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.

So all money into joint account a.d then they take the same amount of " pocket money"? What's unfair about that?

You do realise that if you pay a % in that's propyl your earnings your ds would end up with less disposable income than his partner?

They are both left with the same amount of personal money to spend each month. If one of them is having to ask for more it's because they have spent more than the other one. Not sure why you see it as degrading.

She is paying more though. If both their incomes are paid directly into the shared account and all household costs come out of this, plus they both take the same amount as 'pocket money' then she is contributing more as otherwise it's likely your son wouldn't get any personal spends at all!

Can you genuinely not see that she is subsidising him? Do you think he should get more spending money than her? Wow.

I'd have thought that's how most people do it, it's how we do it, if you're pooling money and taking the same amount of 'pocket money' it's entirely fair. Assuming the relationship is established enough that you're building a life together so not at the his and her money stage.

The only time you would change the proportion paid to bills paid would be if you're also proportionately keeping the extra too, they're not.

Wow, this is extremely fair!! Your ds is very lucky.

That is marriage to me. They get the same amount of discretionary spending. Sometimes one or the other of them may earn more. It shouldn’t matter. They are partners in every way.

If they are getting married then I would see all money as being joint money. In terms of our household it works sort of similar - in that all wages go into joint account and all bills come out of that. We don’t have a set amount of personal spending - it’s just expected that we each keep it reasonable and if anything bigger that normal hair cut/coffee/small clothing expenditure was needed we would discuss/agree it together. I would think it was odd for each to pay in a set amount towards the bills and keep the rest if they were married but I guess everyone does it differently. My mum and dad were each responsible for different things, my mum always paid for the food shopping for example - my dad will even now say she “owes” him a pound as he bought a loaf of bread!

But if it was the other way around and the male was the higher earner then I think his low earning partner would expect him to transfer a lump sum of money to her every pay day?

Ok now I know you're just pulling our leg.

They sound like they have their heads screwed on and are in a proper partnership.

Good for them.

You need to wind your neck in - especially as you don't understand this set up at all! Your son is getting a great deal.

You’re really misunderstanding the maths here OP.

Let’s say she earns £4k a month and he earns £2k. All £6k goes into the pot. Bills cost £4k and all come out if that pot and then they both take £500 a month for personal spends, leaving £1k for car stuff etc. she paid in double what he did but only gets the same as him for herself.

You think he should have more personal spending money than she does? That's bizarre.

They each get the same amount of spending money each. Is this correct?

Why is this any of your business OP?

We have always done this. We have the same fun money however essentials come out of the joint account so if dh and i need new pants, work clothes that is joint account, if I just want a new dress etc then that is my own money. Worked for us for 25 years. Dh higher earner and it was the same when i was a sahm.

This has to be a wind up. She's paying more of bills, housing, subscriptions, food, wedding. Would also pay more of unexpected bills and holidays and despite earning more limits herself to the same level of 'fun money' as your son, and you think he should have even more? Batshit

How about he gets a better job?

So lets say she earns £3000/month and he earns £1500/month.
£4500 goes into joint account.
Rent, bills, food etc cost £2000
They get £1000 each for personal spending and saving,
Which leaves £500/month in joint account for shared savings.
She is keeping 1/3 of her salary, and he is keeping 2/3 of his.
How could it possibly be more favourable to your son?

Is what you really mean that your son overspends every month and his partner keeps "loaning" him from her "pocket money" and then he has to pay it back from the next month's wages and you think he shouldn't have to? If they have the same and she can stay within it enough to loan hers to him, then why can't he? She sounds sensible with money and generous, think you're on the wrong side here but thankfully they're happy with it so there are no sides to take.

Can't see what the problem is.ive been married 45 years and this has always been the case with me and my husband.It is a partnership which they have both agreed to do finances this way so you shouldn't be judging either one as it has nothing to do with you.

Well you're right- it's none of your business. However, if it is unfair on anyone then it's unfair on your DIL, not your son. He is the one being subsidized.

It sounds as if they have worked out and agreed a system of allocating the different blocks of money that works for them. They don't see it as a problem. Are they buying or renting? There are always different views and ways of looking at these issues and different considerations may arise when they buy and pay with a mortgage or own equity in the property.

You jumped the shark with your last post OP, far too soon for that one.

On the off chance it’s genuine then your son and his wife are very reasonable and theirs is probably the fairest way to finance a marriage.

Be careful not to meddle mum. Your son is very lucky because his future bride treats her salary as THEIR salary that goes in to a joint account which they both take the same amount from as pocket money.

How is this not fair??? You are trying hard to find errors with your Dil (so what if they call it pocket money) but I strongly advise you to think this through if you want to be a part of their lives with future dc etc.

Please understand if you have a poor relationship with your future DIL, you are the problem. Do you son a favour and stay out of their financial affairs. They seem grown up enough to have a fair arrangement they are both happy with.

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.