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.

Sounds like it works for them.
I'm surprised you have enough of an opinion to express it.

surely if they are getting married then they share all the money??!

If most posters in this thread agree with you, what will do?

How does it feel to raise such a cocklodger? Does he have any plans to earn more or would he just like a bigger hand out from his fiancé?

I wonder how this conversation came about, presumably he wanted you to sub him because his wife keeps him short and you think that is disgraceful on his behalf. I would guess he wants more, but as only a junior cocklodger he hasn't progressed that far yet- don't worry he will.

Where do you get one of these husbands if you’re a woman and the lower earner?

My partner earns 50% more than me and we pay joint costs from our joint account each month, proportionally to what we earn, then keep the rest of our salaries. This means each month he’s at least £1k better off than me after joint expenses. I’m happy with this as it feels fair, it’s his money and he’s v generous with the savings he builds up (he often pays for unexpected big joint expenses). A lump sum each month sounds like it would be lovely though!

At present, nearly all of your son’s partners bigger salary becomes a joint asset which he can also use. With a set up like mine, he’d be left with less after joint expenses than he has can currently access as a joint asset.

Well they both get the same amount of ‘pocket money’. So each is just as likely to run out as the other. But presumably they’ve planned it so that they have sufficient and don’t run out.

That sounds wonderfully sensible. A joint account for all bills and separate spending money. It's how most people who were married used to run their expenses if they both worked or one was a stay at home parent (in which case the worker paid everything, of course, without thinking about mine/his because money in a marriage is jointly held).
What sensible people your DS and DiL-to-be are.

He’s getting a great deal from his DP. I’d keep out of it if I were you.

They are doing a proportional system.

She puts a much bigger percentage in the joint every month.

Or you think he should get more pocket money than her?

Or it maybe one of them is shit with money, so rather than having unfettered access to the joint account, they transfer a fixed amount so they live within their means...at which point one may we'll be running out of money more often because they fritter money away whereas the other one maybe more financially prudent.

My exh and I worked this system for all 30 years of our marriage. It was NOT why we split,in fact our split was amicable, very quick and we didn’t argue about how to split money. It worked for us.
Duringnour marriage we started with him as higher wage earner. I then went on maternity (6months in those days) then worked part time for 5 years. At which ppintnhe lost his job for 2nd time and began a ten year period with little job security and long periods of time unemployed. Eventually he was diagnosed with severe and enduring mental illness and I remained the ONLY breadwinner for 15 years until we divorced. Again not reason for divorce.

it works becuase, as we found out pretty fast when divorcing, ALL your assets at marriage our joint and equally owned. That’s the pout of marriage. It offers good saving for tax when one perosn isn’t earning as much or not earning at all. And it creates the “shared misery” of “fair settlement” if it does, even 30 years later, do belly up and you need to split assets, including pensions, inheritances etc etc.

so working on separately pots and holding onto higher personal amounts just becuase you are higher salaried is a complete delusion and frankly means you’ll miss out on utlisisnbg tax allowance for instance when on maternity leave if they do decide to have kids. You’re just “playing” at keep your money…in practice it not. Yours anymore…that’s the whole point of marriage. Doh

so it absolutely works in terms of facing reality you have one single pot of money now. We kept a pocket money (perosnal allowance we called it) to cover stuff we individually wanted as non needs and perosnal clothing/grooming …my ex always actually agreed to me having higher groomin* allowance due to pink tax of haircuts, clothes etc being more expensive for women.

we did do all shared non essentials out of joint accounts, like meals out, theatre, cinemas but would buy birthday meals form our own allowance to keep the elements of surprise we were organising.

To me, and him, it seemed just daft going through a charade of his and mine earnings and keeping perosnal autonomy over that. It also makes no acco7t that over 30 years your situation changes and they
l be times when one isn’t working, then the next. These are not always planned, not always agreed up front. Life happens .

How fair would that be? As it is they share their joint income (and it is joint, they will be married) and both can do the things they want and when it comes to something expensive they can do it. If your DiL paid more of the bills and your DS had more spending money (how is that fair?) then acrimony is very likely to set in, when DiL wants to do something but your DS doesn't have the money to do it too.
Anyway, it's their marriage and you need to stay out of their finances.

You obviously aren’t happy. If they did it proportionally so he got “more” they’d have sod all left for their wedding and other joint purchases. They are clearly viewing it as a household income with joint benefits rather than separate incomes. You need to get over the fact that he’s hard done by - he and soon to be DIL are seeing the bigger picture and working for everything they have together. It should be commended.

This is literally how my husband and I have managed our finances for the last 10 years. All of our money is family money, we’re a team.

Everyone is right, if the way you have explained it is correct then he is definitely getting the better end of the deal.

So in your marriage what happens if you want to say, go skiing? Can your DH not go because he doesn't earn enough to pay for it? In a marriage assets are held jointly. It's one of the points of marriage.
E.g. if one of you owns the house and you marry the other spouse has an immediate 50% ownership (plus liabilities on it).

But they both get the same spending money? Are you saying that he should have more spending money than his partner, even though she is putting more money into the joint account?

Your maths skills are shite. He is better off with this arrangement and it's a partnership anyway so what's your beef?

So they both have the same spending money but she puts far more into bills account than him? As fa as I can see she is supporting him!

Looking forward to the “my son is NC and I’ve done nothing wrong I don’t understand” thread.

It's not a "fact" - he is NOT "hard done by". He's doing proportionately better out of the arrangement than she is.

Sounds fair to me. They are team and are pooling their money together and getting the same amount of 'fun' money. This actually sounds a lot healthier than some of the set ups I've read on here.

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

He has really landed in his feet, hasn’t he? OP, your thread and math makes no sense.

By putting all her much higher wages into the joint account, she is basically giving him a lump sum on money every pay day. She is contributing much more than he is, but they still have the same amount of spending money. I think she is very generous.