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 don't know. I earn about 5k more than DH, there isn't massive disparity, though at times I've earned as much as £20k more.

We have a joint account for bills and food and the rest of the money is our own, though I tend to pay a bit more for holidays and for DD's activities and pocket money. It seems to work for us, it just means either of us can go and buy some clothes or whatever without the other person saying "Why did you buy that?" Neither would see the other person or DDs struggle or go short for something. It also helps that we have similar attitudes to spending, saving and debt. So I'm not sure whether our own money is technically family money, but I find it much easier this way to see what there is left to spend after one payment goes out into another account!

The “family money” thing annoys me. I can see the benefit when we are talking about SAHMs but when I was earning a lot less than my husband it wasn’t exactly his fault I wasn’t at my full earning potential. And now I earn more than him it’s not exactly my fault that he’s not pushed himself to reach his maximum earning potential.

The key feature of this thread is that the OP is choosing not to work equally with her husband.
@messolini9 tries to claim that 'his DW, who has sacrificed the high-flying element of her career path', but the point is that the OP, even before having children, has only ever worked part time and presumably intends like many women never to return to full time work. That has HUGE implications for future financial planning for them as a unit. Most partners would object to someone who does not want to play an equal role in providing for their family but wants to have lots of leisure time funded by her husband.

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.

True. Even if you would not have been a work superstar if single and childfree, he has benefited from your willingness to put your work/career on the back burner, and you're correct - the loss to you is not quantifiable, and neither is the gain to him.

I'd be asking - WHY does he want/need separated funds? What is he using the money for? If he has expensive hobbies you don't share - let's say, he has season tickets for his favorite sports team, and for the opera (he goes with friends), and he goes golfing every weekend and mountain climbing once a month and has to buy all the latest equipment, it might make sense. But your post suggests that he is not using the money, just saving it. For what? Is there some inheritance issue (children from some past relationship, wanting to make sure his parents are cared for, etc.)? Or is he hedging his bets against a breakup?

There isn't a law that says you both have to flog your guts out in full time work if you don't want to. Many people could work part time but would find the juggling act harder than FT work. Often the person that works PT does all the financial and practical arrangements for the entire household and often all or the lion's share of the housework and childcare, so it's not a case of having tons of leisure time. Particularly when you know the other person would not pick up the slack if you went full time. It's not a case of being part time to have a more leisurely life, it's more a case of maintaining your physical and mental health.

I think that once you have children it should be family money - it all goes into one joint account, you can then put the same amount into individual spending accounts for personal purchases. I think any savings accounts in individual names should also be considered as joint.

Otherwise if you go to the extremes it gets obviously unfair. Say your DH earns £10k per month and you earn £2k. Is it really fair that after putting £1k each into the family joint account you have £1k left and he has £9k? And is it fair that he might be able to save £200k over a couple of years and you save nothing but he still gets full autonomy about how he wants to spend that money as it’s “his”?

I agree the situation is complicated by the fact you worked part time as a lifestyle choice even before having kids, but on the other hand, your career choice is also a lifestyle choice and I think it’s a very odd way for a loving couple to think if you would really hold it against your spouse for their whole career that they worked as an artist while you worked as a banker for example. Unless the career change happened years into your relationship with a massive drop in income it should be pretty obvious if someone is going to have a lower earning potential and therefore you’ve gone in with your eyes open. It’s a bit the same here - and especially as you have kids it’s basically irrelevant now.

Even before you have children together, your FH's approach only seems fair to me if you each have high enough earning power that you are both very comfortable indeed.

Once having children impacts your earning by power and you are literally sacrificing income to have children and then to bring them up, this seems so far unreasonable to to leave me incapable of expressing how unreasonable it is.

The very far side of unreasonable and then some more unreasonableness.

Fair enough to be saving, but those savings ought to be in join names and you should have joint access. Even if you choose not to spend them, because, savings.

What did you agree about how things were going to work pre-children?

Fair to me would be pool earnings, work out budget to live, bring up children and build savings. Then, split the remaining funds half each for 'spending money '.

Ok maybe people who earn more are not just "lucky" but if someone does a job they love but it is low paid such as nurse, paramedic etc and their OH has a very well paid job should they have to have different life styles?

If a couple have children and one parent either works part time or even stops working they should be sharing the other's money equally.

It is a bit different if one only works part time just because they want to but if the other is quite happy for them to do so then, again, they should share money equally.

Both me and DH have been the higher wage earner at some stage over our married life. Then I went part time mainly because I struggled to work full time because of health issues. DH had no problem with this although I could, if necessary, have continued full time.

For the last 3 years I have not worked at all and get no money. I am not yet old enough for my pension and I am not entitled to any benefits. We still share DH's earnings.

Because I am home I do the majority of the housework and most of the cooking. We both enjoy cooking though so DH will often offer to cook or even insist on cooking!

A poster asked about present buying. We have never found it a problem. What we usually do is buy whatever it is using cash. We both use cash a lot so frequent withdrawals mean nothing. If we wanted to buy online then we just ask a friend or my sister to pay using their card and we pay them cash

Ok, so here's a little legal reasoning that seems to be missing here. If you're married (in England and Wales) you are both entitled to 50% of each others income, savings, assets and debts. It's neither here nor there who is the higher earner, who is part-time, who entered the marriage with more or less, everything should be shared equally. Simple and equitable.

Tell him he can go part time and you go full time. See how he feels about that. It will probably tell you alot. But I suspect you already know

I earn close to double that of my DH, and we currently pay a proportionate amount to our salaries to our joint account which covers all household bills, food, plus savings. The rest remains in our personal accounts. Naturally I have a higher amount of disposable income but I tend to buy more treats for both of us out of that.

I am currently on maternity leave, and when we start to incur childcare costs when I return, we will no longer do the proportionate disposable income but rather equal amounts. I won't lie, it does annoy me a bit, but actually I would happily give him any money of 'mine' that he needed so it's a silly passing thought.

My DH could probably earn more in the corporate sector but currently works for a charity. His last job, which was in corporate, nearly ruined him and he is so much happier now that I would not contemplate sacrificing his mental health for the sake of a bit extra money. By the nature of my job I will always out earn him, so I will always bear more of the household costs.

He is fantastic at cleaning, DIY etc so it more than evens out at the end of the day.

I still dont get this huge life style difference people keep going on about. Bills, savings and family expenses should come out of a joint pot which both should contribute to in proportion to their wages so if yourjoint income is 100k and 80%of that is partner a then partner a covers 80%of joint pot. Partner b covers 20% of the joint pot. The rest should be your personal spends which might include things like gym membership.

I think everyone should do what works for them. It sounds like you have niggles about this op, that need addressed. For us, my DH after a recent promotion earns nearly 5 times what I do, but would never dream of keeping any separate. It’s a joint enterprise that we both contribute to in different respects. We have similar outlooks on spending though so perhaps he could feel differently if I was out buying fancy jewellery with his money. But neither of us see it as his or my money, honestly, it’s just the pot and how much we have to work with. I’d find any having to work out proportions etc a bit cold for my view of a marriage, and like youd id not be comfortable having to ask for an allowance.

I kind of get it OP.

I could earn the same as DH (i did, in my younger years earn more)...but i am honestly just lazier and also less aspirational. I still earn plenty so we each contribute equally to all our shared costs in the joint account (including ALL DC costs etc). He doesn't do especially longer hours than me, but just works harder and takes on more stress, because he wants the money more than me. He uses it to fund some lifestyle things (an expensive collecting hobby, branded clothes, various other knick knacks) that i couldn't care less about. So I'm fine with us having separate discretionary spending and him naturally having a little more of the money he has strived for.

@sweeneytoddsrazor so one partner can afford gym membership and the other can't. One can afford nice clothes the other shops in charity shops etc. It's not how a normal marriage works. You normally pool your resources. No way would I adapt my career to support my husband's career if he was getting all the benefit and no could I expect him to do the same the other way round.

I also notice that the people who arent willing to share money usually feel entitled to the other person's time, to cover children's illness, attend parent's evenings etc.

There isn't a law that says you both have to flog your guts out in full time work if you don't want to. I don’t disagree with the sentiment @Juliette20, but it seems on here that the man does indeed have to flog his guts out working full time (for a 6 figure salary, of course)to allow the woman the luxury of choosing exactly what, when, if and how much she will contribute, whilst still expecting control over every single penny that comes into the house.

If you're married (in England and Wales) you are both entitled to 50% of each others income, savings, assets and debts

Not entirely true. Assets acquired before marriage don’t count, neither does any inheritance that hasn’t been incorporated into marital assets. And 50% is the starting point before a lot of horse trading in many cases. My husband’s ex got 65% of the equity in their house, despite never contributing a penny.

@mrsmuddlepies - what has working part time got to do with it?
OP earns more part time than the majority of folk putting in 40 hours plus overtime, so is presumably talented & senior. In the hours she is not working, she's taking care of the kids & the house, freeing up her DH to be able to choose his own high-flying route.

OP herself has stated that she hasn't progressed as far as she would have career-wise due to having her kids - she is better placed to ratify that than you ar I are, so I can't see what you're claiming otherwise.

We don't 'share' money because my DH has bad debt so having a joint finances would really affect my credit rating. Everything mortgage, bills etc has always been in my name because of this, and his irresponsible attitude toward spending, dating back to long before we got married, and there's been no reason to change it (other than mumsnet says so ).
The way it's meant to work is he contributes a proportionate amount toward the bills and I make sure they are paid and we have savings for unexpected expenses, holidays etc. It used to work well but no longer does. Because of his track record with money I can't trust him not to blow everything on non-essential things (he would given the opportunity) so a joint account would be foolish. This is evidenced by the fact that he now hardly ever contributes and I regularly have to 'help' him out with unplanned expenses (such as money he has borrowed from a friend for a night out). He doesn't have a pension either preferring to rely on mine.

The reality is that it causes great resentment on my part that we can't share finances. He is happy because he isn't responsible for anything financial and I'll bail him out if need be. He misses payments toward our bills whenever he wants because he knows I will pay them.
I never know how much I'll have left over to spend/save because he is unreliable with his contributions. I could and should try to stop 'allowinging' him to not contribute, but he won't listen and the bills need paid so I have no choice but to pay them.

So my advice is that you don't have to share finances, but if feel you cannot share finances with your DP, or they with you, then do not get married. If you are married and you or your DH/DW feel you can't share money then it will cause problems in your relationship and you should consider your future together

Most partners would object to someone who does not want to play an equal role in providing for their family

Here we go again.
Providing for a family is about more than money.
Time & care & domestic labour are equally important.

@gingersausage To allow the woman the luxury of bringing up his kids on his behalf and the drudgery of all the housework and admin, you mean if you read most of the threads on here and about the "princes among men" who appear on them.

The book Lean In should have been written about men in the home, not women in the workplace.

Yabu because you worked part time before having kids so by working part time after having children you haven't limited yourself anymore than you had already in terms of pay or career progression. If your partner has a job that pays proportionately more than yours, that is life and I don't see why he should make up the shortfall for you.

I work part time and dh full time. When I worked full time I had more disposable income as DH had more outgoings. Why should I have subsidised him every month just so we could both have the same amount of disposable income? Now I work part time and he out earns me, at the moment dh does not have much of a disposable income but this will change when out son starts preschool. I don't see why dh should ensure we both have the same amount of disposable income. We both contribute proportionately to our household expenses and then what is left is ours to make do with. He will often spend whatever he has left whereas I might spend more one month and very little the next. I don't think finances have to be the exact same to be equal.

To allow the woman the luxury of bringing up his kids on his behalf and the drudgery of all the housework and admin, you mean

Depends on individual circumstances.
Yes, there are plenty of women to whom that applies

There are equally women who don't wish to work, have school age children, cleaners and lots of leisure time, whilst their husbands work in stressful jobs for long hours wishing their wives would take on some of the financial burden.
We tend not to get posts from the 2nd type of women on MN, because they are quite happy with their lifestyles!

We’ve never been very formal about our finances. For example we opened a joint account and never used it. 🤦‍♀️🙄 It’s purely because of disorganisation.

However what’s mine is his and vice versa. There’s never been any ‘that’s mine’ / ‘that’s yours’ and I would find it strange if that was the case. Finances aren’t split down the middle but at the same they aren’t proportioned out. I work a little for myself at the moment but for probably about 20% of my pre-child income. He earns about the same as my pre-chile income but didn’t earn that before.

@Alsohuman, that's not the case in England and Wales. It's different in other countries, Canada for example, but in the UK, all that went before counts. Important to draw up a will if you have dependents for exactly that reason, as a new spouse would be entitled to everything your widow inherits. Divorce settlements vary as it's exactly that, a settlement between two parties who are negotiating to end a contract where each has a 50% entitlement. Always factor in pension claims in divorce settlements and not get blindsided by the house. Hope the pro bono advice is useful.