Not to merge finances

[Whatsyoursismine]

Something came up elsewhere and I’d be interested in views….

DH and I don’t merge finances. I earn approx 3x more. We have a joint account that we pay into in proportion to our earnings for mortgage, bills, DCs stuff etc…

I work longer hours. I work harder. He could work harder but just isn’t motivated too (which is fine). He would accept I do 50% of childcare and children related stuff. I actually do more, but perhaps we can assume its 50/50 for present purposes.

Some people seem to think our finances should be merged. AIBU to think they shouldn’t. Obviously would be very different if he did more childcare/sacrified his career etc. But that’s not the case.

Hard hat on. Interested in thoughts…

You can’t 100% trust anyone. You just can’t, in the same way you can’t predict the future. You can no more guarantee that your marriage will last forever than you can guarantee you’ll make it to your 81st birthday or that you’ll win the lottery.

Tbh it sounds like you’re almost using this as some kind of punishment because he doesn’t pull his weight or work hard enough. In which case, you’ve got more important things to worry about than merging your finances.
FWIW I think it makes life easier if you do, no keeping track of ‘oh well I bought the last takeaway, you can buy it now’ or ‘I need £3.50 for half this T-shirt I’ve just bought the kid’

But anyone who says they "don't attach meaning to money" has lived a very charmed existence indeed and is at risk if they don't give this any thought.

I can tell you now nothing about my upbringing was charmed.

I grew up in poverty with a mother and her partner. She didn’t work and he was emotionally and financially abusive.

I attach meaning to money - it means my kids are well fed and clothed, that I’m not hungry.

My husband works more hours than me (I wanted to work part time after DC) and he brings home more than double what I do every month.

Our finances have been merged since I was pregnant with off DC (eight years ago) and anything else would feel strange.

It’s marriage, we work as one unit.

The thing is that shared finances in marriage are designed to protect the partner who stays at home with the children (in the vast majority of cases the woman). They are a way of protecting this partner and the children from destitution.

To be blunt, most men don't need this protection (unless they are sick or disabled). They don't bear children, they rarely are the sole carer and their financial wellbeing isn't usually negatively impacted by marriage.

There is no intrinsic requirement for marriage to mean you take all of mine and I take all of yours.

It's not the job of a woman with children to carry a healthy, able bodied adult who can support himself.

I realise this is an over-simplification but the point I am making is that the shared finances bit of marriage came into place to support children, not as an intrinsic perk of marriage.

But I know if the sexes were reversed & it was the man earning 3 times as much as the woman & not wanting to share finances there would've uproar on here.

^This. YABU

I’ll be in similar circumstances except the only child will be mine who by then will be relatively financially independent but probably still at home for a while. My partner is of the view that all bills/savings come out of one account and are contributed to equally. But then the rest of our money remains our own - his rationale is he might want to buy himself something relatively expensive and doesn’t want to feel he’s doing this with my money (I’m the higher earner by about double), or feel he has to ask me. I understand that.

@drpet49

*But I know if the sexes were reversed & it was the man earning 3 times as much as the woman & not wanting to share finances there would've uproar on here.*

^This. YABU

But again: its not about creating financial parity in the marriage, its about protection for the child-bearing partner.

There's a moral and obligation for the partner who is earning money to support the partner who is not able to earn money due to bearing and raising children -- at least for the period when the children are dependent. When do you see men excluded from the workforce for years taking a serious hit to their finances because they are at home raising children? Almost never.

We have a joint account and share finances, DP is the higher earner.
I get raised eyebrows from people for it but it works well for us.
Just do what's best for you both who cares what people think.

I don’t know if it makes a difference but when I took maternity leave, I funded that from my savings (plus statutory allowance - am self employed) and continued to pay bills etc in same ratio as if I was working.

@Whatsyoursismine

I don’t know if it makes a difference but when I took maternity leave, I funded that from my savings (plus statutory allowance - am self employed) and continued to pay bills etc in same ratio as if I was working.

Not to me tbh. I only got statutory and we worked out TOGETHER how much we needed to save and how to split money fairly.

I think it’s weird to find it entirely yourself - like it’s your decision only.

Yeah doesn't make a difference to me either, we saved together before hand.

We’ve been married 10 years and don’t have a joint account. We earn about the same now, as I’ve caught up.

He’s got kids, was supporting them and ex wife when we met. A lot. E.g. tickets to fly them all back to the states in the holidays to see their relatives.

We own a house together, and finances aren’t an issue, we’re lucky in that.

We occasionally talk about getting a joint account but he got burnt by ex regularly emptying their account so while he knows I’m quite careful and wouldn’t do that psychologically he’s happier with it separate. I’m happy with it as it is. Feeling of independence that’s important to me.

I occasionally transfer him money if he’s paid something big and vice versa. But it mostly probably works out. E.g I pick up oil costs, he pays electric but just because that’s who sorted it out in the beginning.

@Whatsyoursismine

Something came up elsewhere and I’d be interested in views….

DH and I don’t merge finances. I earn approx 3x more. We have a joint account that we pay into in proportion to our earnings for mortgage, bills, DCs stuff etc…

I work longer hours. I work harder. He could work harder but just isn’t motivated too (which is fine). He would accept I do 50% of childcare and children related stuff. I actually do more, but perhaps we can assume its 50/50 for present purposes.

Some people seem to think our finances should be merged. AIBU to think they shouldn’t. Obviously would be very different if he did more childcare/sacrified his career etc. But that’s not the case.

Hard hat on. Interested in thoughts…

It's hard to say really. On the face of it it's a massive mumsnet double standard but without knowing a bit more details (without specifics) it might be fine or it might not be.

If he's ticking along nicely with a bit of spare change a month that's fine. If he's walking barefoot to work because his shoes have fallen apart and he can't afford a car then not so much.

Him working less will get picked up but IMO that's not as relevant as some will make out unless he's slashed his hours since he married you.

It's perfectly possible to share financial contributions fairly without sharing control over all money.

Trusting someone is something that only makes sense if the benefits outweigh the risks. If I need to jump from the window of a burning building, I will trust the firefighters to catch me, because the alternative seems worse. If the building is not on fire, it doesn't matter how much I trust the firefighters, I'm not jumping. (Presumably in the latter case it's a training exercise...)

In the very unlikely even that I married someone with a lot more money than me, if they tried to give me unfettered access to their bank account, I would refuse and lecture them for doing so. That level of trust isn't necessary to achieve fair shared finances, therefore they should not do it, regardless of how low they believe the risk may be.

DH and i do not have a shared bank account, but that is pure laziness in that we haven’t bothered to organise it, we absolutely both consider our money as shared money.

If you want to manage your money as separate and are both happy with that then of course that is fine. But there seems to be some flawed thinking in that if you do this and have separate bank accounts that the money is not joint assets. It is.

Having been in a relationship where my ex was a spender and I’m a saver and who left me with all the debts and the children to raise when he left I think it’s incredibly wise to keep money separate. Put in to the house pot according to earnings but for spending/saving definitely separate.

For women in particular, it’s very often them who end up with the children to raise single handed if a relationship fails so to have a good buffer is important.

I'm not saying no-one should have joint finances, there are scenarios where there are real benefits and/or negligible risks. Usually ones where earnings are fairly equal, or total earnings are not much more than total outgoings.

No in these circumstances where your DH has not sacrificed his career to support yours, and doesn’t do the bulk of the childcare/housework your financial set up makes sense.

Shared finances only work if one party has sacrificed their career to support the other.

If OP does the bulk of the childcare and earns more why would she be expected to pay more towards the household than her DH?

According to OP nothing is stopping her DH from pursuing a higher paid career he’s chosen not to. Neither party is going without and the child are provided for.

So nope I’d not merge finances under these circumstances either. What’s the point in it?

Hmm, we did have joint account and everything went into it, but it did not work for us.
DH has a completely different attitude to money than me and it caused a lot of friction.
We now have separate accounts and are much happier.
And we have been married for 40 years!

Shared finances only work if one party has sacrificed their career to support the other.

Exactly this. It's not an automatic perk of marriage.

For women in particular, it’s very often them who end up with the children to raise single handed if a relationship fails so to have a good buffer is important.

And this.

Also worth noting that it isn't just the risk of a partner cheating or leaving which is a consideration. There are multiple reasons why a good, strong marriage is enhanced by both parties having some financial autonomy. It just makes for a healthier, more grown-up mindset and better protection in the event of a worst-case scenario.

That's not to say people shouldn't eg share an account for bills or whatever.

But the idea that just because you trust someone you hand over total control to one another's finances strikes me as a wilful misinterpretation of what marriage is about.

Married 30 years and had a prenup because when we married I earned more and had capital. He, however, had better prospects and within three years I had given up work and didn't work for 8 years.

We have never had a joint account. When I didn't work I bought what we needed and gave him an account at the end of the month. He never questioned a single penny. Expenses included: food, an occasional lunch, children's stuff, occasional clothes and hairdressing, dentist, etc. I did everything at home - he worked murderous hours.

When I went back to work part-time, I earnt £8k (started at the bottom again). He was a very high earner by then and paid for everything - my earnings increased significantly over 10 years - he still pays the bills.

We have never had a joint account. He has bought a couple of very very expensive things without consultation. I sometimes buy very expensive shoes and raise an eyebrow if he notices. I know roughly what he has; he knows roughly what I have; we both know where each others paperwork is in the event of a crisis. When the children were small he transferred a sizeable sum to an account of mine to keep us going for 6 months in the event that anything happened to him.

I have facilitated his career (MNet crime) but overall I think we have invested equally into our family - more my emotion and domestic work when the children were younger.

If men and women are equal what DH and I did in reverse shouldn't really be an issue if the man stays at home. What we did worked because dh always valued what I did on the home front and supported me when I went back to work albeit from a work life balance pov it had to be local because of the children and rarely could he step in if they were ill although if he could he did (surgeon/pilot genre but not that).

Different arrangements clearly work for different people, but this is my perspective, (and for information I'm a man.)

I have typically earned significantly (3 to 10 times) more than DW.
All income in our house is joint income. To my mind when there is a major inequality of earnings, any other solution risks bad feelings (and could look like financial abuse). If the salary situation was reversed in our house that would make no difference to our financial arrangements.
@Whatsyoursismine, I don't think you have made any comment about your DH's view on the arrangement. Is he completely happy with the arrangement?

@TedMullins

You can’t 100% trust anyone. You just can’t, in the same way you can’t predict the future. You can no more guarantee that your marriage will last forever than you can guarantee you’ll make it to your 81st birthday or that you’ll win the lottery.

I can and I do My marriage is not perfect and it may not last but I chose a man who will be fair if we ever do split. He's a decent man, sorry you don't understand. I feel so sorry for anyone who is married and having to constantly look over their shoulder. Must be tiring.

@Merryoldgoat

But anyone who says they "don't attach meaning to money" has lived a very charmed existence indeed and is at risk if they don't give this any thought.

I can tell you now nothing about my upbringing was charmed.

I grew up in poverty with a mother and her partner. She didn’t work and he was emotionally and financially abusive.

I attach meaning to money - it means my kids are well fed and clothed, that I’m not hungry.

Well done on taking my quote out of context.