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.

You’re devoting a lot of time to thinking about something that is none of your business, OP. The least you could do is make sure you’ve understood the maths properly before deciding that your precious baby boy is being rinsed by your wicked DIL 🙄

Op you really are bad at maths. You may think that he has too low spending money but there's no scenario in which he would get more money for himself

But then it would no longer be equal.

The crucial question here is, do you think he should have more money leftover than her?

We do exactly this, although we have a fun money in our joint too for meals out etc. Before we had kids I was the higher earner, now I work part time DH is, but in he long run my earning potential is much higher. Having the same amount of fun money means that it's fair.

If they're saving for a wedding it makes sense (and seems very sensible of them) that they'd reduce the amount of fun money that have. We get £100 each a month because we're prioritising other financial goals. When I'm working full time again and we don't have kids in nursery, we'll have more fun money.

Its coming across that you don't think it's fair because it's not what you'd do/did. I think the idea of getting a lump sum from my husband each month rather than us both getting equal fun money sounds horribly degrading and not like teamwork at all.

Surely it is much lower bexause they are saving for the wedding (and perhaps a house)

I really don’t see what yiur issue is?

They sound very sensible only giving themselves a low amount of spending money knowing that they have a wedding to pay for.
Would you rather that your DS had more spending money and then couldn't pay for the wedding?
They sound very sensible

I think op may mean he would have more control of the money if they did it by percentages but that doesn't make sense either.

Eg if they both have 500 pocket money now. If he just paid his share of the bills he may have £1000 left which is actually more. She isn't taking into account savings, the wedding, holidays etc whicn if he contributed, as many have demonstrated, be worse off.

Do you just want dil to pay for the wedding, holidays, joint expenses?

Doesn’t make sense to me as I think she should be paying given the discrepancies

But there are no discrepancies, she has levelled the playing field for him by having the same amount of spending money as he has.

Why can’t you see that she is giving 100% of her earnings to him (via the joint account) and then just getting out a small bit for her, which is exactly the same as the small amount that he gets too?

The way they do it is financially more beneficial to your son than what you are suggesting they do. She is being far more generous than you can bring yourself to give her credit for!

If she was my DD I would be telling her she is mad and to not be so financially generous until she has a wedding band on her finger.

That sounds fair to me, income can fluctuate over time and perhaps he'll be the higher earner one day. Respectfully OP, this post screams "Mummy's poor little boy" 🙄

There are three key things here OP

1 - they both get the same 'pocket money'
2 - everything leftover after bills goes into a joint savings account that they both own, not their own savings accounts.
3 - She is contributing waaaay more to the joint account.

Your son is onto a winner here and it sounds like they both have their head screwed on when it comes to saving for things they want.

It was kinda lighthearted comment. The odd takeaway doesn't really matter where it comes from but I do think joint account would he the best choice or each pays their own from their fun money or the person who wants it more should pay. But if your son wants to then go for it. She shouldn't be paying for it automatically from her fun money since she is getting the same amount of fun money eventhough she pays majority of their expenses.

Maybe he has less will power when it comes to food? Maybe she is happy to go without takeaways? Maybe she cooks every night to save money but DS has to take a turn so suggests takeaway as he doesn't want to cook, therefore his idea and laziness mean he pays?

So essentially then your DIL is supporting him through college and he is extremely lucky. Because I can tell you on minimum wage there is no way he'd be able to afford a property, save for a wedding PLUS have disposable income at the end of the month. He has seriously landed on his feet having a partner who is supporting him in this incredible way. Shocking that instead of being grateful that your son has the opportunity to presumably train for a new career, you're suprised that he's not able to squeeze more out of her. What a shame

OK I've got the numbers to work for the ops maths . See if you can spot the massive flaw in her logic.

He earns £1000

She earns £4000

So he earns 25% of what she does.

Bills are high at £4000. Then they each have £500 a month spend.

If he pays 25% of his salary for bills £250 and then keeps £750 for spends

She pays in 75% of her salary £3000.

However, they are only paying £3250 into the account and this is less than the bills!

Yes this! But not her paying. I think it would be fairer if they paid a percentage for everything.

eg he would pay 25% of his bills and then have 75% left over. When a wedding fee came he would pay 25% out of it. It doesn’t make sense for him to lose all of his money when she is the higher earner. What if they were to break up? Then there’s no protection as the lower earner.

I'm assuming it's a low amount because they're madly saving for the wedding. It's not like she's splashing the cash and he's scrimping.

I think how the numbers work in OP's mind

DIL's monthly income £5,000
DS's monthly income £500

expenses & savings = £3,000 pcm
If DS were only responsible to pay 10% of total outgoing, his outgoing would only be £300 pcm and he could keep £200

But at the moment they are allocating £100 per month each as pocket money

But it still costs him the same to live there. Why should she subsidise him? We both earn the same amount (although I work less hours on a higher rate) we pay the same. But when I was on less I still paid 50% because it's a partnership, I expect equality in other areas, why not financially?

If they've decided not to eat out because they're using that money to save for the wedding then it makes perfect sense that they would pay for it out of their personal spends. That money is for them to do whatever they want to do with and if one of them says hey I'd like to have Chinese food for dinner tonight then they use their personal money for it. That will probably change once the wedding is paid for.

I can only assume you don’t understand maths or finance very well. They are clearly choosing to keep a considerable sum in the joint account. Maybe saving up for future big expenses. Very sensible.

Why do you still think he should have more personal money? Have you not looked at the various examples people have posted to show he is doing well out of this arrangement

When he has finished college and if he ends up earning more than his partner will you be back complaining that he is hard done by and should have a higher percentage of savings

1. It’s really none of your business
2. You’re really bad at maths

But she would be even more fucked than him if they broke up. In fact he'd be better of. She would just lose. She's scrimping even more with her fun money since she's earning more.

I wonder how much money DS would have left over if he wasn't living with his partner? I am guessing none and that actually he wouldn't be able to afford to live alone.
He sounds very lucky to have a supportive partner enabling him to retrain.

She has put all her money into a joint account OP! If they were to break up, it is her that is the vulnerable party, not him. He could clean the account out of all the money if he was a shit! He could definitely and legally take 50%.