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.

You're not old-fashioned!

What they're doing is how it always used to work. I was amazed when I first heard of people doing in percentage-wise!

I don't think you are 'old fashioned' to expect a wife to do the lion's share of the bread-winning while her husband chips in a proportion of his minimum wage job. As it is, each of them gets the same amount of spending money. What could be fairer than that? DIL would have far, far more spending money than your son if they did as you suggest. It would feel weird.

Get him to do it like this then. I think you'll find he can't afford to! And he can only afford the house and expenses that he has because his partner is paying much more into the pot than he is in the long term but only getting the same pocket money out.

But they both get the same amount free at the end of the month? Are you suggesting your son should get more than his partner even although he earns less???

If they are both getting the same amount at the end of the month she is already paying more than him?

Say she earns 4k and he earns 3k and bills are 2k. If they paid bills 50/50 she would be left with 3k and he would be left with 2k. Instead they are adding wages together (7k) and paying bills then splitting the difference so they have an equal share of 5/ 2 = 2.5k each. This means she is getting 0.5k less than she could and he is getting 0.5k more than he could.

Your son is absolutely getting a fair deal.

I think this is one of the most obvious posts of an OP being so embarrassingly wrong and still digging their heels in that I have ever seen.

I hope she says something and persuades them to switch to proportional. She'll soon be back here complaining her little darling has less take home than his fiancé...

BUT holidays etc all come out of the joint account to which she contributes far more. Your darling boy is getting a really good deal.

I think if you were to discuss this with him, he may make you see sense as you are coming across as monumentally stupid.

This is a phenomenally stupid post. Your DIL is paying more towards everything that they pay for jointly, including the wedding. How can you not see this???

They are clearly using ‘pocket money’ as a sensible budgeting strategy whilst they save for their future.

I honestly think this is how all committed couples should manage their finances.

Exactly.
OP, your minimum wage earning son is doing bloody well out of this deal…

Instead of working out how he gets a better deal, work with him to bloody well earn more than that!

It sounds really fair and they seem very financially organised.

Is the issue here that you think they're not getting enough personal spends each month and leaving everything in the joint? We have a similar set up to them - wages into joint account, we have a set equal amount of personal spends and this includes takeaways and meals out. The rest stays in joint bills / savings account and by having limited personal spends, we're able to save up for the big expenses. He is getting a better deal as the lower earner. If they've agreed a small amount of personal spends and have loads left in the joint account, that was a joint decision and if he had a problem I'm sure he'd raise it with his future wife. He's not getting a raw deal by them both having savings build up in the joint account though! He is already proportionately contributing less to the joint account.

. I don’t understand why things like joint meals and takeaways have to be paid by themselves when she’s the higher earner

So you think she should pay for a lot more stuff than him out of her pocket money, even though that's the same amount as him?

So most of the money they are saving comes from her. She isn’t getting additional spending money, it’s going into joint savings?

I believe the words you are looking for in this scenario are gold and digger.

His girlfriend is silly to share any money with him while not being married, until marriage she should be protecting her assets and insisting on 50/50.

I work part-time, due to doing all the housework, school runs, taking kids to clubs etc.

My husband earns 10 times what I earn.

All money goes into the joint account, which we both have equal access to. Because my husband is a lovely, generous, kind and fair man who sees the value in all the hours unpaid work that I do for the family.

But if you were my Mum, would you think I should have more spending money that my husband?! Of course not, that’s ridiculous!

No not really, I have a lot more free time but I use it out the house volunteering one day a week and the other day I see friends etc. if I'm in I might do something but he works from home so I can't be running the vacuum round.

I assume you haven't got kids, in which case I could see how choosing part time would be the only fair time for you not to pool if you're genuinely not doing more at home, I just suspect there are very, very few women working part time not doing more at home, especially with kids.

This!

Someone clearly skipped maths class.

The other positive about the way that they do it is that there is full financial transparency. They both know what the other earns and how much is in “savings”

If the richer person pays a lump sum to the poorer person then the poorer person doesn’t know how much the other person has in savings and how much they earn so if they are getting a good deal on the lump sum.

OP may not realise this, but for DIL to do that would actually constitute double-dipping by DS.

DIL has generously agreed to spend, not just her proportion, but more than her proportion on the shared bills. At that point, when each of them gets the same spending money, the difference in incomes is fully accounted for (indeed, more than accounted for). The salary difference is no longer relevant, because in effect their "income" is now their spending money, which is the same for both. So they should spend the same on things like joint meals and other joint expenditures that are not covered by the bills/rent agreement.

A) of it was proportional to just bills, your son might get more than the allocated pocket money, but he'd get less than his GFs pocket money - so by that logic the current set upnis unfair on the GF.

B) You're also forgetting that anything in their joint account leftover after bills is also shared 50/50 - there just needs to be joint agreement to spend it. So your son is winning there too!

You really don’t understand how this works, and I think it may be wilful.

Say your son earns £2000 a month and his GF earns £4000. All of that goes into the joint pot. £4000 stays in the pot for bills, mortgage, savings etc. Then they each get £1000 for discretionary spending. That’s super fair and no one needs to do any transferring to the other partner.

This is how we have always operated. There’s a difference between our actual earnings, but the important thing is that we both have an equal amount of our ‘own’ money.

@BittySpider You need to go back to school, she is subsidising your son. Remember to say thanks next time you are round.

This is the absolute most fair way to split expenses for a couple.

I'm struggling with you not understanding that this is beneficial for him..unless you consider the joint money (for their wedding etc) only hers?

But this is also how my DH and I have done it since we lived together. Only difference is we use the joint account for takeaways/dinners out together.

Thank goodness the world has changed. And hopefully women have a much better education in maths now too.