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…

YANBU. I always think in a relationship you should each be splitting bills and costs 50/50. The general MN opinion seems to be the opposite of that. I just can’t understand how my partner could pay more and still see me as a equal.

I’m just always intrigued with how this stuff works in practice. Do you holiday alone or with friends for example because he can’t afford it? Are you building up a pot of savings that won’t be shared with him?

Genuinely interested. We don’t pool finances because we don’t really need to, we each pay for whatever, which I admit is a very privileged position to be in. It tends to work out that I pay for most stuff and OH does the saving/investing (in each of our names and for the kids, before anyone thinks he’s just saving for himself, he’s topped my pension up for me for example)

We don't pool finances however we try to be equal so contribution to bill account which covers literally every bill and household expense inc childrens things/lessons and savings etc is proportional to wage so I pay say 10% and dh pays 90%

Holidays we both save in an account

I think that sounds fine. We do exactly what you do. We’re both very equal partners when it comes to the dc, though I do take some more time off with them as I have annual leave (Dh is self employed so no paid leave). But we both work hard, have similar life and financial goals and like having our own money.

@NakedAttraction for us all household bills will be shared and we’ll have our joint social pot - holidays, eating out, pub etc. We’ll have a joint savings pot too. If one of us goes on holiday without the other, it will come from our own money. If I decide to buy a pricey handbag, it comes from my money. I will continue to support big expenses for my child from my own money though if he came on holiday with us, my chap would insist our joint fund paid for him too. He like to dabble on the stock market and he does this with his own funds, as our approach to that type of risk is different. But that doesn’t impact out joint security

@Summerleaves

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.

Why don't you compare nursing with an equivalent professions (that provides a one-to-one service and have medium barriers to entry) like plumbing, welding or joinery? Also all male dominated. Instead you compare it to a profession that is very well paid because of high barriers to entry. This isn't even counting the profit element of the job...

This is not a discussion about what services should be valued more - just pointing out that the reason is not female domination.

@thepeopleversuswork

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.

That comment was made in the context of 'luck' in relation to choosing professions.

Also presumably a lawyer returning to work while earning less than her 'male,never taken time off work' counterparts is still a higher earner because she chose to become a lawyer, rather than something else that makes less money?

I'm in a very similar financial position (earn 3x more than DH) although he does only work 4 days (mutual decision - he looks after DS3 on his non working day). We split finances proportionate to our income to meet all household / family expenses but the rest is our own to do with as we like so I have more disposable income left over. Works for us.

If it ain’t broke…

All fine as long as there is no seep of resentment.

Are you fine with him not wanting to earn more? Does your spending power for hold and home improvement give you more of a day? Will you both have a good retirement plan or will his smaller pot (if that is the case) tue you to weekends in Eastbourne while you long for East Asia?