Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
NewFriendlyLadybird · 22/01/2025 21:37

What gets me is that 100% of respondents have said that she’s got it wrong, with many patiently working it out on the blackboard for her. And STiLL she has failed to get it. Even her slight grasp of percentages should be able to understand 100%. Admittedly she’s not been back for a while …

DressOrSkirt · 22/01/2025 21:38

Dishwashersaurous · 22/01/2025 21:30

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 also can't stop thinking about this thread!

Maybe OP thinks that, as her DIL is the higher earner, she is the only one with access to the joint account?

Or that if you don't spend the money in your joint account within a month it disappears into thin air?

anon2423 · 22/01/2025 21:38

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.

He IS better off unless he wouldn’t save up to pay for the wedding / their future if it was just him. You suggesting she does that solo too? If you’re suggesting they stop saving then you really don’t have a financial clue!! But end of the day it’s none of your business (if it wasn’t for the wedding to pay for I’d worry you’re my mother in law with such a wild spin on things! 😂)

Dishwashersaurous · 22/01/2025 21:39

Maybe Rishi was right after all. More maths should be compulsory at school!

Wonderfulstuff · 22/01/2025 21:44

pollyglot · 22/01/2025 21:21

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)

In fairness it's a guess but as someone with a child about to get married the OP is likely part of the boomer generation but yes she could be an elder gen X.

You can read more about boomer maths here.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/society/2022/02/boomer-mathematics-why-older-generations-cant-understand-the-millennial-struggle-to-buy-a-house

Boomer mathematics: why older generations insist that millennials are financially inept

Why can't older generations understand the millennial struggle to buy a house? They inflate the cost of young people having fun.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/society/2022/02/boomer-mathematics-why-older-generations-cant-understand-the-millennial-struggle-to-buy-a-house

Ellie1015 · 22/01/2025 21:48

The higher earner has the same personal/fun money as the lower earner. It is very fair to your son.

Dishwashersaurous · 22/01/2025 21:49

OK, so further information, he works full time. Let's assume he's on minimum wage.

His take home is about £1400 a month.

Then assume that she earns four time what he does, so £5600 a month.

£7000 goes into the joint account.

Let's assume bills are £3200 a month. Then he pays 25% =£800 and then has £600 for personal spend.

Whereas at the moment they will split anything not bills as personal spend, and he will have £1400 as personal spend . The same as he currently earns!!

If bills are much higher, say £5000 a month. He pays 25%=£1000 and has £400 personal spend.

Whereas under their current system he would have £1000 personal spend .

Thelnebriati · 22/01/2025 21:50

If the DIL is a millionaire and the DS is on minimum wage then it would be unfair.

InDogweRust · 22/01/2025 21:51

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.

The extra money hasn't vanished, she hasn't taken it?! She isn't spending more than him. They have an amount coming in that they are sharing, any more he spends as "pocket money" just means they'll have less JOINT savings. He still has access to that money, he's saved it.

Im baffled as to why any parent would want their low earning offspring to spend more of their money and save less. Its great that he and his girlfriend are budgeting for their wedding.

Dishwashersaurous · 22/01/2025 21:52

But even if she's a millionaire, they are both putting all their income into the joint account and having identical personal spending money.

She isn't hiding extra money somewhere.

Under all circumstances this situation is advantageous to the lower earner

Endofyear · 22/01/2025 21:52

First of all, I think it's very odd that he has spoken about their joint finances and earnings in such detail to you!

I would say that how they choose to split the bills and spending money is very much none of your business and as long as they are happy you should let them get on with it and not give it any more thought at all.

MsCactus · 22/01/2025 21:54

Lilly11a · 22/01/2025 19:12

Your maths is wrong

Eg for simplicity
She earns 2000
He earns 1000
Bill are 2500

Proportionate
She pays 66%=1650 has 350 a month spends
He pays 33%=825 and has 175 a month spends

Money in the pot and equal spends 500 left = 250 each . Your son is better off by 75 a month with this method .

Yeah OP this is correct maths. Your son is way better off and would be a lot poorer if he contributed proportionally.

OP - are you really bad at maths???

Quiinkong · 22/01/2025 21:56

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.

And yet, she as the higher earner is also keeping the same low amount but that doesn't seem to bother you as much as your darling precious son not having enough to spend

Thelnebriati · 22/01/2025 21:59

If they are both taking a low amount for personal use its because neither of them is actually a high earner. So its not an unfair method, and its nothing like financially abusive men.

PeriPeriMam · 22/01/2025 22:00

Your opening sentences are correct. It's NONE of your business.

But, your son is doing well out of this split, it sounds scrupulously fair, and your DIL is possibly a gem.

I imagine the DILs mum could start a parallel post "I know it's none of my business, but my DIL is subsidizing her partner". It's none of her business either.

Quiinkong · 22/01/2025 22:01

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.

She's also losing money as the higher earner! How is she any better off when they're both withdrawing the same amount each month? You really do have coloured glasses on where your son is concerned

MrsIcandothis · 22/01/2025 22:02

VickyEadieofThigh · 22/01/2025 16:12

You don't like her, do you?

Boom! This is at the heart of the issue and is the subtext in all of OP’s replies!

Onlycoffee · 22/01/2025 22:02

Perhaps it's a reverse from the dil's DM trying to show the dil she's getting the bad deal.

OatFlatWhiteForMePlease · 22/01/2025 22:03

Dishwashersaurous · 22/01/2025 21:49

OK, so further information, he works full time. Let's assume he's on minimum wage.

His take home is about £1400 a month.

Then assume that she earns four time what he does, so £5600 a month.

£7000 goes into the joint account.

Let's assume bills are £3200 a month. Then he pays 25% =£800 and then has £600 for personal spend.

Whereas at the moment they will split anything not bills as personal spend, and he will have £1400 as personal spend . The same as he currently earns!!

If bills are much higher, say £5000 a month. He pays 25%=£1000 and has £400 personal spend.

Whereas under their current system he would have £1000 personal spend .

Exactly and that’s not accounting for saving towards a wedding, holiday, home etc!

Dweetfidilove · 22/01/2025 22:05

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.

I'm guessing your son doesn't hold your old-fashioned views given his current set up.
YABU.

4forksache · 22/01/2025 22:06

Time for a bit of maths revision op. 😂

CandidGreenSquid · 22/01/2025 22:07

OP, I’m the lower earner in my marriage. We pay ONLY bills money proportionally into a joint account. We have children and all other family associated costs are split 50/50 (e.g. holidays, home improvements, children’s new toys and clothes, days out, Christmas, birthdays for kids etc).

I pay 30% of bills and my DH pays 70%. I am significantly worse off at the end of the month than he is. After all of the costs of running a house and raising a family, I don’t have a huge amount to spend on myself or put into savings. I just earn far less and my DH has almost double my take home salary in spending money after his share of the bills.

I think your judgement is clouded because, as you say, your DH gave you money and he paid the bills. I don’t think you really fully understand how it works if you’re earning your own money and working bills out proportionally. I wouldn’t be so sure your DS would have any better of a deal because your DIL could end up with an awful lot more disposable income.

Grammarnut · 22/01/2025 22:07

Wonderfulstuff · 22/01/2025 21:44

In fairness it's a guess but as someone with a child about to get married the OP is likely part of the boomer generation but yes she could be an elder gen X.

You can read more about boomer maths here.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/society/2022/02/boomer-mathematics-why-older-generations-cant-understand-the-millennial-struggle-to-buy-a-house

Edited

I am a boomer. Born 1950 (so a late one). I think OP is from the 70s. She seems to be in her early 60s. She has some very old fashioned ideas about money, and not a clue about simple arithmetic. Her DS and DiL are setting up a sensible system which means they can save and plan for when DiL may take time out for children. I don't understand why she thinks her DS is hard done by -or why a married couple have their 'own' money in the way she suggests. She has a very odd notion of marriage is all I can say.

Dishwashersaurous · 22/01/2025 22:08

One more thought. Has op forgotten about tax, so knows their annual salaries but has forgotten that tax, pension, national insurance have to be paid.

And therefore she thinks that both should have more money but in particular the high earning DIL should have lots more cash to splash.

Eg he's on full time minimum wage £23,000 and takes home about £1300 a month.

She's on £92,000 which is obviously a really great salary but with pension and student loan contributions she's actually only bringing home around £4,700 a month, which is much less than four times what he's contributing.

pinkyredrose · 22/01/2025 22:08

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?

Of course you do. Can you not see that they get the same amount of money each? By your logic your son should get less as he earns less.

Swipe left for the next trending thread