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.

Sorry op I think you’re just going to have to accept you haven’t worked this out correctly in your head and you got it wrong.

she is paying more. He is paying less. It’s fair

Yes, it's perfectly fair. In fact your DS is likely benefitting more because he's spending the same as her while making a fraction of the money. Your future DIL is paying more of the bills because she puts more into the joint account than your DS for their joint expenses but then takes out the same amount as him for individual expenses. What they've done is elemenated the disparity in their incomes by making it so that each is spending equally regardless of what they make.

Scenario A:
-She earns £1500 per month, he earns £500, for a joint income of £2000. Their bills paid for from the joint account are £1500, and then each takes out £250 for individual expenses. A 50/50 split of their joint bills would be £750.
-Your DS is keeping 50% of his income as personal spending and contributing £250 to joint expenses, so he's receiving £500 of subsidization towards his £750 portion of the joint expenses from his partner's higher income. Another way to say it is that he's making 1/4 of their total joint income but then taking out 1/2 of the amount left over after their joint bills have been paid. The relationship is a net financial gain for him.
-His partner is keeping 16.7% of her income for personal spending and contributing £1250 to their joint expenses, so she's paying all of her £750 portion of the joint expenses plus subsidizing £500 of her partner's half. She's making 3/4 of their joint income but taking out 1/2 of the amount left over after their joint bills have been paid. The relationship is a net financial loss for her.

Scenario B:
-Same total income and joint bills - she earns £1500 per month, he earns £500, for a joint income of £2000. Their joint bills are £1500 (£750 per person). Instead of their current system they decide to each contribute proportionally to these joint bills based on their income, with your DS paying 25% and his partner paying 75% - the contribution to the joint expenses would be £375 for your DS and £1125 from his partner.
-Your DS is now keeping £125 or 25% of his total income for his individual spending. He's receiving £375 of subsidization towards his £750 portion of the joint expenses. He's making 1/4 of their total joint income and then taking out 1/4 of the amount left over after their joint bills have been paid. This arrangement is still a net financial gain for him but less so than in scenario A.
-His partner is now keeping £375 or 25% of her income for individual spending. She's subsidizing £375 of her partner's £750 portion of the joint expenses. She's making 3/4 of their joint income and taking out 3/4 of the amount left over after their joint bills have been paid. This relationship is still a net financial loss for her but less so than in scenario A.

I don’t know if this is an adhd brain thing but I did this same financial arrangement with my partner for a few months as he was always running out of money and getting in a mess. He’s self employed so his wages vary but during those 3 months his wages were much less than mine. We put all earnings in one point to cover bills, food, any expenses etc and then had £200 each every week for spending money. He was convinced I was ‘taking his money’ and that it was unfair to him. Even though we paid a huge amount for his van insurance out the joint pot which he wouldn’t have afforded otherwise and I had to take out less money for myself due to how low his wages going in were. I couldn’t make him see that he was getting a better deal and I was worse off this way! It was a combination of his bad maths and bad attitude. In the end we went back to separate finances and I just let him get into a mess but it was so frustrating at the time and I think I’m still traumatised by his lack of understanding!

Luckily the offspring of the union have a better chance of understanding maths than their paternal granny.

This is the fairest way of doing it for the lowest earner. How can you not see this?

Plus the same amount of spends is totally fair how can you argue otherwise?

My personal opinion is that this is how all committed couples should organise their finances. Both with the same amount of fun money to spend how they like and all other money going towards their living expenses and goals as a couple. No need to change financial arrangements when someone takes parental leave or is not working for some other reason.

The only real reason he has very low spending money at the moment is that they have decided as a couple to save hard for the wedding.

I think their way is fairer than the 'old school' higher earner transferring a lump sum, like an allowance, and their partner takes care of everything else. My DM and a friend (very recently, divorcd now) had this arrangement and I felt there was a power imbalance as neither knew how much money there was, or where it was. Both have had to ask for more money on occasion, rather than just having their own, or access to a joint pot.

For the record, we're semi-old school. Everything is joint. Over the years we've both been the higher or lower earner. But, we started with nothing so it's easier. I earn less now, but my Super (our version of pension) is 3x DH's due to the type of job I had when younger & will allow us to retire early. It balances out.

OP I change my mind, tell your son that he needs to contribute proportionally to their bills based on their earnings…. And don’t put all their wages in the joint account.

You will feel better for your son and I will feel better for your future DIL.

He’d be financially worse off if he contributed a % of his earnings. How can you not understand that?

Are you resentful of your DIL’s earning power?

You are waaaay too involved in their finances. None of this is your business. Stop asking financial questions--they are adults.

Wonderfulstuff · Today 21:16

So much boomer maths😂

WTAF is "boomer maths"? What a fucking insulting thing to say. Have you ascertained just how old this woman is, before making such an inflammatory comment? FYI I'm an absolute whizz at mental "arithmetic", which is what this involves, far better than my DH with his Maths degree. One stupid woman of indeterminate age does not represent the entire sinful boomer generation who have apparently ruined the world in every possible manner. (yeah, right)

Oi! Less of the "boomer" abuse! I'm 66 (I bet I'm a fair bit older than the OP) and I know she's talking shite!

Why does he need "protection" at this stage as the lower earner? What exactly has he sacrificed for the relationship in terms of earning potential?

Does he do all the chores/childcare at home, while his fiancee is free to progress her career without having to worry about these things at all?

Assuming they both get the same amount of "pocket money" it is his fiance who is paying the lions share.

They each have their own money and they both share the joint money (which the have jointly agreed what this covers, ie wedding savings etc).

It appears that you believe your son should have more "pocket money" than his fiancé (who contributes the lions share) - on what basis? If it was your son contributing 75% I would understand where you are coming from but it appears you think he should have more disposable income than his higher earning fiance🤷‍♀️

I think your DIL to be is very generous!

How can she be paying for all the takeaways when she takes no more money out each month than him??? When despite earning more she thinks they should each get the same spending money?? I cannot understand how you don’t get that this is a good deal for your son. This is not about being old fashioned, that’s just rubbish. Your line about your dh transferred you some money and paid everything- why is this relevant in any way? The only applicable scenario is you think she should transfer him some money and pay everything and there’s nothing old fashioned about that, except perhaps the attitude that the world and his marriage should revolve around your son. Who sounds a decent sort. Please pull right back from this ridiculous thinking, you’ll hurt his marriage or your relationship with it anyway.

Oh my goodness I can't believe you think she's getting a good deal. Your son is getting a great deal. If you are old fashioned I am amazed you think she should subsidise your son even more than she already is.

Nah. I’ve got ADHD and I’m good at maths — certainly at this level. I do get a bit lost when it comes to integration.

I think some people just have a blind spot.

Can you honestly say that if your son was the higher earner, you'd have the same view? I highly doubt it.

I've been overthinking about this because I genuinely am trying to understand the ops position.

The only thing I can think of is that she hasn't really understood that they both have exactly the same spending money each month.

The higher earner doesn't have an separate bank account or extra money hidden away, all the money goes into the joint account.

I'm astounded that you think your darling diddums is getting a raw deal OP! My DIL has always been the higher earner and she and my DS split their finances in precisely the same way as your DS and DIL. Consequently, my DS enjoys a much better standard of living than he otherwise would have done and I feel so thankful that he had the good fortune to marry her. Sadly, they are unable to have children, but if they had managed to have a family, he probably would have been the primary caregiver, something that he was fully prepared and happy to do. As it is, my DS started his own business with DIL's support and there isn't quite such a big discrepancy in their earnings these days, but he continues to shoulder more than 50 percent of the domestic load as his work is less taxing and much more flexible. They both appreciate the contribution that the other makes and are a team in every way. I'm just sorry that some women still bring up their sons as if we were living in the 1950s so that they expect that their wives and girlfriends should pander to their every need, work full-time, do most of the parenting and the lion's share of the domestic drudgery too. It probably explains why we still frequently hear from distraught women about the general selfishness and uselessness of men on this forum.

I think the joke is because she thinks her son should put in almost nothing while reaping benefit after benefit from the system and that it’s reasonable for him to have a good standard of living, with higher spending money, saving for a house and paying towards a wedding while only contributing 25% of his minimum wage income. As in the cost of living is nothing like when boomers were young and OP is clearly very, very out of touch with reality.

You're right - apologies!

I guess I meant a subset of that demographic who tends to be very opinionated and convinced that they're right even when talking shite!

@BittySpider maybe think about it another way.

If they currently take £500 spending money each, but you think he should have more where is that going to come from?
If he takes £600 then she's only going to get £400, would you think that was fair?

You aren’t making sense. They share bills and spending money equally - if anything she’s at a disadvantage but if she’s happy 🤷🏻‍♀️ But you want her to cover even more so he gets even more spending money than her? That’s a very selfish suggestion!!

This is none of your business OP and it is a fair way to split the money anyway. If you meddle in their relationship i.e. their finances, and it sounds like you want to involve yourself in something that you have not been asked to, it will rebound on you. I would back off now if you want a good relationship with your future DIL.