Is this a fair way to split finances?

[BittySpider]

It’s my Son and his partner so I know it’s realistically none of my business but had an convo with him today and wondering if I am being unfair thinking this is unreasonable?

My Son and his partner are getting married in the summer. The live together. The topic of finances came up today as we were discussing the wedding and we have offered them a few K towards it.

He told me that the way they have always split their finances is that they have a joint account both wages are paid into. All direct debits for bills come out of that account including house, bills, subscriptions etc. Food shop money also comes out of that. Then they both transfer themselves the exact same amount from the joint account on pay day and this is to cover all personal expensive such as their phones, petrol, coffees, clothes etc. He said they don’t take from the joint unless absolutely necesssary and if one of them runs out they might say to the other can I borrow a tenner and then on payday they will give it the other person back out of their personal allowance.

I asked about takeaways or date nights and he said one person will usually cover it out of their “pocket money” but they don’t take it out of the joint unless it was a special treat like an anniversary. All holidays and other joint costs come out of the joint but as they’re getting married all of wedding costs are being paid from the money building up in the joint account. He said if one of them had their car break down then they’d take money out of the joint to fix it too. He also said they both have their own personal savings accounts too but these are currently neglected due to paying for wedding.

FWIW my DIL earns much more than him. DS doesn’t earn much more than minimum wage. I know it’s none of my business so I won’t say anything but AIBU to think this is a bit tight? Personally I think bills should be split proportionately to what they earn. The amount that they take out each for pocket money isn’t a lot and he’d have a lot more left over if they split it differently.

But if it was the other way around and the male was the higher earner then I think his low earning partner would expect him to transfer a lump sum of money to her every pay day?

If both parties have access to the joint account, there’s no need for anyone to be transferring lump sums?

I do know my Grandad used to give grandma “housekeeping” money, are you thinking about that?

You'll need to give us actual numbers to show how he is worse off.

Example
Her income
His income

Outgoings
Mortgage/rent
Utilities
Food
Transport

Like above, he's living at a much better rate than he earns, because she is subsidising him. What do you do as a job, I hope you don't work in finance!

Let’s imagine in the near future that he has finished college and he now earns more than her. Do you think that she should then get more “pocket money” than your son as the lower earner? Or should they get equal spending money, or should he keep more of his money as the higher earner? I’m interested to know what you think should happen if their earning roles reverse?

To use examples with actual cash.

He earns £1000 a month.

She earns £2000 a month.

Bills £2000 a month.

Then they get £500 a month fun money each.

She pays £1500 a month bills.

He pays £500 a month bills.

She is paying three times as much in cash than he is.

It's very much unfair on her

Before kids, DH and I had separate accounts and kept our own salaries in those, splitting all bills etc as they came in. Now I work part time, we have agreed to keep separate accounts but be responsible for different things. So DH covers the mortgage, bills, food shops, and I cover everything else (days out, school dinner monies, clothes etc for DS, xmas gifts etc). It works well for us.

You are deluded. Mind your own business.

Goodness me OP, I'd be brushing up on my maths while trying to bring myself swiftly out of the 1940's! Your DIL is worse off here, not your son!

I'm still struggling to see why you think it's unfair.

Do you think your son should pay a proportion of bills and keep all of the rest of his income for himself? And moneybags DIL can pay for the wedding, holidays and boiler repairs on her own?

I’ve seen many a thread on Mumsnet where people discuss fair finances within a marriage, when one persons earns more than the other.

Usually it’s a debate between 50/50, everything into the joint pot, or paying in a percentage of earnings.

I’ve never in my life heard someone say that the lower earner should have more spending money than the higher earner 🤣

The fact that everyone has explained to the OP in detail that her maths is wrong and precisely how her son is getting a much better deal than his fiancée - yet she persists in failing to understand or acknowledge that, makes me think she is going to be THAT mother in law. You know, the one for whom no one and nothing is good enough for her little prince…

So really this is none of your business.

Am I the only one who thinks it is a reverse and in fact your son earns the larger salary and you are worried about him not getting enough of what he earns?

I'm ill and bored and therefore I am trying to make ops maths work.

But I genuinely can't think of a set of numbers where, he would be better off, under her suggestion

No, definitely crossed my mind too !!

Or her little prince is actually the higher earner ?

I’m not sure you’ve got the maths right.

If both wages go into the same account and they both take exactly the same amount of ‘pocket money’ each, he is getting at the least the same if not more than he would get if they both received their own wages and contributed to bills proportionate to wages.

How would it be fair if he took more when he is the one contributing less?

That aside it sounds like they have a system that works for them that they are both happy with!

She didn’t say income. She said assets.

1. None of your business whatsoever.

1. Your DS is getting an equal amount to his partner despite earning a lot less, he is better off financially for being with her, not the other way round.

My god. I can't believe you can't understand how good a deal he has here.

He earns a fraction of what she earns, yet they have equal spends. Couldn't be more fair.

She pools her money with his every month, they have exactly the same amount of discretionary money and the retained funds in the joint account pays for joint expenses like the wedding and car repairs… But you think she owes him more than that? WTF are you on about!?

How much more is she earning than him % wise?

Exactly this. OP are you somehow delusional?

"You are all saying he’s better off but he isn’t! The money he gets to keep is far smaller than what he would keep if they paid % towards bills and kept their own money after that."

Lets test that. So same scenario, say she earns £3000/month and he earns £1500/month. Rent, bills, food etc cost £2000. If they paid a percentage relative to income, she would pay 77% (£1540) and he would pay 33% (£660)
Left over is £840 for him and £1460 for her.

So instead of each getting £1000 spending money, he would be worse off by £160, and she is £460 better off.

Seems your issue is more that they are not giving themselves enough spending money, but that is their choice, their priorities, not yours.

If their money is going into a joint account to pay bills and save, and they are both taking the same amount of spending money, then given that he earns less, she already is covering more of the bills. He also has more spending money than he would have proportionate to their earnings, so l’d butt out. He’s getting a good deal.

I think it’s ironic that you think your son’s extremely fair and diplomatic set up is ‘degrading’ when imo yours was the ultimate in degradation - to be handed pin money and a pat on the head by your spouse, ugh. Where is the transparency? Your financial independence? Your self respect? I’m guessing he was the one to decide how much you were allowed too. Not for me thanks.

None of your business. If it works for them that’s enough.