AIBU to go on the trip without my husband if he can’t afford it?

[Darknightsdarkmoods]

My husband and I have a long standing group skiing trip with our school friends, every February. This year has been hard financially, particularly for my DH, who is in a low paid job and has little disposable income. He has a little bit of debt and no savings. My financial position is slightly better, and I have always prioritised holidays as a use of my disposable income, unlike my DH.

We have no children and have always had separate finances. Obviously we help each other out where we can.

Our ‘plan’ for next year was a 2 week long haul holiday sometime in Spring. We will have no significant plans prior to this due to DHs finances. I have savings to cover my half of this set aside.

Upon discussing the ski trip today, my DH expressed disappointment that he wouldn’t be able to afford to go, although he wanted to try and ‘make it work’ and would consider going into further debt to make it happen. When questioned about the knock on effect to our planned trip, he stated he would rather go on this group trip than our couples holiday. He also stated he would be ‘irritated’ if I went on the ski trip without him, which I was not significantly considering (for financial reasons), but I don’t think is his right to decide on my behalf. (It’s worth mentioning I attended this trip alone several times before DH and I were serious, and other solo friends attend).

AIBU to be annoyed he would prioritise a group trip he can barely afford, get into further debt OR tell me if he can’t go, I can’t go?

I can just about wrap my head around couples who have separate finances because they have children from previous marriages. Even then, I really can't fathom how that works day to day. But you've no children. I can't understand why you've not pooled your resources and acted like a couple in terms of making decisions about how to spend "your" (i.e. joint) money. The dilemma you're describing is inconceivable to me. In my marriage we have money that comes from both of us to pay for household bills and from which we decide what to do with anything left over. If there's a big expenditure on the horizon, whether it be something as a family we do or need or something one person needs, we talk about that and decide together. You guys sound like you're living as flatmates.

Sorry but I feel if you are married you help each other out, although we've always had joint finances so what do I know?

In a case of being able to afford one ski trip but not two, we would split the money and go somewhere cheaper than we could enjoy together and hope for better finances next year.

If you do go on your own which you are, of course, entitled to do, how are you going to explain your missing husband when your friends ask.... "Oh, he didn't have enough money so I left him at home". Don't you think that's going to sound a bit crass? Better that you say "we don't really have the money this year but we'll see you next year".

I would hate this kind of marriage. is this a new thing? I have only been married 8 years, but we just share everything, thought that was what marriage was all about.....

He's unreasonable to tell you that you can't go without him of course. Is he embarrassed that the group would know he can't afford it maybe?

More power to you for seperate finances though, sounds like he's a spender and you're a saver, I never understood this "All money is family money" trope that gets spouted on here. Earn your own money, spend / save it as you wish providing you are both meeting your joint obligations. Saves a million arguments.

Usually I say that all money is family money but there are no children involved meaning there isn’t one adult having to sacrifice work hours etc to do the childcare.

If I was the higher earner in a marriage without children I’d be happy to subside things for my partner who earned less if and only if they weren’t reckless with their money and weren’t in debt for stupid things.

I can't imagine being married and not sharing finances. Feels like being roommates rather than married. I couldn't imagine enjoying a holiday when my husband couldn't afford to come with me. Such a strange relationship.

Why did you get married if you want to keep things separate like this?
It seems so pointless, it would have been better to just cohabit and not go down the legal route of marrying each other.

You do realise that if you split up and divorce your assets will be seen as equal?

I find it so strange that people get married but then carry on in this way when it comes to finances. Have some separate funds of course but not to the extent that one of you can afford a holiday and the other can't, that's just ludicrous, you sound like flatmates!

This is easier said than done when one person is a big spender and doesn’t have a sensible head when it comes to saving etc and you have another person who wants to play the long game and save and put money in to long term goals.

It must be frustrating as the higher earner to see the other person spending on XYZ when they claim to have no money and getting new credit cards for things they can’t afford.

So what are you going to tell the group "oh John couldn't afford it " do you realise that sounds weird given your married. It also makes you look controlling in you won't let him have money to go, but its ok for you to go.

We have had shared finances for 30+ years because I retired and took a small part time job i pay for all my expenses out of it, clothes, drinks etc...i also pay for the nice to haves, meals out a new tv because I wanted a newer one...we are comfortable money wise but its nice to think I'm working for fun stuff. But i also pay for treats for my partner out of it, a new kindle etc

Wow op you know what marriage is right? Have people forgotten how to share?

It's not a "trope spouted on here", it's part of the legality of a marriage!
At least it is when the marriage fails and it comes to divorce.
If you don't want to combine things and share with another person, don't get married, it's that simple.

this is so true, its terrible, wow op...

It sounds like he can’t afford a holiday at all - not the group ski trip or the couples holiday.

Up to you whether you want to adapt your plans to take this into account or not.

So he would rather go on holiday with his mates than work you, and you would rather go on holiday without him than on a holiday you can afford for the both of you. Nice 👍🏼. Perfect marriage there 👍🏼👍🏼

It's absolutely fine to have separate finances - it works for lots of couples. But I don't understand why the OP can't just say "I get that you're a bit skint, so I'll treat you to the skiing trip this time"...then they can both go!.

Why are you even married?

Why wouldn’t you help to pay for your husband if you can afford to? He’s your husband? Your set up is bizarre

We have separate finances but wouldn’t do this. We don’t live in each other’s pockets but we would both go or neither go.
When it comes to holidays etc we both contribute.

His debt is your debt.

If dh can barely afford one trip out of the two because he has different spending priorities, while OP can afford both thanks to, say, bringing packed lunches to work rather than going out, then DH has in effect vetoed OPs second holiday. I can see her being slightly irritated. It also speaks volumes he'd turn down the couples holiday.

OP maybe you can find a friend to go on the second trip? Or just go by yourself?

If the debt is in his sole name , the debt is nothing to do with her.
From Experian

I don't know why people are moaning at OP about sharing finances.
A - It's nothing to do with you, if it works for them, it doesn't matter what you do in YOUR marriage
B - They seem to have the wrong end of the stick and think OP is some sort of millionaire. Whereas it sounds more like they are both fairly low earners but she is just better with money. Nothing she has said suggests that she could afford to pay for her and DH to go on both holidays even if she wanted to.

Basically should she be punished and not be able to go on any holidays herself solely because he is in debt? So being with him leaves her worse off than if she was single? How is that fair?

OP - in answer to the questions you raised, I actually think it's fair enough for him to prefer to go on one holiday over another, if he can only afford one. If he was prioritising a stag do with his mates over a family holiday it would be different, but his logic that a holiday with you AND his mates AND doing an activity he likes is better than a holiday with just you which is more of an unknown quantity does sort of make sense, even though it's not what you would prefer. But yes of course he is being unreasonable to tell you you can't go just because he can't.

Debts in his name are not hers

How's is his debt her debt? What a load of rubbish

Thought it was a distant relative she was speaking about. Her dh is right, she shouldn’t go if they both can’t go.

I went solo travelling for 6 weeks last year be cause my partner couldn’t afford it and couldn’t get time off work. Some people asked why he didn’t come and I literally said he couldn’t afford it or get the time off work, I do t see why that’s a problem? Would say the same to friends on a group trip too.