To not see the difference between saving and inheritance?

[vibecheck]

If you were planning a fairly expensive holiday with a partner, and you’d agreed to save the money for it, but when it came time to book and pay Partner A revealed that they hadn’t saved anything and would use gifted money from a recent birthday to pay their half, would you be annoyed?

I can’t understand the difference between saving and spending money I have been gifted, but I’ve really upset my husband.

For various reasons we have separate savings accounts so he wasn’t aware that I hadn’t “saved” my half from my salary.

The OP never bothered to save and relied on the expectation of handouts even before she came into her trust fund money. That is less worthy than providing for yourself IMO. I would struggle to respect someone who had shown they were incapable of standing on their own feet financially.

I think that having different attitudes to money often spells disaster in a relationship. And I think that’s the root of the problem here really, and that’s why he’s pissed off.

I don't understand why it bothers him.

I don't understand why it bothers him. You are paying your share it's up to you how you do that.

But if your husband didn't like baking and preferred to buy one then why is he wrong? If he said yes to making one but then blatantly didn't bother and just bought one then that is wrong but if he said straight away then that should be OK, he may have other things he has put thought into as a gift.

It would be absolutely fine if he said up front he didn't like baking or didn't have time or whatever. It would also be fine if he'd agreed to make one with good intentions and then something important came up last minute and he ended up buying one instead.
But I'd be pissed off if he'd said "it doesn't really matter; it's all just cake" - which is the point (other than the lying) that OP has missed. It may not matter to her, but it does to her husband, and she's making no attempt to realise that.

Would you really not be bothered by your DH lying to you about something important?

Most people consider finances, and how they are managed, to be an important issue in a marriage.

Some people genuinely do not need to save, as bitter a pill as that may be to swallow. Depending on the size of the funds and how they’re managed, it’s perfectly possible for her to bail herself out with the money available to her without having to worry about a rainy day or whatever.

I’m not of the opinion that denying a reality and acting as if you’re worse off than you are, doing something you don’t need to do in order to appease someone else’s hang ups, is either particularly ‘worthy’, or indicative of someone standing on their own two feet. But like I said, I’m informed by own background as much as anyone else is.

I said straight away she shouldn't have lied but that aside, why would anyone have an issue with what OP does with her money, why is the DH right? The dishonesty is out of order of course but the OPs outlook is just different, not wrong

OP's outlook is fine, in a relationship with someone else who has similar approaches to finances.

The OP seems to prioritise her desire to spend over anything else. Eg offer for money to be shared so they can both spend through the money, if DH declines then continue to spend through it anyway because saving is apparently difficult. The priority is how to spend the money.

Everyone has different lines and hindsight is a wonderful thing, but there were warning signs about their financial incompatibility before they got married and before OP even had access to these funds.

TarantinoIsAMisogynist
I agree with you.
I would respect someone who had inherited a lot of wealth or was fortunate to be given investments, who had a sound approach to money, stewarded their opportunities, enjoyed their financial security, was open, honest, was able to save for joint things, and didn't have money burning a hole in their pocket. They're very fortunate and understand the value of money.

I'd struggle to respect someone who had endless handouts, had to be bailed out before they'd even accessed their trust funds, didn't want to save because it's easier to spend their investments than save for a holiday and seemed to burn through money because there's going to be some more coming their way. That outlook would be a spoilt brat outlook to me.

You're annoyed at him for not agreeing to kowtow to your vision of joint finances, OP, but have you actually demonstrated that you've changed since the wedding incident?

Because you can't just expect him to fall in with your magic money tree approach. You don't actually know if the money tree will be sufficient for your life's needs, and I'll bet heavily that the person who grew the money tree in the first place was more like your husband than you in attitude to finances.

I don’t think it’s his business how you got the money as long as you’ve got it. But I just can’t see this relationship working long term. There is NOTHING wrong with your parent bailing you out if they want to (lots of people on this thread are clearly jealous) but your partner sees it as spoilt and that probably won’t change.
you’re either going to have to thrash this out or find somebody more at your level of wealth

It is all just cake though, the same as its all just money. As long as its not getting you into debt it shouldn't matter, but the lying does. If OP had explained her point of view properly to him then he should also try to understand her feelings about it, why is he right over this?

I'm with you on the homemade cakes though 😂I wouldn't expect DH to, him thinking to go to the shop to buy one would be thought enough for me, I would usually make one though as that's my preference, he wouldn't mind if i bought one though.

Money is money! Some people have to work for every penny ( me!) some people have family money.

Money is money! Some people have to work for every penny ( me!) some people have family money.
Money is money, you're right, but how someone approaches their finances is bigger than, and vastly more important than, just having money.

Someone who is wealthy from family money, but has their head screwed on, gets clued up on long term financial planning, listens to their spouse, they agree how they're going to plan for their future etc is very different to someone who has always had handouts, has a lifelong frivolous attitude to money, and is more concerned with spending and withdrawing assets than saving for a simple holiday because it's easier.

Do you think that it’s pride that stops him wanting to benefit from your money.

I can see both sides, it’s money no matter where it’s from but he’s probably feeling a little let down because he thought that you were saving.

Equally, he can’t expect her to fall in line with his.

He married her knowing her attitude to money, and seeing it firsthand. The reality is that she does have access to money that he doesn’t, and he needs to accept this.

*and yes, depending on the size and management of the money in question, it’s entirely possible for her to be as safe as anyone can be in the knowledge that her needs throughout life will be met.

Couldn’t care less.

I can see why he would be annoyed, it's the principle of it. You say you earn similar amounts (in fact you earn slightly more than him), but whilst he's cut back and saved to afford the holiday as you both agreed you would, it then turns out you haven't bothered to save anything and just used the money you were gifted.

As others have said, I don't see the relationship working long term when you have such different attitudes to money. It will always be a point of contention unless you are both on the same page.

Those who are saying "who cares where the money comes from" are displaying a fair bit of ignorance when it comes to finances. There is a vast difference between spending revenue (your salary, interest or dividend income, drawdowns that leave your capital intact) and spending your capital. The OP is spending her capital.

Financially savvy people, even if they are very wealthy, usually take the view that short term pleasures such as holidays or expensive hobbies should only be funded from revenue. You don't deplete your capital for the sake of a holiday or some new clothes.

Whereas capital should be used to buy assets. "Assets" in this sense means something that is expected to generate income/growth for you in the long term. Houses, land, businesses, investments etc.

The OP is using her capital to buy luxuries that should be funded with revenue, and if she continues doing that, and teaches her children to do that, the family money will be gone in a generation or two at most.

So I can totally see why her DH doesn't trust her and is unhappy with her approach.

You must have all read books about old families who have one wastrel son, and the whole fortune is gone? This is how it happens. You spend your capital at your peril.

The OP's DH has his head screwed on and wants to preserve the security they have. That is definitely more worthy than just spending it.

I love Mumsnet - I want to spend a very small percentage of one investment on a holiday and suddenly I’m an 18th century wastrel son that’s going to leave my lineage bankrupt!

Still reading comments but travelling for work today so won’t be able to reply much, but as always thanks for thoughts and I particularly appreciate the opinions of people who some experience with this kind of set up.

Sure, but that doesn’t mean that’s what’s happening here. I’m also not seeing the husband being one that wants to preserve it rather than someone who wants nothing to do with it.

we don’t know how much money is in play here, or how it’s managed. OP may only be accessing a small amount of certain funds on the occasions that she is accessing them and not relying on her income.

TarantinoIsAMisogynist
You've hit the nail on the head.

I wonder if her DH can see potentially intergenerational levels of life transforming wealth getting pissed up a wall because it's easier to take out of investments than save a little towards a holiday.

for most people "living within your means" means not raiding savings or buying it on credit. it doesn't mean you don't use a credit card but that you pay credit card bill in full every month. It also means that all expenditure comes from income including holidays car repairs presents etc
I think her DH wants to see that she can live on her income and use it for holidays without using her savings / funds etc as there can be stock market crashes so her trust fund is worth 50 % less than it was last year sometimes banks collapse etc maybe he worries that her back up could fail that for some reason she doesn't inherit. Obviously OP says many things are in her name now she is 25 but if the pension fund performed poorly or there was an accident that prevented working it would be needed
I think he was looking for evidence that they could do what they wanted on income without raiding the nest egg even if it is hers to do with as she pleased
it is just knowing that we are responsible enough with money that if worst came to worst they can survive and thrive on income alone. Possibly he thinks that in their 20's the nest egg should be growing from investment so they can retire early buy property outright rather than dwindling.

Maybe this is me being the same as her DH with the view that often we start our 20's with debt student loans etc maybe to get first car as we need it for first job but have no money to buy it with but gradually we start to pay off debt and build savings to the point ( using some as house deposit) then building savings again both for retirement and if children their education or uni or deposits as well, we expect savings to be at maximum level when we want to retire then we start using them, or if very wealthy taking the interest to add to income rather than reinvesting the interest as before

for most people "living within your means" means not raiding savings or buying it on credit. it doesn't mean you don't use a credit card but that you pay credit card bill in full every month. It also means that all expenditure comes from income including holidays car repairs presents etc

Yes - 100%

"Living within your means" means that you live on your revenue streams. Lots of things could be included in that - property income, dividend income etc., but it needs to be revenue not capital.

Before, it was a bit of cash for a wedding.

This year, its a small percentage of one investment for a holiday.

What about next year's holiday? What about when you want a new car? Or want to do something big as part of your expensive hobby?

If you can't save, all of that stuff will be coming from your capital. Unless it's an absolutely huge pot, you will burn through a lot of the family wealth.