Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Is this a fair way to split finances?

651 replies

BittySpider · 22/01/2025 16:02

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.

OP posts:
Gwenhwyfar · 22/01/2025 19:15

" But when I was on less I still paid 50% because it's a partnership,"

It's a marriage, not a business partnership. I don't think that it was fair that you were paying the same when you earned less.

GabriellaMontez · 22/01/2025 19:17

BittySpider · 22/01/2025 18:46

Well yes. I asked how much they keep to themselves and it was very low. Much lower than I think it needs to be. This is why I think he’d have more money if he just paid a percentage and kept the rest.

Show quote history

He does just pay a percentage.

He pays a much smaller amount and therefore much smaller percentage into the joint account.

BrownieBlondie01 · 22/01/2025 19:17

OP, I can see you only have your son's best interests in mind but as the higher earner in my relationship, your DIL is actually being really generous to just allow them both to have the same spending money. I'd be so much worse off and my DP would be so much better off if we did things that way, and it would all be at my expense.

I think it's super fair for them to do it this way, and also as PP has said, it's likely a low amount of pocket money at the moment as they're saving for the wedding. Once they've done that it will likely increase.

Swirlingceilings · 22/01/2025 19:17

BittySpider · 22/01/2025 16:22

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. I don’t understand why things like joint meals and takeaways have to be paid by themselves when she’s the higher earner and all of her money is in the joint. It seems madness to me.

I know I am old fashioned hence why I won’t say anything. When the kids were younger I kept child benefit and DH transferred me a lump of money on pay day and he paid for the rest. I know the world has changed since then. It still seems a bit off to me. But I am happy if he is happy.

But if he wasn’t sharing the bills with her he would have very high outgoings as a percentage of his wage if he’s only on minimum wage. At that level once you pay rent, bills etc. you don’t have much fun money left over. As others have said, it’s fair or he is benefiting more out of it than her and tbh I think you ought to be proud of them both for their attitude.

steff13 · 22/01/2025 19:19

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.

You're talking about 2 different things here. If they paid the bills with him paying 25% and her paying 75%, that wouldn't equate to him keeping 75% of his income.

If he kept 75% of his income and put 25% in towards the bills then that would necessitate her paying the other 75% of the bills which may or may not be a proportionate percentage of her income.

DorotheaDiamond · 22/01/2025 19:20

And another attempt to clarify for OP

assume DS income £1000, DIL £3000 - total 4000
rent 2000 - ds 500, dil 1500
other bills 1000 - ds 250 dil 750
savings for wedding 600 ds 150 dil 450

so far so good? Ds has paid 25% of the bills

now ds has put the final £100 of his salary into the joint account and dil has put in her final 300. At this point they each have no money. So they then split the 400 that hasn’t been spent equally 200 each.

so ds has put 1000 in and got 200 back…dil has put in 3000 and got 200 back. So ds has spent 80% of his salary on the bills etc and dil has spent 93%.

alternatively she has paid 2800/3600 (78%) of everything and he’s paid 22%…

CockSpadget · 22/01/2025 19:22

My daughter and her partner use this system for their finances. She was the higher earner by far for several years, they now earn roughly the same, as he’s built his qualifications up and earned promotions. Your son is absolutely not being done out of anything. They are looking at things long term, and you should class that as a good thing.

Bleachbum · 22/01/2025 19:22

steff13 · 22/01/2025 19:10

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.

Show quote history

I know, but in the example I was quoting expenses and savings came to £3000 so it doesn’t make sense, £2,500 disappears.

Wakeywake · 22/01/2025 19:22

Leaving aside the maths and who pays for what for a moment, they seem to be a sensible, supportive couple who know how to prioritise their savings and spending and have a common view on their finances. All the best to them and congratulations on their marriage!

smurfette1818 · 22/01/2025 19:26

Bleachbum · 22/01/2025 19:07

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

Show quote history

DIL keep the £2,500 in her own saving account. OP's main concern is for DS to have more left over per month and not "disappearing" into joint account

RoastDinnerSmellsNice · 22/01/2025 19:27

It sounds to me like they really want a FAIR relationship OP, and have arranged their finances to achieve this. How would you feel if she had more spending money because she earns more?

Bleachbum · 22/01/2025 19:28

smurfette1818 · 22/01/2025 19:26

DIL keep the £2,500 in her own saving account. OP's main concern is for DS to have more left over per month and not "disappearing" into joint account

Show quote history

Exactly, the OP should be happy. Instead of this theoretical £2,500 being kept by DIL, she is actually sharing it by putting it into the joint account, effectively giving OP’s DS £1,250.

MolkosTeenageAngst · 22/01/2025 19:28

If 100% of her wages go into the joint account and 100% of his wages go into the joint account before any bills are paid or money taken out it doesn’t matter who is the higher earner, all money is joint money and pooled and so they are paying proportionally. He is putting less money into the joint account than her but they get the same amount out as ‘pocket money.’ This means he is doing better than her, he will be getting a bigger % of his wages back as pocket money than she is. It also means she will already be paying more of her wages on bills and other expenses. I think your grasp of maths is the problem here not how they split their finances, which is completely shared.

coffeeandteav · 22/01/2025 19:30

BittySpider
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.

So in the previous example where he had £1000 left. A wedding or holiday bill comes in. £4000 deposit at venue. He had to pay £1000 and dil £3000. So he has no fun money left.

Whichever way you look at it she is subsidising him. The only difference is which account it is in.

RoastDinnerSmellsNice · 22/01/2025 19:32

BittySpider · 22/01/2025 18:58

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.

Show quote history

Good grief OP! Do you really think his girlfriend should be funding his life, turning him into a cocklodger?

brunettemic · 22/01/2025 19:33

BittySpider · 22/01/2025 16:07

I feel like she should be covering more of the bills and leaving him more left over as she earns more though?

Show quote history

She does cover more of the bills. They both pay all their money in then take out an equal amount. She not only covers more of the bills she also, in effect, increases his personal spending power. I’m not sure you understand basic maths if you think this is unfair. The only person it can possibly be “unfair” on is your future DIL. Either way, it’s none of your business anyway.
FWIW I earn a lot more than DH, we pay an equal amount into joint account for all bills including food shop but then I pay for more large, joint expenses eg holidays, our cars etc.

gloriagloria · 22/01/2025 19:34

Surely it depends on the ratio of their salary rise and the level or their outgoings whether he’s better off?
she earns 80,000
he earns 20,000

total outgoing for both (you say are high) 80,000

she should pay four times more so on a ratio of 1:4 the split is 64,000 to 16,000. He’s left with 4,000 and she gets 16,000.

and if the money in the joint account is all spent and the only mine they get to themselves is the money they’re assigned, surely the only way of him getting more than equal share is for her to get less than him?

Lilactimes · 22/01/2025 19:34

MolkosTeenageAngst · 22/01/2025 19:28

If 100% of her wages go into the joint account and 100% of his wages go into the joint account before any bills are paid or money taken out it doesn’t matter who is the higher earner, all money is joint money and pooled and so they are paying proportionally. He is putting less money into the joint account than her but they get the same amount out as ‘pocket money.’ This means he is doing better than her, he will be getting a bigger % of his wages back as pocket money than she is. It also means she will already be paying more of her wages on bills and other expenses. I think your grasp of maths is the problem here not how they split their finances, which is completely shared.

Yes - this is how I also interpreted it - your son is doing very well out of it!

Tiswa · 22/01/2025 19:36

BittySpider · 22/01/2025 18:58

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.

Show quote history

Then they would split the joint account 50/50.

the problem is you want her to subsidise him but with no protection at the end either

this way seems fair to both of them - they are saving together and have the same money

she is going to be yiur DIL one assumes this will be the same when he starts to earn more so it accounts for any changes along the way and means it sets it out now

Hankunamatata · 22/01/2025 19:37

This is exactly how dh and I have split our money for 30 years. It's a great system as doesn't matter who earns what, both people in the marriage have the same treat money, savings and private pension contributions. The low earner actually benefits

pollyglot · 22/01/2025 19:37

BittySpider · Today 16:02
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.

Interesting that you capitalise your "Son", like he's a god or a king or something. No wonder you think the poor little lamb is hard done by.

Shinyandnew1 · 22/01/2025 19:38

@BittySpider can you tell me what YOU think their finances would fairly look like if for ease of maths:-

Your son takes home £1000 a month
His girlfriend takes he. £4000 a month and mortgage/bills come to £200.

Motherofdragons24 · 22/01/2025 19:39

BittySpider · 22/01/2025 18:46

Well yes. I asked how much they keep to themselves and it was very low. Much lower than I think it needs to be. This is why I think he’d have more money if he just paid a percentage and kept the rest.

Show quote history

and then how would they pay for this wedding or have any security blanket? It sounds like they are living frugally at the moment as they are saving for a wedding, not particularly uncommon.

Arseynal · 22/01/2025 19:39

The amount they put in minus the amount they take out/the amount they put in is the % that they are paying. They are putting in a percentage.

If they both take £500/month

him earning £1200 = 1200-500/1200 x100 = 58% - £700
him earning £1500 = 1500-500/1500 x100 = 66.7% - £1000
her earning £2500 = 2500-500/2500 x100 = 80% - £2000
her earning £4000 = 4000-500/4000 x100 = 87.5% - £3500

what % do you think your ds’s gf should sub him by? How much extra pocket money should he get?

YourWildAmberSloth · 22/01/2025 19:39

BittySpider · 22/01/2025 16:22

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. I don’t understand why things like joint meals and takeaways have to be paid by themselves when she’s the higher earner and all of her money is in the joint. It seems madness to me.

I know I am old fashioned hence why I won’t say anything. When the kids were younger I kept child benefit and DH transferred me a lump of money on pay day and he paid for the rest. I know the world has changed since then. It still seems a bit off to me. But I am happy if he is happy.

The difference here is that you were a SAHM, unable to work because you were raising children. Your son earns less, because he earns less - DIL is already subsidising him, but in your eyes, she isn't subsidising him enough.