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.

Some people organize their finances that way, but your son and his fiance have decided not to.

This is how we did it when I was married and I earned approximately three times what my husband did. We put all of our money into the joint account. Once the money entered the account, it belonged to the family. It didn't matter who earned what; we had the same expenses and we got the same amount to spend.

Sounds fine to me OP. Your son will be skint but financially secure as he is sharing life's overheads with his fiancée, then he'll qualify and earn more. She sounds like a good influence on him, they are living within their means.

But he already does that more or less. If he learns less, he is putting less into joint account so whatever they built up in joint is made up of more of her money and less of his. Or to simplify, if she puts 7500 a month and he puts 2500 a month, a 10k wedding will be made up of 75% of her contribution and 25% of his.
And if they get divorced, he is quids in as all their joint money will be split 50/50 making it the most cunning investment he could possibly make.

And what about if your DIL gets pregnant, will your ds provide while she is on maternity leave?

I think she is being very generous.

You are being totally unreasonable. Your DIL is putting her whole salary in to a joint account that your son has access too. Yes he has access to her whole salary and she is then being paid the same amount out of it as him for her personal spends. The pocket money might be low but they will learn and adjust it and I would assume if his car breaks down or some other emergency the joint account will cover it. Like it would for her.
I would be fuming if he was marrying my daughter and she did this with you deciding this wasn't good enough.

I’d sorry OP but you are really dense. He’s not losing all his money! Neither is she. They are pooling it and then taking out exactly the same amount of money each for discretionary expenses. That means that he can treat her to dinner out of ‘his’ money if he wants to. And she can treat him out of ‘her’ money. She is contributing more to the joint pot. In your terms, she is ‘losing’ more than he is.

They have made the decision to forgo having a lot of "spending money" so they can accumulate financial security in their joint account. This is exactly how my husband and I do it. We've both been the higher earner, we've both lost our jobs, and we've still always had equal amounts to spend and prioritised building our savings as much as possible. This has meant that we didn't struggle whilst I was on Maternity Allowance, and we were able to put a decent deposit down on our home.

But those numbers don’t work. Where does the extra £2,500 go?

Well yes he would have more than he does now, for spending as he chooses. But she would have MUCH more than she does now which would introduce an imbalance in their lifestyles. What would she do with all her spare cash - save it? In her name presumably so your son is worse off as currently they’re saving jointly. I’m really struggling to see how you don’t recognise what a good deal he’s getting. Doing it your way wouldn’t give him more protection in the event of a split, it would probably be less to be honest - as all the savings and accrued assets would probably be in her name because of her significantly higher disposable income than his!

They’ve clearly decided on a sum they feel happy having as discretionary spending and she has the same. If he is short of money then so is she, and she’s keeping a way smaller percentage of her wages to herself than he is.

DH and I do our finances this way and it’s always worked great. I can’t imagine one having more money than the other in a marriage. All money is shared in ours and what one has or hadn’t got, it’s the same for the other.

They’re doing the right thing. I hope if and when your son is the higher earner and she’s at home on maternity leave he supports her financially like she is doing for him now.

This is what I’ve just posted. Yes he would have more money but she would have shed loads more and be saving it all in her own name! He is sooo much better off under their current system.

There's no arguing with stupid. OP still can't understand that her son is better off and has more protection as the lower earner with the model they use.

Goodness me. Every update shows that the OP is either bad at both maths and comprehension, or is being deliberately obtuse because she wants to think that things are worse for her precious little boy.

Seriously, OP, your son is getting the FAR better end of the deal. They have the SAME amount of fun money, even though he earns less. Your DiL to be is paying more to support them - bills, wedding, holidays etc. Ironically if they followed your proposal your son would likely have far less than her to spend.

You need to work on your obvious dislike of your DiL to be.

Wow I guess the Mums and Sons cliche is right.

OP if you're son was on his own earning just above minimum wage he wouldn't have any fun money once rent, bills etc was coming out of his pay. Or he'd still be at home with you. Which might be your preference I guess.

Hey do pay A PERCENTAGE. You just don’t agree with the percentage even though it’s already weighted in his favour.

If they break up he will have to live w lifestyle within his means. What do you mean?? What else do you think should happen?

Why should he have 75% of his income left over? Thats fucking nuts, have you any idea how far minimum wage gets you?

For the millionth time, your son would not be financially better off after a break up. It’s like a brick wall 🤦‍♀️

They're saving for a wedding. Anything left over is sitting in the account waiting to pay the vendors for the wedding. Presumably this will change once the wedding is paid for.

We do exactly the same, and I’ll die on the hill it’s the fairest way to do it. I’m the higher earner on almost 3x DN salary.

Our monthly pocket money depends on what we’re saving. When we were saving for a wedding it was £50 a week each. Now we’re not it’s £150. It’s not really pocket money though, it’s money we get to prioritise how is spent without consulting the other. I might spend it on the hairdresser, he might want a take away one night and I’m already spent up so he’ll pay for us both.

There is no world where it would be fairer for my husband to have more free money than I do when I earn more, which is what you’re suggesting should happen here. The maths your talk about doesn’t even work - he can’t give 25% and keep 75%, because maybe even if she gives 100% then that might not be enough to cover the bills - and what, should she go into debt so your son keeps his spends?

The ONLY fair way to run finances is to have the same fun money. And if you’re saving for a wedding, no one is going to have a lot of fun money.

Could you show the maths of how you think it should work assuming your son gets paid £1,000 a month, DIL gets £3,000, bills are £2,000 and they need to save £1,000 for the wedding?

Pay 25% of bills or contribute 25% of earnings. I think that's where the confusion is coming from.

Agree, I wouldn't want my DD in this situation either. I would always encourage her to pay into her own savings.

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.

Sure, I mean if his car blows up, he doesn't have access to the larger savings now, and of course she'll be off to the Caribbean and him to Skegness since now he doesn't have enough for the same holiday she does..

They've clearly thought this through, and agreed on their savings goals and what's fair spends for each of them to be able to achieve that - that's extremely sensible

She's being amazing - giving him a much better standard of living than he'd be able to afford if they contributed to bills proportionally, despite not being married - if they split, she'll have given so much more to the relationship financially than he has.

Your maths is wrong

Eg for simplicity
She earns 2000
He earns 1000
Bill are 2500

Proportionate
She pays 66%=1650 has 350 a month spends
He pays 33%=825 and has 175 a month spends

Money in the pot and equal spends 500 left = 250 each . Your son is better off by 75 a month with this method .

I think you might be a bit off with your maths.

Say if she earns £2k a month and he earns £1k a month. Bills are £1k a month. If he pays 25% of the bills, he has £750 left over. She pays 75% of the bills, leaving her with £1250, so she would have much more than him if they were paying proportionally. And 2/3 of the money in the joint account is being provided by her.

You seem to think that the money in the joint account is hers, and money going into it has been taken off him. It's not, it's both of theirs; they've decided to use THEIR money to save for a wedding rather than buy drinks and takeaways, and also each have a small amount set aside for "fun money".

Is this a wind up? They BOTH have the same amount of spends every month. She is paying more into their joint expense account. Her money is paying for the car breakdowns, holiday, wedding. How can you not see that?

You need to understand your son is getting a good deal here (at DIL expense). They are getting the same 'pocket money' despite her earning more. The very fact she earns more means she is contributing more to their joint saving/wedding fund.

How can you not see this is an excellent deal for your son?

I'm guessing maths isn't your strong point OP. You're being pretty thick about this.

If anything your DIL is much worse off.

Sounds like a good set up and very similar to my own. Everything is joint including savings, bur we both have a ‘pocket money’ account for ourselves and this is for our spending like books etc. My husband earns 3x more than me but I’ve never felt a gap because we share everything equally and love him all the more for it.