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.

If she earns £4000 and he earns £1000 and you say she's going to pay 80% of the bills and he's paying 20% (proportional to their total combined earnings £4000 is 80% of £5000).

The bills are £2000/m.
80% = £1600
20% = £400

She then has £2400/m for herself and he has £600.

Alternatively, they do what they're doing now.

Bills come out, and fun money is split between them. They now have £1500/m each.... Your son is getting a sweet deal and you can't do maths.

Congratulations on both fronts. Your poor DIL.

(example finances! I know this probably isn't accurate but I used easy numbers due to ops questionable grasp on mathematics)

I think your seasonal earnings going into the joint account is utterly sensible. Of course you see the benefit of it - your whole family does. Funny woman, your DM.

Say he earns £2500 pm and she earns £4000 pm. Total is £6500. If they wanted to have £6000 pm in the joint then they put it all in and take £250 out each. He has contributed 90% of his salary and saved 10%. She has contributed 93.75% of her salary and saved 6.25%. Surely you can see he is getting the better deal?!

Sorry I hadn't read you did a similar example to me!

Thinking about this overnight (yes I didn't have much on yesterday).

I think where you are going wrong is you are thinking because he only earns 25% he should only pay 25% of his wages where you should be applying it to the bill total or it won't add up

Eg here
Her 3000
Him 1000
Total income 4000
Bills 3000
Free spends 1000

Your method
He pays 25% of income towards bills keeps 75%.
She pays 75% of income towards bills keeps 25%
Bills 250(0.251000) + 2250( 0.753000)=2500 .500 short in the bill account .
Him 750
Her 650

Equal spends
Bills 3000
Him 500
Her 500

Proportionate
Bills 3000 ( she pays 2250 he pays 750)
Her 750
Him 250

@pollyglot 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.

You can’t moan about boomer stereotypes while attempting to enforce negative stereotypes about other generations. No everyone in the younger generation doesn’t have expectations of marble and en-suite bathrooms 🙄 most don’t own even own a home.
The irony of getting offended at the posters comment just to throw a whole load of negative stereotyping out yourself!

These days anyone on minimum wage is barely surviving, unless in a house share and without kids/mortgage/holidays/savings etc

So I'm guessing part of the problem is that op is estimating their expenses as way lower than what hers were when she was their age.

She imagines her DS should have money left over every month.

When the rest of us know he is lucky to have £200 a week pocket money, generously provided by Dil.

I do wonder what the DIL's parents would think, if they read this thread .....

Op is never coming back in she?

If she does, it'll be more of her shaking her head while we show her a tiny toy cow and say "small...far away".

I think this is also a really good point. A lot of parents can’t get their head around how little additional funds most younger generations have now. My mum was a sahm and my dad had his own small business but they had a brilliant social group and all went on abroad and uk holidays together, meals out, lots of parties etc
My parents do understand as such that we can’t but they think it’s awful that our lives are as limited as they are by funds, even on a dual income.

It sounds more than fair to him! They’re getting the same amount of pocket money back, so in effect she is paying more proportionally into the JA.

Yes this is very likely the case!

@BittySpider

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

You really need to sit down and do your sums op. In the nicest way, if your ds earns 25% less than your dil, and he pays 25% of all the bills inc a monthly amount for the wedding, holidays etc, and your dil pays 75% and they keep the remainder of their own salaries your DIL will still have more 'personal' money. They way they are doing it now means your ds gets more personal money compared to what he'd get doing it your way

She won't come back. She's been told that she doesn't understand simple arithmetic and she also wanted everyone to agree her DS should keep most of his money and only contribute a bit to finances. Didn't go the way she hoped.

Why would she pay him a lump sum, he has access to ALL their joint money, including money HE DID NOT EARN.

Let's try this:

He earns £1000, she earns £2000. All of it goes into a joint account.

Say they each have £200 a month personal spending money. That means her personal spending money is 10% of her income but your son is getting 20% of his income for personal spending.

All their bills are paid and anything left over is savings which he has full access to even though he has contributed far less money.

How is he not getting a good deal. He has a higher percentage of his income for personal spending and is contributing far less to bills and savings despite having access to ALL money in the joint account.

Nope, which is sad because I wanted to see how she tried to prove her point whilst also entirely reinventing maths.

I am frequently amazed on MN by the number of women who have a child and stay at home, who have had to save up and use money they have earned to pay for their maternity leave once it is over statutory - and the DH complains about the loss of earnings and totes up what the OP owes him.
This couple seem not only sensible but fair - so when DiL does have children they will still have a joint account and savings and the same amount of 'pocket money'. Not only sensible, but feminist, too.

I am frequently amazed on MN by the number of women who have a child and stay at home, who have had to save up and use money they have earned to pay for their maternity leave once it is over statutory - and the DH complains about the loss of earnings and totes up what the OP owes him.

This is one of the reasons I didn't have children with my ex. He genuinely thought any maternity/child related costs would be down to me, even though I earned a lot less than he did, and already struggled to pay 50% of all household costs.

@pollyglot you sound like one of the good ones. Unfortunately some of my family don't agree. My 75 year old aunt and uncle are exactly like this article. Maybe as they ah e no kids, so don't see the struggle. My parents are more like you.

This is how me and my DH work it, I earn 18K more than him and am happy with the arrangement as when he gets pay rises it just increases our fun money. Like others have said we are a team and this way both can get personal treats. We have worked money a few different ways and this way is definitely best for us.

Yeah well I don’t think that’s fair! Besides it’s not any of your business and why should she subsidise him even more than she is already doing. They might want children at some point. She might not always earn more money than he does then anyway.
They are doing what works for them leave them be!

I pity your soon to be DIL - odds are stacked against her already in your - very small - mind.

Was also coming to do a simple math example.

We do this, it’s 100% equal and no one takes the piss by taking more. Only we save jointly though. We have our own ‘spending money’ to avoid any arguments over who spent x amount much on that etc.