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 they both get the same amount so why is it degrading.

How would they go on holiday or fix his car if she wasn't subsidising him?

You seem to be confused. She's carrying him not the other way around

She puts in lots. He puts in little. From that all bills are paid. They get equal spending money and all holidays and car issues etc come out. So he's winning

If he's on near minimum he wouldn't have any spending money or holidays or probably be able to run and fix a car if it want fur her larger input

Just exactly what percentage of her income do you think your DIL should be giving to your boy Prince?? Maybe he should get a better paying job.

Am I the only one hoping that DIL-to-be sees this thread and runs for the hills?
OP's not even a MIL yet and she's sticking her beak in where it doesn't belong.

You are completely wrong and he is much better off here.
The only thing I can think that you are misunderstanding is that if they did things proportionally, he might have an extra £100 in his bank account every month. She might have an extra £300 in her personal bank account. The joint savings would have £0.
Instead, they both have joint and equal access to that same £400 in a joint savings account.
He is better off, it's just in THEIR name, not his name. If they split, he would get 50%, so £200, so will be better off.

OK so you want him to pay 25% of bills.

Let's then assume he only earns 25% of what she earns, and is at college so it's a low amount.

He earns £1000 a month.

She earns £4000 a month.

All bills are £2500 a month and wedding bills are another £1500 a month at the moment because weddings are expensive.

Total expenditure is £4000 a month.

He pays 25% of bills, and has zero personal spend.

She pays 75% of bills and has £1000 personal spending money.

But under their system they both get £500 a month personal spending money. So he's much better off.

If their bills were less, say £2000 a month.

He would pay 25% and have £500 a month personal spend.

She would pay 75% and have £2500 a month personal spend.

Under their current system he would have £1500 personal spend.

He is always better off under their current system.

They both have the exact same “pocket money” so really, isn’t that exactly splitting it proportionally? And they are saving for their wedding. Your DIL is paying more than your son so I fail to see where she is being tight. She’s being more than fair in my opinion.

For the record, we do ours this way and take £150 a month each. The only difference is we pay for outings together from the joint account.

With respect this is nonsense. Why does he need to have more money left over for fun? They each have the same amount of fun money. Everything else goes into household finances and savings. Were they to split, the starting point is 50/50 each. DiL is worse off as she contributes a greater percentage of her earnings to joint finances that your son does by dint of the fact they each have equal fun money regardless of earnings. You are seeing problems were there aren't any - they are operating finances as a team and preventing frivolous spending.

You are the confused one.

They get the save amount of spending money right? Well if she's earning so much more why isn't she getting more spending money.

You are fixated on bills. Think of everything else they have as a result of her higher earnings that he wouldn't have on his own.

Holidays
Car repairs
Wedding costs
Socialising money

He's on minimal wage. That would afford him a very very basic life if it wasn't for her higher contribution

It’s how we have always organised our finances and it works well, we are married, we are steam and it’s all joint money. We transfer ourselves a little personal money but it really is for odd bits, coffees out etc. meals out/take away etc all come from joint. I can’t abide this I earn more I keep it for myself business when you’re married. Dh earns 4x my wages but we share everything

This

This is exactly how me and DH split our finances. I’m now part-time to cover childcare however still get the same “fun” money as DH despite him being the higher earner. We don’t have to pay back any extra if we need it one month though, we just take it from our joint account.

It sounds like they are being sensible and thinking about the future.

Well, he needs more fun money because he has more free time, because he works less. He has more time for fun than she does. 😉

+1
Not only is the Op's future DIL subsidising the DS she is getting a mean spirited MIL too. You DIL and DS deserve better.

😂

The answer is he gets a better job . She is no better off than him in this scenario. Give him a kick up the ass to provide more for himself and future family.

Simple maths!

Let’s say your son earns X, and assume she earns four times his income, so 4X.

Bills, savings, wedding etc cost Y per month. By your argument OP, he should pay 1/5Y, and she should pay 4/5Y.

He ends up with X-1/5Y left over as fun money
She ends up with 4X-4/5Y, which is the same as 4(X-1/5Y). I.e. four times his fun money!

So at the moment it’s actually fair to say she is being extremely generous and sacrificing a huge proportion of her fun money (if you were to split money as you seem to want them to) to pay for their wedding, bills etc.

FWIW, I think, unless one person in a long term relationship is earning less due to pure laziness (or circumstances like step kids) then finances should be completely shared, so all income and outgoings are treated as joint - you never know when the situation could flip and the high earner might suddenly change, and you are meant to be a partnership. So I completely disagree with the way you are suggesting it should work OP.

OP, you really can't calculate apparently. If everyone pays the same as bills and gets same allowance your son is much better. If he pays proportionally he will be worse off. Your dil is very generous or also can't calculate one of the two lol

But the MIL wants him to only pay 25% of the bills AND for the DIL to transfer him a monthly lump sum AND pay for all the takeaways and holidays 😂so she earns more but he ends up with more money to spend.

Apparently that's what a fair system would look like

That's literally what they do, it's just in a joint account ready to go rather than sat in their individual accounts.

So your objection is to a joint account? Have you had a bad experience?

Not sure why you thought algebra would help OP understand! 😂

Good grief, it's 2025, not the 1950s! 🙄
And in reality your son, as the much lower earner, is being financially supported by your DIL.

Your son’s got a good one there.
As maths doesn’t seem to be your strong point, I think you need to butt out.

It is actually shocking that you don't get this op. Genuinely genuinely shocking. Absolutely basic maths. Your son is very very lucky. Yes, he is coming out of this far better than he would any other way. You'll just have to take everyone else's word for it since you can't grasp absolute basic maths. No point trying to explain basic maths to someone who can't work out that 1 + 2 / 2 >1

But there aren't any discrepancies! They have exactly the same spending money. She has put more into the joint account and come away with the same amount he has. Why should he get more spending money than she does? Your DIL sounds very generous