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.

Exactly this! He is getting the better deal as he’s getting a much bigger ratio of his salary as ‘pocket money’.

Basically your DIL is paying for the majority of monthly expenses PLUS the majority of the big outlays like holidays and wedding.

Your son is lucky and you are thinking about it from the wrong angle. Perhaps he needs a better paid job.

They've agreed to combine their finances, so the amount paid by each individual isn't really a consideration. It all goes into and comes out of the same pot. They've continued that by agreeing on the same amount of spending money each, because it's all joint money. Of course it's fair.

OP your math isn’t mathing

Your ds is lower paid than your dil. And he ends up with the same allowance as her. This means she is paying a greater share of the bills. If salaries change then the couple remain equal. This is very fair and enlightened. Your ds is benefiting financially from this arrangement.

Yes, you really are that stupid.

You dislike your dil - you need to fix that

What they do is super responsible and fair as in them being a unit and respecting each other as equals.

They have set themselves a budget and they stick to it. I'm very impressed.

The absolute most you should do is say to your son that they could perhaps have a date night account because prioritising their time together is really important.

But this bizarre idea you have that she should give her money from her account is just ridiculous and motivated solely from your dislike.

OP you need a maths lesson, they have exactly the same amount of money each, which is literally nothing other than perfectly fair.

This is how we do it too. I’m amazed you think this is unfair. It’s really fair, I think. It’s a proper partnership.

You are right they should pay proportionally so say she earns 6k and he earns 2k with bills and savings being 6k they should both pay ¾ of their wages so he pays 1.5k leaving him £500 and she can pay 4.5k leaving her 1.5k - would that be fairer?

Either you have explained this incorrectly or your understanding of maths is really poor. Let’s assume that she earns £2500 a month and he earns £1500 a month. Their joint bills / savings needs are £3000 a month. Three ways to split it.

1. 50:50. Each pay in £1500. Leaves DIL with £1000 and DS with £0.
2. Proportional. Each pay in 75% of income. Leaves DIL with £625 and DS with £375.
3. All in then split. Leaves DIL with £500 and DS with £500.

You described (3). Is that not what is happening? How can you possibly think that (3) is unfair on your son?

If you’re really old-fashioned then surely he, as the man should be covering 100% of the bills?🤔

See, THIS is why it's better if adult children tell their parents nothing about their everyday lives.

I feel like you are being deliberately stupid here. She gets the same “pocket money” as he does even though she actually earns more. So how is it unfair on your precious little cherub?

It would be unfair if she took all his money and gave him a small allowance and then kept all her money to herself. But that is not the case.

You do realise that the money in the joint account is just that?? JOINT!

OP, accountant husband read your post!!!! Your son is getting a way better deal!! You are blinded by the pocket money bit… when actually she is funding the majority of the bills as all her money is going in the same pot when she is the higher earner!!! Oh my days… I did A-level maths and your son is quids in…. What a lucky lad!!

If she covered more of the bills he wouldn't have more spending money, there's the same amount of spare money left after so they either split it 50/50 which gives your son more, or she'd cover more bills and leave him with more spending money than her despite her earning more which would make no sense.

Toxic boy mum disappointed her son isn't a total cock lodger.

If this was simply because you are 'old fashioned' surely your concern would be that your son isn't earning enough to supplement his wife to be....you know, like the good old days.

👏

Imagine if you were her mum and not his, would you find it fair that your child is contributing more but gets the same spending money as her low income partner?

@BittySpider

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

Do you not see he IS getting a lump sum!!

Let's say for instance she takes home £3000 a month and he takes home £1000 The shared bills and expenses are £2000. So at the moment they put £4000 into the shared pot, their bills, holidays etc comes to £2000 and the remaining £2000 gets split in half, they both get £1000 each for personal spends.

So your ds actually gets ALL of his salary to spend whilst your dil gets half of hers.

She is covering more of the bills. All of her incoming is going into the pot. and she earns more than him.

If they both put, say, 75% of their earnings in the pot, so they were paying in proportionally to their earning, she'd have 25% of her money left, he'd have 25% of his, but she's earning more so her 25% would have more pounds in it than his 25%

If your happy if he is happy why are you bitching on here.

This is one of the more batshit posts I have read on here. You clearly can't see that, so just do yourself a favour and stay out of it.

Let’s do some example numbers:

Your son takes home £1400 a month. His fiancée takes home £2100 a month.

Their joint account gets £3500 month.

If their bills and joint costs are £1500 a month, there’s £2000 left for everything else.

£400 ‘pocket money’ each and there’s £1200 left for savings / wedding stuff.

——————-

Compare that to splitting bills proportional to earnings. You son would be paying 2/5 and she would be paying 3/5 of everything.

So on those same £1500 bills:
He pays £600, she pays £900.

£1200 to joint savings / wedding:
He pays £480, she pays £720.

So of his £1400 a month he’s paying £1080 towards the joint stuff. Leaving him £320 left over.

So he’s worse off if they split things proportional to income.

—————————

The approach they’re taking gives them both the same ‘discretionary spending money’ (aka pocket money). It levels the playing field in the relationship. Otherwise he’d be permanently struggling to afford stuff she can easily.

(And she is essentially transferring him money each month, she’s hers goes straight into a joint account, that’s then used to cover his living costs).

@BittySpider

You say that your son is at a disadvantage because his “fun” money is less than it would be if they split by % instead yet by splitting their finances the way they are now he is building bigger joint savings than if he went by %. Because his partners larger salary is contributing more.

If they have the same “fun” money that means your DIL who earns more has less “fun” money than she would if they split by % yet she’s not moaning because she sees them as an equal team who should have the same regardless of salaries.

Your views are old fashioned.

You are all saying he’s better off but he isn’t!

He really is.

Their way:
He earns 2000 and it all goes in the pot
She earns 4000 and it all goes in the pot
They both get 500 spends
The pot gets 5000 to cover bills, shared expenses, car repairs

Your way:
He earns 2000 and pays pro rata into the pot
She earns 4000 and pays pro rata into the pot
He's left with 400 (his money minus 1/3 of the pot)
She's left with 700 (her money minus 2/3 of the pot)