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…

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

This is what marriage itself is for.

I don't disagree with the split as a concept, but you're married.

Better hope you don't get divorced...

@TECMH

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.

We don't begrudge eachother buying things for ourselves. There's no power play. We discuss and decide together.

@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.

Why on earth are you even married?

@Summerleaves

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

This is what marriage itself is for.

Yes it is: but its not designed simply to iron out disparities in the partners' finances or to render one partner wholly dependent on the other.

Obviously in practice the outcome of marriage is a shared pool of assets so legally what's his is hers and vice versa.

But there is very sound logic for both partners maintaining control over their own income and assets.

The argument that keeps being made here is that if you have trust in someone (a slightly arbitrary concept anyway), you should automatically be prepared to hand over all financial autonomy.

In fact the basic principle should be about providing a financial safety net for the partner who is raising children. It isn't just a blanket financial parity for its own sake: that incentivises abuse and dependency.

People here don’t seem to understand the difference between joint accounts and shared finances. We have separate accounts but all the money is considered ours, it’s just stored in two places. We are still a partnership, have trust and will move money between accounts as and when needed, it’s just more practical on a day to day level knowing what you have available to spend. DH earns 4 times the amount I do, but he pays the lion share of the bills, we have similar spends left once the direct debits have come out. It’s worked for the last 28 years, can’t see any reason to change it.

@YANBU. You can do what you want in your own relationship. I am glad that my husband and I have enough trust, communication and compatibility to allow each other the freedom to keep our money separate and still be able to pay the bills and have a nice life

I and I’m sure many others would hate to have to ‘discuss and decide together’ before making an expensive purchase if I wanted to. It makes far more sense to keep the leftover money after bills are paid in separate accounts so nobody has to do this. It’s pretty obvious why OP saved and funded her mat leave isn’t it, for those being obtuse? Because she earns 3x more so if she didn’t save for it how much would her partner realistically be able to put aisle?

Aside* not aisle

I'm confused. But you have merged finances! You have a joint mortgage, you pay the bills proportional to your wages. And I'm going to go and say that you will not go on holiday on your own with the kids because he can't afford it.
Or be buying Loewes bags if your partner would struggle to buy basic clothing.
You probably are saving more and expecting to have a better pension, which is totally acceptable if you are earning more.

You have to do what's right for your own family. I have friends with separate finances and I can't quite fathom it all, but it really doesn't matter what I think.

For us, it works best to have all the money going into a joint account. DH earns 3x my salary, however he is clueless with money (he's an accountant!)
He has literally no idea about household expenditure. I organise everything, do all household admin, holiday bookings, school payments etc and all payments come from this joint account.
I take a set amount each month and send it to my individual account. I use that for 'me' stuff, for my small business expenses (which is separate from my day job), for clothes, makeup, trips out with friends and so on. All large purchases are discussed before purchasing.

When we moved home 3 years ago, it was completely led by me. I just asked him to sign on the dotted line. He's so clueless, its just a little bit frightening, but it suits us doing it this way. He trusts that I don't have a pot squirreled away somewhere. Which I could do and he wouldn't notice...

I do think it would be interesting to have a straw poll: in how many scenarios where posters advocate totally pooled finances is the woman the breadwinner or the significantly higher earner?

@Summerleaves
But why should personal purchases be discussed and decided together?
In a situation where nobody has sacrificed anything to raise children - why is the partner entitled to all of the higher income earner's extra earnings? They already contribute more when they put into the joint pot in proportion of earnings.
Of course this depends on the income disparity : 30K vs 90K is very different from 15K vs 45K.
But generally speaking it doesn't matter where the money is kept.

If budgeting is done properly and X amount is needed to run the household/pay for holidays/savings/etc - then X goes into joint account(s) with proportional contribution from each partner.

It's then clear how much money is left for each partner to do with as they wish. Why does either partner need to justify how they spend this - it doesn't impact the family as it's extra? I'd find that very controlling.

They already contribute more when they put into the joint pot in proportion of earnings.

This is the crux.

I don't see an arbitrary amount of money as 'contributing'.

I see time, emotional support, practical help, quality companionship as contributing.

How much someone earns is largely a matter of luck. Men are often in professions which pay better because society values men's 'contribution' more than women's. That doesn't mean women are worth less in real terms. So I reject the value association of money. Money does not equal worth to me. We are equal.

We don't begrudge eachother buying things for ourselves. There's no power play. We discuss and decide together.

I don’t want to “decide together” how to spend my money, it’s mine and I want to spend it as I please.

I’ve been married 20 years and we’re both very happy with separate finances.

Oh and we don't discuss and agree every personal purchase, just the really big ones.

Eg husband has a boat that cost thousands.

Would have been a bit miffed if he'd just bought it at the expense of a summer holiday but we discussed and agreed.

I wanted a new bathroom, would not have unilaterally signed off on it. Discussed and agreed.

I have never understood not sharing finances when you are married, have children and share your lives in so many ways. On MN I seem to be very much in the minority but not so much in the real world. When DH and I first got together - living together - 34 years ago, he wrote out his earnings and expenses and showed me what was left and said that was ours to share. Over the years our salaries have fluctuated but we have always shared.

The issue for me is not the joint finances, it's that you're not on the same page. I mean, while you're working and looking after the children, what is he doing? It doesn't sound like a partnership at all.

I think if a couple prefer to have proportional amounts paid to a joint account and they each keep their own cash to spend, that's fine if it works for them (it would never work for me). But I don't really understand it when the couple's overall lives are just so different to each other and it doesn't feel ike there's any sort of shared goal. It's so weird.

I earn 5x what DH does. He does far more childcare than me as his hours are based on the assumption that he'll only work when he isn't needed for childcare. He also takes on plenty of other tasks and responsibilities. We do share all money. But more importantly, we both feel like we're working together towards a shared objective - a nice life, happy and stable children etc.

And I've been on solo holidays and with friends which cost hundreds. Just let him know to make sure it didn't clash with his plans, not asking for permission just checking in.

@Summerleaves

They already contribute more when they put into the joint pot in proportion of earnings.

This is the crux.

I don't see an arbitrary amount of money as 'contributing'.

I see time, emotional support, practical help, quality companionship as contributing.

How much someone earns is largely a matter of luck. Men are often in professions which pay better because society values men's 'contribution' more than women's. That doesn't mean women are worth less in real terms. So I reject the value association of money. Money does not equal worth to me. We are equal.

The discussion is about joint finances - therefore the word 'contributing' is in the context of money. Also while it's not relevant to the discussion please stop spreading the rubbish that being a higher earner is gendered and a matter of luck. It is , yes based on life circumstance (you will have a much easier time of it being from a middle class family who make you aware of options) but women are just as capable of choosing highly paid professions as men. Low paid jobs are not due to gender but because of supply/demand and profit generated. Again - once women have children etc there is also an equality issue but if women wanted to earn more there's nothing stopping them from becoming programmers, lawyers, accountants. It's not like men enter these because they're 'oh so fun' and they luuuurve doing them.

The issue for me is not the joint finances, it's that you're not on the same page. I mean, while you're working and looking after the children, what is he doing? It doesn't sound like a partnership at all.

that's an entirely fair point.

The big picture question for me is how to you create a financial structure for a partnership which allows for the massive fluctuations in income and in financial goals and aspirations which happens throughout the lifetime of a marriage.

As has been said (not least by me), marriage is mainly designed to support the person who is rendered financially vulnerable through their inability to work. So in this circumstance "family money" is entirely right and appropriate.

But crafting a financial plan for a marriage which could potentially last 50+ years and incorporate big changes in the partners' earning capacity needs something with a bit more fine-tuning. And I do think its really important that although you may have shared bank accounts etc, you both, if possible, have access to your own money.

I don't know what the perfect solution to this is btw: I just think the kneejerk "it should all be pooled" doesn't really handle it.

women are just as capable of choosing highly paid professions as men

I never said they weren't.

Low paid jobs are not due to gender but because of supply/demand and profit generated.

Of course it's not always true that women earn less than men but if you haven't noticed that the traditionally 'female' jobs like nursing are paid less than the traditionally 'male' jobs of engineering you haven't been paying attention.

please stop spreading the rubbish that being a higher earner is gendered and a matter of luck

It's not rubbish. Being a high earner is not intrinsically gendered. But there's no escaping the fact that taking time out to raise children damages your earning capacity. And the fact that in the overwhelming majority of cases it is the woman who performs this role.

If you're both happy with the arrangement then it's fine.

Quite an assumption there @Summerleaves with your power play comment! Baffling!

If my chap wants to buy himself a £6k bike with his own spending money/savings he absolutely does not need to discuss it with me. That would be controlling of me in the extreme. I could do likewise and he wouldn’t bat an eye but things I’d purchase naturally cost less, so he feels better if he funds his own hobby. He knows I’m happy to share finances regardless. We met in our late 40’s, we’re both financially stable. Now in our 50’s we trust each other as you and your husband do but don’t feel the need to demonstrate that by sharing all our finances.