Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
Mielbee · 22/01/2025 22:10

All day I've been coming back to check for updates in the hope that OP will FINALLY get it. But no. My God it's frustrating. So many people have done so many examples that clearly spell it out! How can OP still not understand????

pinkyredrose · 22/01/2025 22:12

BittySpider · 22/01/2025 18:09

I think some of you are being a bit harsh. He is currently at college and once qualified will of course bring in more money. Hopefully this times correctly with them having children and her going on maternity leave.

I have NOT been prising about their finances! Nor has he been coming asking for money! As I said in my initial post we are offering them some money towards the wedding as all of their final invoices are due soon. I said should I transfer it to him and he said no the joint account and gave me the details. I queried what the joint is for and if this would end up getting spent on bills and not the wedding. That’s when he explained everything and said that all bills come out of joint and other than that it’s savings for the wedding.

I am not nosey or interfering at all. I obviously haven’t mentioned any of this to him! I am taking your points on board and will keep my nose out. Thank you all.

Maybe your son will go on paternity leave, you know, seeing as he earns less. That's even if they want kids.

Grammarnut · 22/01/2025 22:12

Completelyjo · 22/01/2025 17:53

Income is not jointly owned within a marriage in the UK. It’s not “one of the points”.

I said assets. E.g. if you own a house and marry the new spouse acquires rights in the house. This is to protect women, btw, who previously could be made homeless in a divorce because their husband owned the house and they had not right to have any part of it.

Dishwashersaurous · 22/01/2025 22:13

Or ( and yes I am overinvested in this), does the op think that because he's the low earner that he shouldn't pay any bills at all.

So contribute proportional to big expenditure, wedding, holiday etc.

And then own personal spending money.

But only the DIL should cover bills???

IsItSummerSoon · 22/01/2025 22:13

I’m so irrationally irritated by you thinking your son is getting a bad deal! Utterly bizarre.

And this is also really irritating me: I also feel like it’s degrading to have to ask your partner to borrow money if you run out of your “pocket money”!

I would suggest as a lower income earner and given the good deal he’s getting, he should maybe learn to stay within budget! He should not be running out of money and asking to borrow money when she’s already subsidising him.

Naunet · 22/01/2025 22:14

Thelnebriati · 22/01/2025 21:50

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

Even then its not 'unfair' as such as they aren't yet married and dont have kids, she doesn't have any obligation to support him, she does it because she's a decent person.

MagentaRavioli · 22/01/2025 22:18

arrggghh! The mathematics… stuffs knuckles into mouth. OP please get some maths help on this one as your DS gains financially from being in the situation he’s in rather than the one you’re suggesting!

Have you actually done the sums here? You are arguing for a worse arrangement for him. This is why the country needs to pay maths teachers better.

LittleOwl153 · 22/01/2025 22:20

I'm struggling to see how you think it would be fair on your son to have more disposable income than his wife-to-be who earns more....

If their household income less the necessary expenses gives them £400 left.over each month - for example - which they take as £200 each pocket money- why do you think your son is entitled to more of that £400 than his wife? The bills still have to be paid, the wedding has to be paid for etc so there will be not more money available to their household so the only way he can get more of the disposable cash is for her to take less... can you explain why you think that would be fair?

I suspect OP your son and his wife-to-be are on a tight budget to keep up with their cost of living whilst planning a wedding. I suspect you are financially in a better position and are seeing the result of this strict budget as unfair rather than the balance between them.

katepilar · 22/01/2025 22:23

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?

Do you realise that if they both paid for everything in proportion to their salary, your son may end up having less money to spend than he has now?

katepilar · 22/01/2025 22:25

BittySpider · 22/01/2025 16:12

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?

Why? Do you expect that as a female from your partner?
Did you see that somewhere?

DinosaurMunch · 22/01/2025 22:25

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.

Well this sounds very unfair.

Namechangefordaughterevasion · 22/01/2025 22:26

I've been married nearly 40 years. My DH has always been the major earner (and often the only earner as I was a SAHM for years). In all that time my DH has shouldered the essential costs of life. Once they've been paid my 'pocket money' has always been a lot more than his because I am more high maintenance - I spend a lot more on clothes, hair, cosmetics, gym, travel, treats etc than he does. I probably spend 80% of our disposable income.

is it fair? Possibly not. But it works for us. And your son's arrangement seems to work for him.

I've always been impressed my DH's recognition that my contribution to our life is not just financial and I'm equally impressed by your DILs appreciation of your son.

katepilar · 22/01/2025 22:30

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.

Its up to them to decide how much they want to go into savings and how much is for day-to-day expenses and fun. Its non of your business how people manage their finances, people dont do things the way you want them to.

fraughtcouture · 22/01/2025 22:33

So you're just continuing to ignore the fact you got the maths completely wrong, despite multiple examples of how he is better off??

Are you really this stupid?!

VickyEadieofThigh · 22/01/2025 22:35

fraughtcouture · 22/01/2025 22:33

So you're just continuing to ignore the fact you got the maths completely wrong, despite multiple examples of how he is better off??

Are you really this stupid?!

Apparently so.

pollyglot · 22/01/2025 22:36

Wonderfulstuff · Today 21:44

pollyglot · Today 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
Edited

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

This is utter bullshit. Such gross generalisation simply because a spolit little rich girl made a pronouncement. So many of us "boomers" are only too aware of what past governments have done to the youth of today, and are desperate to do everything we can to help and support them.

My mother's parents were of the Victorian era. She received a marriage settlement when my parents married in 1947. My granny had a trust fund dating from the 1880s. Mother inherited many millions' worth of property, about half of which she squandered on unwise investments, luxury travel and just junk...because she resented our youth and intelligence and simply didn't want us to inherit. I have done my utmost to save every penny of what I eventually inherited from her (after her death not far short of 100), to ensure that my own kids benefit. I have given them generous amounts to help with education/travel/housing/improvements, and husbanded resources to ensure that they will be well-off now, and on my demise. To the extent of going without myself. Despite my parents' situation, we had only second-hand everything in my chlidhood, shabby and patched. Cheap wedding, mother made my dress (sorry, but it was horrible). All my cohort lived simply with few luxuries and no pressures from our peers. I'm happy to live simply, but my DIL insisted on top-of-the-range everything in the mansion that she and DS built...I have never spent that much on marble benches, ensuite bathrooms etc, which seem to be the expectation for their generation. Guess who had to bail them out when they nearly lost it, by appealing to my grandmotherly love.
you might say I'm being selective in my examples...no more so than the anecdotal claptrop in this article.

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

RawBloomers · 22/01/2025 22:37

Grammarnut · 22/01/2025 22:12

I said assets. E.g. if you own a house and marry the new spouse acquires rights in the house. This is to protect women, btw, who previously could be made homeless in a divorce because their husband owned the house and they had not right to have any part of it.

Edited

Assets are not jointly owned either. If married you gain "matrimonial home rights" over the matrimonial home but that is the right to live in and access the matrimonial home, not a right to its value.

On divorce, if your marriage is short, the court will generally try and put the two of you back into the financial situation you were in before you married, it is unlikely to give you 50% of a house you did not contribute to.

Eenameenadeeka · 22/01/2025 22:46

He's not losing money? They are sharing it, either paying bills or joint savings? They are probably just using less "fun" money as they are paying for the wedding but he benefits from the arrangement more than she does as she's the higher earner, not that it's any of your business anyway

katepilar · 22/01/2025 22:48

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.

If he pays 25% of joint bills it does not mean he is spending 25% of his wages.

heavenstruck · 22/01/2025 22:54

This is how me and Dh do it and he earns more than me especially now I'm on maternity leave

Crabinthebarrel · 22/01/2025 23:01

Bloody hell!! What have I just read 😂😫

When dh and I dated, he earned 2k more than me. We split bills equally.

Then, due to his sector being high paying, he earned 70k more than me !!!

We still had exact same disposable amount.

I now work pt while caring for our toddler. I STILL have same amount even though he earns, with bonus, 110k more than me!!

If he said, sorry, split bills proportionally, and disposable income, even though I contribute by having to listen to Baby Shark on repeat on my 'Days Off' work, I'd just split and claim child maintenance. Fuck that!

They are BOTH equally contributing.

He has a good deal.

Whatdafudge · 22/01/2025 23:01

This has got to be a joke.. everything in the joint is going towards BOTH of them, and the majority is her money. She’s earning more than him and also getting the same ‘pocket money’ as your son - when again she’s the higher earner. He’s the winner here. I feel sorry for the poor girl if she’s doing all that and you think she’s some how exploiting him.

ScaryM0nster · 22/01/2025 23:06

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.

Of course he’d have more to spend if he only contributed to part of the general living bills and none of the savings / wedding fund.

They’re running a tight day to day budget to save up for a wedding. Together. Not just her. Yes, he’s contributing less to that than she is, but they’re both keeping things tight.

Kitchensinktoday · 22/01/2025 23:09

I'm struggling to see how you think it would be fair on your son to have more disposable income than his wife-to-be who earns more....

Me too. A bad case of misogyny?

ScaryM0nster · 22/01/2025 23:19

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.

Aaaaaah,

I think I’ve got your take on what you think is fair maths.

You think he should only spend 50% of his income* in bills. And she should then spend 50% of her income on bills.

And then he’d maybe keep more.

So in the he earns £1400 and she earns £2100 world.

He’d spend £700 on bills and she’d spend £1050

And he’d keep £700 and she’d keep £1050.

And no money goes towards the wedding. And she’s got twice as much fun money as he has.

That’s a pretty unbalanced way to live.

Their approach puts them in an equal position on a day to day basis despite a big earnings mismatch.

And if they split, he’d have to adjust his lifestyle down (probably by accruing less in savings). She’d have more to keep for herself.

Swipe left for the next trending thread