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.

I agree with your husband , you have only ever wanted to work part time but are happy for him to work full time ?
It’s not as if he’s living an extravagant lifestyle while you are stuck at home with the children . You should go back to work full time and employ a nanny/ housekeeper.

I think it all depends on what works for each of you. For years DH and I
have had an agreement that all my income goes into an account in his sole name and he gives me a set amount each month. That might horrify a lot of people but it works for us. If I run out I just ask him
and he transfers money with no comment. I’m not insecure because I have lots of savings in my name and I could change the position by simply telling my employers/ pension providers to pay into my account in future.

It all sounds such a lot of work.

OH and I have "money".

In the time we have been together there have been times when I have not been working, times I have earned more than him, times when he wasn't working.

We always put in equal effort towards running the family and home, so all monies coming in are shared equally.

We don't have any concept of his money/my money, it's all just money, in one central pot.

Far easier that way.

I don't know, it's tricky. I don't think that each couple necessarily should have the same spending money each. We have a joint account for all joint expenses that we put the same percentage of our income into and then we keep the rest as personal money to do whatever with. It does mean the higher earner has more spends, but is also contributing more to the joint account, so that feels fair to me. I'm also self-employed so my income fluctuates and I must admit that I do feel on months where I've worked a lot of hours, I do enjoy having the extra money that brings to spend on things I enjoy.

We only have one DC and I don't think of myself as a SAHP although I suppose I kind of am as I only work when she's asleep in the evenings and nap times or at weekends when DH can look after her. Perhaps if I didn't work I'd feel differently, but I wouldn't not work unless my husband was a millionaire or something and it was irrelevant

I will say that in eight years, we have never argued about money, and if the other needed extra for some reason than the other would generally give it no questions asked. But I like retaining some measure of fiscal autonomy and independence.

If you want to keep finances seperate that's great - don't get married though

What nonsense. Our marriage has survived for 20 years with separate finances. There’s never just one way of doing things.

We have differing discretionary amounts according to what we each like to do for hobbies etc. For example, I spend more on clothes, he has more expensive hobbies. We don't have a joint account (I used to be in debt) but decide each year or so, who will pay for what. It varies according to what we earn, what we think we'll need etc. It isn't half each, nor ever has been.

And we've been married for over 40 years!

It's about having a partnership though isn't it.

And how can you have a fully functioning partnership when money is kept separate?

In this case I think both you and your DH have sad views of what a partnership is.

Based on you working part time because you want to work part time (i.e. not taking into account child care which is a different issue) - you're idea of partnership is him working harder to subsidise your lifestyle.

His idea of partnership is that he wants to share his life with someone who has a lower standard of living than him.

Both are pretty glum views of what a true partnership is.

When there is child care in the mix that does change things.

What's mine is hers and what's hers is hers mine.

Everything - bank account, mortgage, main savings - is in joint names. The presumption we work on is joint and only things that can't be joint are separate, like pensions, cars and credit cards. Even then, while the credit cards are in my name as the higher earner, DW has second cards on them and the provider is authorised to talk to her about them.

Bills tend to be in my name only . . .

I also don't understand the 'no separate accounts' thing. How do you buy each other presents when the other person can see every transaction?

I don't think that splitting spare money according to each individual's wants is fair.

Just because you like lots of clothes, expensive haircuts, bikes or a hobby that costs a lot of money doesn't justify you getting more money for this than your partner as that leads to the other getting less as there's only a finite amount of money to divide.

Split what's available after all joint costs and savings have been accounted for and it's up to you what you do with it, whether it's spending on X, Y or Z or keeping it in savings in case you want to spend it in the future.

Otherwise if you decide to take up an expensive hobby in the future, you might not be able to because the other partner spent the money years ago.

In contrast, I have a colleague who says she won't run a full joint account with her husband because his philosophy is to spend first and ask questions later, so she has to make sure there's enough left to pay the mortgage every month.

Me and my DH have our own accounts and a joint for bills etc, we both earn decent enough money and like having our own money to get our own things however we don't stash money away from the other as we're a family unit and it's all "our money" for the benefit or our family

How do you buy each other presents when the other person can see every transaction?

We don't -- at least not big ones. It feels a bit like someone is buying you a present with your own money,

I don’t understand this approach. They are effectively saying that money isn’t included in the loving and caring that is a relationship. Op, if your partner burnt out or was made redundant, does he run through his savings before you contribute a penny? Do you make sure you always have more discretionary than him because he’s not earning, which would be a reasonable approach given his approach now.
I would hate it. I’d say I better go back full time and you do all the pick up and drop off and have less discretionary money because tough shit apparently that’s your definition of fair. We could talk about it tonight, but I’m working late. Gotta fund that amazing holiday you can’t afford to come on. Oh what? That’s not fair? It was perfectly fair when you were on the other side of it, don’t you love our children and want to look after them?

but @messolini9, the OP chose never to have a high flying career. Even before she had children she chose to work part time. She values time to herself more than having a career. Presumably, she intends never to return to work.
Do you think her husband too, has the right to go part time if he chooses a more relaxed life style?

“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?“ @TwitcherOfCurtains that’s our reality and no, it would never even have occurred to me (or my husband) to split up. We’ve always kept separate money, and paid into a “joint” account (both names but in reality I operate it because family finances are my department) for bills, mortgage and food shopping. In the past, if he was out of work due to a contract finishing, redundancy, illness or whatever I would use savings to tide us over if absolutely necessary or, more often than not, he would have a new job within days. When I became too disabled to work at all, again I managed on my savings until my disability benefits kicked in. I think it probably makes a difference though that our income is probably a tiny fraction of the sums being discussed in general on here.

@Fairyflaps that’s exactly our situation, although I imagine with much lower sums of money 😂.

@messolini9 that is just utter bullshit. I just can’t be doing with all this
“staying at home facilitated his career” bollocks. If a man’s wife works full time, amazingly enough he can still manage to have the same wondrous career. That’s what nannies and childminders are for. A man does not need a fucking stay-at-home wife in order for him to rise to the upper echelons of his chosen job 🙄.

My starter for ten would be that a couple should always share everything money-wise. I'm only inclined to relax this assumption in cases where one of or more of the following are true:

(a) there are no children involved;
(b) the couple get together later in life, with each side of the partnership's financial dice already cast; or
(c) one or more of the couple have kids from past relationships.

What are we talking about as personal spending money. Posters keep mentioning holidays but surely that comes out of family money. In my mind personal spending money is just that - money you spend on yourself be it clothes, Costa or facials whatever. If my DH wishes to spend his personal money on a holiday for himself then thats fine. Personal money is what is left of our wages after we have contributed proportionally to the family pot. The proportion contributed should take into consideration how much is saved in childcare if one partner is not working full time to facilitate this.

I don't see what you're concerned about. Neither of you are low earners and unless you're spending is out of control even with £50k salary you've probably got a fair amount of disposable income. Why do you need more? He has more, fair enough, what does he do with it? From what you say he's a saver and probably going to use it for the family. If you're eyeing it up with a view to having more to spend then its probably better with him where its kept until its needed.

I don't understand a family with kids regardless who earns what that one partner has 'more discretionary spends' what will he/she do with those spends that doesn't benefit the family? (unless other kids involved) Will they jet off on holidays without them will they go to fancy restaurants without them? Even if they buy a fancy car they will drive the family in it! I guess the one thing that strikes me here is you saying you were part time pre-kids & you are a spender he is a saver. Maybe this is his way of saving for the family. If you had free rein of the money he is worried you'd squander it? (that's another reason separate finances if one half is genuinely trying to curb other half spending in a reasonable way!!)

Do you think her husband too, has the right to go part time if he chooses a more relaxed life style?

Of course I do @mrsmuddlepies

that is just utter bullshit. I just can’t be doing with all this
“staying at home facilitated his career” bollocks.

Really @gingersausage? Show me the man who doesn't need a woman to create children for him, who can manage all the nurture & household without backup, & maybe you'll have a point.

That’s what nannies and childminders are for. A man does not need a fucking stay-at-home wife in order for him to rise to the upper echelons of his chosen job
Don't be ridiculous.
Most men (most people) don't earn enough to pay nannies, childminders, housekeepers AND feed their kids & pay the rent.

Well I'm off out for a boozy dinner tomorrow sans husband or child, which I'll pay for from my personal account. He's got a weekend away without us that he will pay for, and I've got a weekend away without him and DD that I will pay for. But our holiday together this summer is a joint expense and has come out of the joint account. 🤷🏻‍♀️ The whole point of personal spends is that it doesn't have to benefit the family! It benefits me!

As soon as you have children together, all money should be family money. If most of the childcare is falling to you, meaning that working full time would be harder, or not worth it, then you have been disadvantaged financially by having children, and he hasn't. If you were to divorce, this could be considered in the settlement, giving you more money to compensate (it's called Economic Recompense).