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.

I think it is unfair, but it's unfair on your DIL, not in your son! Sounds like she is massively subsidising him.

Haven’t read the full thread but I am your DIL in this situation. We do exactly this and it works well now we have a child- as it’s all very balanced,

I earn more than twice what my husband does, but we have the same fun money. If one of us runs out we will speak to the other- it holds us both accountable and means we don’t waste money on rubbish.

I do worse out of the situation as I could quite happily keep my own money once bills are paid but I don’t- we are a team and we have a child together. I also refuse as a female to take on more domestic responsibilities than he does, and if I have to work long hours sometimes because I get a higher salary, my husband does the lions share at home

it’s a shame this situation is alien to so many!!

your son and DIL are a modern couple and balancing things their own way.

I don’t know if this is a maths issue or a MIL issue but yeah, whatever the actual numbers are, the fact that she earns more and they have the same amount of fun money means that she’s paying a higher proportion of her income into joint bills and joint savings than she would if they were paying proportionate to their income. And the ‘Son’ is obviously paying less than if it was proportionate to his income. Hopefully OP does get her head round this and doesn't always assume her son is being hard done to when it’s the opposite!

So your complaint is that they are treating all their income as joint and ensuring they have the same amount of spending money rather than treating their income as individual and paying proportionally on bills.

Unless there’s something you haven’t mentioned about the joint account (like it’s only in her name) everything you are saying about your son’s access to and control of money applies to his fiancée as well. His fiancée is giving up more than him to their joint spending and saving in absolute and percentage terms and keeping less in percentage terms for herself.

You may not like the idea of finances being joint by default and spending money being a set amount out of that rather than putting a set, proportional amount into a joint pot and keeping the rest for themselves. Which is fair enough as a personal preference and many couples find it a decent way to do things and fair but as an arrangement your suggestion leaves the lower earner worse off than the higher earner, not the arrangement your son currently has. So to call it unfair on your DS is a bit twisted. You are blind to the fact your DiL’s sacrifice is greater than your son’s.

I think a PP nailed it: the OP thinks of the joint account as the future DIL’s account. So when her son puts money into the joint account he’s giving it to her. She does not understand the concept of a joint account.

I think it's a nice, healthy and fair way to split things.

In the future, you DIL might have time out of the workplace for maternity etc and then your son will be able to 'repay' her.

To add to my earlier post, the way your son and DIL do things is also far easier when it comes to maternity leave etc. once their wedding is paid for, if they want children they can stick to this arrangement and save for maternity leave.

regardless of which one of them takes the leave, they have the same amount of spending money and the one on leave doesn’t have to stump up more.

your daughter in law sounds very kind and pragmatic

Op do understand the maths now, and how this situation is financially advantageous to your son?

You may think that their bills are too high and therefore they have too little fun money but normal life means bills are high

.............when she is the higher earner. What if they were to break up? Then there’s no protection as the lower earner

Yes, there is. Upon marriage, the lower earner does very well, in the event of a break up.

Bitty, the math behind percentage model doesn't work like that, there are two different bases in play.

Let's say he would pay 25% of joint outgoings. That doesn't mean paying 25% of his income and 75% of his income left, it means whatever percentage of his income is needed to equal the 1/4 of joint bills (and agreed wedding savings).

---

When your DH transferred the lump sum, what were you covering from that money? Food? Holidays? Things for children? In this model, the equivalent of the lump sum goes to the joint account, and they both benefit from that. It just seems that when they prioritised wedding savings for now, they don't have much disposable income left (and she doesn't have either, she is keeping just the same pocket money).

@BittySpider My expectation would be that the person who earns the higher wage should be taking the bigger hit in terms of bills and expenses. If I was in a relationship with a woman who earned more than me, I would expect her to cover more of the bills, and perhaps treat me to gifts and nice meals.

Just read the whole thread - really hoping OP comes back with new understanding.

OP basically you think your son doesn't have enough 'spending money' each month. But your future DIL has exactly the same amount of spending money as he does? Do you want them both to increase the money they allow themselves to spend each month? Or if you want to do it proportionally based on wages do you think your future DIL should have a higher 'spending money' budget based on her wages.

He still has access to his money - it's in the joint account. He also has access to all of her money - it's in the joint account.

If they don't want a higher 'spending money' budget then they don't want a higher monthly spending money budget.

Question should be asked why he is barely earning above minimum wage and what he is doing to improve himself financially?

I was married to a man like this and I can tell you that I had the same system except I covered big expenditure like childcare and house repairs. I worked hard for my career - my ex....didn't. I wasn't about to subsidise his spending money because he didn't have the get up and go to try and earn more

So you want this woman to “keep” you son? Maybe he should get a better job and step up to be the financial provider, or maybe you can respect they are a team and stop being so ridiculous. It’s clear you don’t like her, so good luck with the grandkids if you can’t keep it to yourself.

1. She is earning substantially more than him.
2. They both have the same personal spending money.

How can you not see from this info that he is being subsidised by her? At the moment it seems they are concentrating on saving to pay for their wedding. If he still wants to pay for takeaways or date nights that's up to him. Perhaps because she is aware that she is largely responsible for ALL their living costs and the wedding she doesn't want to waste money on treats at the moment.

So if DIL earns 4000 and son earns 2000 and bills are 3000 then DIL should pay double what you son does - £2000 and son pays £1000.
He gets to keep £1000 and DIL keeps £2000 as that is proportionate? So if they currently have £500 each for spending, son would be better off as he would then have £1000...

But your son is then worse off as he will struggle to pay for his car repairs, share of holidays, contribute to the wedding etc.

You would probably also just grudge your DIL keeping a higher proportion of her income for herself and having better treats etc. She could afford to go away with friends a few times throughout the year, for example, whilst your son couldn't. Or she could socialise more often etc.

Your son really is getting a better deal.

It doesn’t make sense for him to lose all of his money when she is the higher earner.

FFS he is NOT losing all his money!!! He is ending up with more. Is the real issue that you think he's being forced to contribute to the joint savings? And that he shouldn't be doing so as the poor poppet shouldn't have to contribute to the wedding costs and he should be spending it all on treats for himself?

At least you know he's not marrying a golden digger.

Op could you clarify, using figures what you actually think should happen?

Do you think that she should have less spending money than him, despite her being the higher earner. Rather than equal spending money?

But she is paying more of the bills. She's putting all her salary in and presumably her share covers a bigger proportion of the bills than his share. It's just that they are not making the calculation bill by bill. If you ds had to pay half by himself then he may have no spending money?

I think you are confused about the maths here so I will give an example.
Lets say she (A) earns £2000pm and he (B) earns £1500 per month and they have joint out goings of £1000 per month. This is what I think you are suggesting:

To calculate the proportionate share of the household bills, we'll first determine the total household income and then calculate each person's share based on their income.

Step 1: Calculate Total Household Income

• Person A earns £2000 per month.
• Person B earns £1500 per month.
• Total Household Income = £2000 + £1500 = £3500 per month.

Step 2: Calculate Each Person's Share of the Bills

• Person A's Proportion of Total Income: £2000 / £3500 = 4/7 ≈ 0.5714 (or 57.14%)
• Person B's Proportion of Total Income: £1500 / £3500 = 3/7 ≈ 0.4286 (or 42.86%)

Step 3: Calculate Each Person's Share of the £1000 Bills

• Person A's Share: £1000 0.5714 = £571.43*
• Person B's Share: £1000 0.4286 = £428.57*

Girlfriend would pay £571.43pm leaving £1428pm for her to spend and Your son would pay £428.57 towards the household bills leaving him £1071 pm to spend.

Whereas what they are doing is putting everything into the joint account and giving each other the same spending money per month so by definition she is contributing way more than your son to the household bills and the savings account for the wedding.

I think she is being very trusting and generous and is clearly genuinely committed to getting married. And your son is onto a good thing.

OP even I understand it and I am hopeless at maths ( didn't do any after 14!).

@BittySpider You realise your son still has access to all of the money you think he should have left over. It's in the joint account. It's still his money waiting to be spent. The lucky duck also has access to all of his partner's left over income too.

Thats how we do it. Except all joint expenses come out of the joint account (so including joint treats like takeaways and date nights) Then our 'pocket money' is only for personal expenses.

Do you mean

he would pay 25% of his (their) bills and have 75% (of his take home pay) left over

So if the total bills per month are £1000 and he earns £1000, then he would pay £250 and keep £750.

Because there is no guarantee that 25% of the bills is within his capacity or in fact, 25% of his take home pay.

What if the bills are £2000 and his take home pay is £500?

Then paying 25% of the bills is £500 and thus 100% of his take home pay!

Or do you mean he should pay 25% of his take home pay, regardless of what the bills actually are. So that might not be 25% could be nowhere near that, yet he uses half of whatever food/fuel/housing/council tax etc...

The current situation is that he pays into the joint account less than she does, and yet he gets the same amount out that she does.

I really do not understand how you cannot see that this is fair and actually in his favour.

What would you say if she were going on holidays without him, because they kept spending money seperate and he was paying 25% of the household expenses and as a result had no money left, and she was paying 75% and still had plenty spare? I bet that'd have you playing your tiny violin!

He works a full time job and does two nights at college a week.