £90k a year. As it is, I earn £50k and he earns £100k. So this AIBU isn't about being tight for money. Am I BU wanting our discretionary personal money to be equal; or is he BU, saying that once we've provided for our family together and proportionally, we can have different discretionary amounts for fun and savings, because we have different careers? I think his view is fair, but because he loves saving money, and it's always me who pushes to spend money, that can muddy the waters.

No I don’t think he’s right. I chose a “higher earning job” than my husband will have before I’d even met him due to the career path I chose and that my level of intellect let me follow. It doesn’t mean that now I get to keep more money for myself because of choices I made when I was not much older than my own kids now/ I think your husband has a pretty weird and selfish way of looking at it.

I actually agree with him, and this is how we work it our family.

We have a joint account that covers bills, childcare things etc. We occasionally review it to see if we need to pay in more. Equally my husband earns 50% more than me, so he contributes 50% more into the joint account.

Everything else we keep for ourselves.

I should say for family holidays he'll often pay for the flights, or pay for the accommodation himself etc.

And why are his “savings” his savings and not joint savings?

I think I'm with your Husband on this one tbh

Mine earns quite a bit more than me - we both pay half the rent - but he pays the bills and I don't contribute to them

He is putting more money aside in our house deposit fund than me each month as he has more spare cash than me obviously

But all the rest of his money is his and mine is mine!

He treats me to to things sometimes - but mostly we both pay our own way for holidays / nights out or anything else we get up to

I don't think it's fair that he would have to share his spare money with me to be honest - he has worked hard to get where he is and to earn the money he gets, i've chosen a career path that pays a bit less!

So he can buy/do whatever he wants with his money and if I want something I can save up a bit longer and get it!

If you didn't have your husband you wouldn't have any extra money

To those who split finances, what happens if one of you is out of work for a long time and cannot pay your way? Would you split up?

^just curious, it's something I've often wondered

Count yourself very lucky you live in the UK OP

Marriage is essentially (and unromantically) a contract uniting two people economically. All the other stuff about being faithful and caring for each other can be done voluntarily without needing any legal change to a relationship, but the financial stuff is what sets marriage apart from cohabitation. And it protects partners whose incomes are hit by pregnancy and childcare (mostly women).

If a couple have different incomes and don't pool finances then I think it's extremely difficult to make joint financial decisions, share common financial goals and to have an equal voice within the relationship. I think if one partner earns less and the other partner does not view their wealth and earnings as truly shared by the other then there is inevitably a power imbalance within the relationship. If you don't really want to share everything you have with your partner, then I'm not sure what the point of being married is.

The other takeaway I always get from these threads is that people with more money seem to be more grabby/greedy about it than people with less. If I or my spouse earned £100k I can’t imagine being arsey about money at all.

I actually can’t believe how many of you feel so entitled to your husbands money from having children, very backwards thinking in such a ‘woman power’ era

You're married not housemates! You share resources - that is what is assume when you get married and if you subsequently divorce. If you don't want this commitment you shouldn't marry. If one person has more time they do more of the childcare, if one person has more money they provide more to the household.

Otherwise it would basically be impossible for anyone with kids to have a high powered career since they just wouldn't be able to do 50% of the childcare.

I can’t imagine loving someone and being okay with having a higher quality of life, and more choices, than them.

I completely disagree with your husband OP, unless he was 20 odd years into his career when you met you have been a part of his career. You may have taken on more home tasks than he did, more of the mental load or just been there for him as a sounding board - this all contributes to his ability to go out and do that job and is completely unquantifiable.

We could start at the very basics and say the gender pay gap means you could have followed the exact same path and still earn less than him. The law is quite clear in that if you were to divorce you each have half.

It’s completely unrealistic for most couples to split all childcare/home responsibilities equally - for most couples that would just limit two careers and not one which in the long rung isn’t good for anyone. My husband has a ‘big’ job and I have travelled around the world with him to facilitate him being able to do that, he goes to work and I do absolutely everything else. I get truly frustrated that after work there is a completely empty tank but it won’t be forever and will benefit us all hugely in the long run. All money is joint and always has been.

I do firmly agree that once married/have children that a family’s money is that. Me and my dh do this- we have joint account for bills. Add money to savings and have the same amount of spending money per month.

In our relationship though I am definitely in the save it camp. I wonder if your dh just doesn’t agree with you wanting to spend so actually he’s saving the money (as you say for both of you) so your spending money is actually the same?? Although I’d be concerned if this was savings only in his own name.

I don't think what you have is fair.

I earn less than DH. We have separate accounts.
My salary pays all household bills.
His salary pays for groceries and 'fun money. He gives me half his salary so we both have the same each month to do whatever we want (no young kids).

It would be strange having a joint account where he could see every time I booked a surprise trip or his birthday/Christmas present.

Dh saw me as equal - although our careers valued our skills differently, we are both worth the same within our family unit so all money is family money. We now earn similar amounts so we can afford to do lovely things together as a family but also little treats like dh going to baseball games and me to spa days. For me it's about respect. My mum was a sahm and my df never made her feel lesser than him. He completely respected the fact bc she cared for dB and I and organised the house so he didn't have to. Luckily dh's parents were the same. The more threads like this I read the more I realise I would be single if it wasn't for dh because so many men seem to be arrogant, controlling idiots.

@TwitcherOfCurtains Not married but dp and I live together and have separate finances. Recently I’ve had some health issues and he’s asked if I want to take a few months off to recover. I also like that I earn enough that we would cope if something happened to his job we wouldn’t be on the breadline. We are still a partnership, we just don’t want to sacrifice our independence either. We do sometimes borrow from each other but we usually pay back if a significant amount.

I never shared money when I was married and never would. I like to keep my own financial independence. We sorted out bills in proportion to what we earned - my ex, being the higher earner, paid more bills.

Each to their own. Legally though if you're married it is half yours, so my personal opinion is what's the point in being married if you sign a contract to share everything, but keep your own pot and hands off. I think you both earn decent salaries so there isn't a massive discrepancy in what you can afford. But say it was more like 20k and 50k. The person on 20k would likely have no savings and would have to be very careful with money. It would be a bit odd in my view if one half of a couple shopped in charity shops while the other wore designed clothes, one could only afford a motorbike while the other had a flash car etc

We share everything. He earns more, partly as his job pays more, partly because I'm part time to look after the kids.

I brought far more assets to the marriage, we're mortgage free but he didn't even have the cash for a deposit.

Op if your husband became unwell and couldn't work would he still be cool with you keeping most of the disposable income whilst he just had a much smaller personal spends?

I think in principle the idea of equal discretionary spending money is correct.

However I certainly know of family units where one partner has deliberately chosen to work less/in a lower paid job, for no particular family benefit, while the other partner doesn't have the same option because they need to work to a certain level to keep the family financially afloat.

Shouldn't the partner earning more get a "reward" in this circumstance?

If everyone with happy with all family choices, then absolutely money should be shared.

Someone I know, where one is a much higher earner, worked out exactly what the household account needed each month. Then worked out the ratio required from each contributor.

I thought this was weird but as the years pass and income and jobs change it has worked surprisingly well.

This could work for you and obviously each person gets to retain their own surplus.

So if one of you was unable to work ever again, Batgirl, you wouldn't split? You prefer separate fincances but if it came to it you'd share?

That doesn't seem so bad if that's the case.

Batqueen*

In a traditional wedding he endows you with all his worldly goods because even when the traditional vows were written, it was recognised that men tend to be the higher earners

Sorry but I had to laugh at this! No, it wasn’t recognised that men tend to be the higher earners!!! Women were property, they weren’t entitled to own money, bank accounts, jobs etc, so a man was promising the woman’s old owner, her dad, that he would now take care of her.

Yeah I have to say.... I'm with your husband.

I'm the higher earner. I pay the majority of the bills. My husband still works full time, though.

If he wanted to go part time, would I pick up the slack? Probably, but I wouldn't really be happy about it. I'd make sure all the bills were covered but his discretionary spending would be in proportion to mine (so I would put more into my own savings).

And if he worked part time before I even met him then hell no, my money is my money and his is his.

Why should I pay more just because I choose a higher paying career we all have choices, and he chose a vocation over money. Fine. As I said he works full time so he's trying his best. But I'm not here to subsidise someone who isn't, family or no family.

I also think that if you keep separate finances it can be very tricky when you have children if one of you has to take a step back at work to be the primary carer for example if you have a child with SEN that doesn't do well with childcare or if one of you has a job with lots of travel. In these circumstances a career break normally becomes a permanent lagging behind the other and then naturally the one who earns more prioritises their career. It's hard when you decide on splits of bills etc to take into account loss of future earnings and pension etc and so is often unfair on the one who earns less,