What's fair? Working out finances in our marriage

[theredsalamander]

ive had some fab support and feedback in this thread here and dh has agreed that we should split our finances in a more equitable way.

We have sat down and added together what our joint household expenditure is, so all household costs eg car fuel heating building maintenance car repairs water insurances the lot. Previously cars were indiv expenses.

Tbh it has scared the bejeezus out of me because for the first time I can see what dh has been funding out of his wages without any input from me and it's A LOT. They are the irregular costs that aren't calculated monthly and so don't go out on a monthly direct debit, for example car insurance or tax.

We are living a lifestyle which my wage cannot hope to contribute fairly to -if we split our contributions to joint account proportionally based on our incomes the maximum I could put in as my share still wouldn't be enough. (eg if total coat is 3k, my share might be worked out to £1k, but if I only get paid £800 a mOnth we are way off. Effectively dh has been funding the shortfall.)

I can't believe I have been so out of touch with our finances and feel like some 1950s housewife who is totally oblivious. Which I guessbi have been.

Logically I would argue that we need to downsize to a more affordable home, or dh should change his car to one the tyres don't cost 300 a pop. But dh says that at present we can afford to do all this because he paying for it- and therefore we should stay at the present system where we split monthly household costs 50/50 and he funds everythin else, I am getting a good deal and I just need to suck it up and be wiser with the cash I do have.

If we have system as he suggests, and additionally where I grow a pair and start telling him when i need to buy the things I need- of course not taking the piss, is this a good one? I am struggling to feel my way around this and could so with some assistance to deconstruct this!

Thanks in advance.

We both get paid into the joint account and have weekly standing orders that go out to our sole accounts for "spending money". I actually earn more but as I don't have hobbies my spending money is slightly less and I am happy with this.

Can you tell us the figures ie outgoings, his salary/your salary? Then we can give more guidance?

"We are living a lifestyle which my wage cannot hope to contribute fairly to -if we split our contributions to joint account proportionally based on our incomes the maximum I could put in as my share still wouldn't be enough. (eg if total coat is 3k, my share might be worked out to £1k, but if I only get paid £800 a mOnth we are way off. Effectively dh has been funding the shortfall.)"

This, my friend, makes no sense. If it worked out that you contributed in proportion to your wages, there could be no shortfall. Someone's maths is wrong.

But anyway, back to my inital thought - it should all be joint and whatever's left-over after bills divided by 2 (or possibly 3, with the third share being joint savings).

We just have everything, wages, TC and CB, paid into a joint account, the bills come out of the total and whatever is left we transfer to our other joint account to use as we need it. We generally spend about the same but if one of us needs something more than £10 then we mention it to the other out of courtesy. We dont have to ask permission to spend more than that its just to keep the other one informed.

I generally run our finances, I check the accounts daily and usually know to the penny what we have in there.

I cant imagine doing it any other way because our outgoings are our outgoings, whether that is the bills, the car or clothes and shoes. I consider everything to be joint expenses, even his magazines and my coffees when I am out!

Agree with what everyone else has said. You are not flatmates, you are a married couple with a family. Therefore, as per your marriage vows, all worldy goods are shared.

If your family income is, for argument's sake, 4K per month, can you afford to sustain your current lifestyle? That's you plural, not "his" wages and "your" wages. If not, then yes, you must economise. If it's yes, then there should be no problem.

Also, with reference to your previous thread, try to dispel the notion that you're poor with money. This loan you have was not down to your profligate spending; it was mainly accrued through supporting him at a time he had a very limited income through studying. If you've been working to a strict budget to get straight since, then that would show that you're capable of being sensible with money - arguably more so than him, who's been splashing out.

I'm lucky if I earn £150 a month - our outgoings are way way more than that - but I enable DH to earn his salary by doing the bulk of the home / child stuff so his wage is our money. If we both worked f/t and had to pay for a nanny and a housekeeper then his wage would take a serious hit.

All money goes into joint account, bills are paid, and what is left is ours to spend.

Don't understand how anyone could work any different.

add up everything that comes in in a month. Deduct everything that goes out in a month (every cost towards travel, house, food and children, bills, debts)

Remainder is split in half between you and DH, to do with what you choose.

Red, your sums do not add up. I personally think dh is pulling a fast one.

DH and I have always taken the view that we each divide our time between working (for money) outside the home, looking after the DCs, running the home and leisure time. The proportion of time we each spend on the first three will vary, but are equally valid, and leisure time ought to be equal. Therefore his income compared to yours is irrelevant. It's family money. Whilst he's earning his portion, you're taking care of his kids.

How would this work for your H?

Just to explain why your sums don't add up from your own example. Say your outgoings are 3k and your share of them split in proportion to your income is 1k. This would imply that your dh income is double yours. You then say that your share exceeds your income which is £800 (I know these are illustrative not real figures). If your dh income is double yours, his income wld be £1600 and so your overall budget wld be in deficit. If his income is actually higher than this (so you are as a family spending within your means) then you have not split your contributions in proportion to your income.
Does that make sense? Can you explain why your dh has managed to convince you otherwise? Is it perhaps because he is insisting that you continue to pay all your loan costs yourself - because that is completely missing the point...

He's manipulating you again.

Your sums make no sense.

TRS - It's good that you have both sat down together and looked at your whole household expenditure.

But your DH is still pulling maths stunts to try and keep you with no disposable inciome. It just isn't right that while you make your contribution in childcare time instead of earning money outside the home, you are left with no disposable income and he has a car that needs tyres at £300 each AND has disposable income! Has he included HIS choice to need these tyres into the joint expenditure that you might pay a proportion of?

Add up your total expenditure, make joint decisions about where to cut back, then make a joint decision about contributing to a joint savings pot, then agree on an amount you could each have as monthly disposable income.

I can't believe he has managed to come home and lay it all out to make it sound as if he is being even more generous and you are being unreasonable.

Well, I can, actually.

You are married. All assets are jpintly owned. That includes his earmnings and your time bringing up the children. If he tries to take more control over them than you, he is being controlling.

Even while your dh is trying to do the "right thing" he's actually on the face of it trying to still shaft you. I think there are 3 sensible options here: 1. All your joint income goes into and expenses come out of one account. 2. Everything goes into one account and you do standing orders to your separate account for personal expenditure. You each have the same. 3. Divorce.... Because a judge will treat you financially better than your husband is prepared to. Please love yourself as much as you love dh and consider these your only options.

Hmmm. Is he a banker? I would say that he is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Sorry. It looks like he would like things to stay exactly as they are, that is, you do not have any disposable income at all and he has lots.

Personally, I do not favour the "proportional contribution" system as it favours the full time earner. I think that is unfair as it does not recognise the unpaid contribution (childcare, household) of the part time earner. So the lower earner then is subsidising the higher earner with their unpaid work.

I think you should work out your total family income and your total family expenditure - this should include all household bills (including heating oil), all child related expenses, all travel/car related expenses and contribution into the joint savings account (for holidays, Christmas, etc). Whatever is left is divided equally. So if there is £200 left, you each get £100.

Forget the math for a moment.

He is still happy to leave you in a situation where you have NO disposable income to manage as you wish.

You are even offering to downsize in order to get some disposable income, and he is refusing.

He is not a good husband. Not at all.

He is trying to convince you he is right with the math -- but the math doesn't really matter.

Think about it -- he is happy to keep spending money on his hobby because 'he can afford it'. So clearly he could afford for you to have more money every month, but he chooses not to let you have it because of his misguided principles on how things should be split.

It's fair enough that he has been spending a lot of money you didn't know about -- but he says you can afford it. So there's no reason you should have to beg him for money when you need something.

Please consider getting some counseling on your own, so you can think about how to approach this problem.

My DH and I have separate accounts, always have. I earn a lot more than he does. We have an arrangement that he puts the same percentage of his income into the household pot as I do. We both keep the remaining percentage for ourselves. I appreciate this wouldnt work for everyone but it works for us.

You as you are married even the debt is joint debt if it was accrued whilst you were together! You should be jointly paying it back!

Has he factored in the loan you are paying off, much of which was accrued when you were supporting him as a student, redsalamander? Or has that conveniently been forgotten in this dispassionate look at the family finances?

I assume also he's putting new items into the pot like the car you mention. So if you drive (and fund) a normal car out of your income and he funds an expensive vehicle out of his, if you pool all car expenses you end up out of pocket because proportionately you are now paying, say, one third of the total cost of two vehicles, where previously your car costs were a quarter of total car costs?

Unless It goes in a pot and you each take an equal percentage of What is left over then he still has you exactly where he wants you and 'bestowing' financial largesse on you, therefore making you feel grateful. Bu sitting down and showing you What he pays for has put that seed of doubt in your head again. Did you even suggest that he should make a contribution to the debt as It was debt incurred while you were supporting him?

I'm confused. If you (as a couple) are not in debt - ie there is money left after all outgoings have been met you should have some disposable income. It's how much are the outgoings =. x, if you, higher wage earner, pay Y that is (for arguments sake) 60 % of your net salary. I, lower earn, put in Z which is 60% of my net salary. Y + Z = X. Sums done, disposable income (not necessarily the same amount) for both. One with larger disposable income picks up larger share of treats (if not factored into outgoings). That is, essentially how it works round here (but then neither of us are 'I paid for that' people!)

"We are living a lifestyle which my wage cannot hope to contribute fairly to "
You are paying 100% of your income towards the family pot. He is not. That's what's not fair.

Agreed, clam. Your joint income appears more than adequate to fund your joint lifestyle. So how can your wage (and contribution in terms of time) not contribute to that fairly? What's fairly? It may not be 50:50 but it's rare that two people earn an identical sum of money, have identically expensive personal costs and can contribute an identical amount of time to the family. Normally these things are traded off in a way that is firstly fair to the children and secondly fair to both parents.

If your husband wants you to contribute to your joint lifestyle in proportion to your income,then you need to discuss together what changes that would entail.
If he is happy to pay more of his income to fund the lifestyle he wants,that is ok too in my book,but it is entirely unreasonable for that to result in a set up which results in you having having little or no disposable income while he has plenty.(especially as if I remember correctly from the other thread you are repaying a debt dating from the time when he was a student and you were supporting him?)

What I can't quite get is a loving committed relationship which involves this attitude.

"he says..... I am getting a good deal and I just need to suck it up and be wiser with the cash I do have."

Basically he is boxing you into living beyond your means and is not prepared either to adjust your joint lifestyle to allow you to contribute proportionately to it or to go for the "joint family money with disposable income for both" option.Which is not fair.

I can't imagine being happy in a set up where my partner had to scrimp and worry about their contribution to the family finances,and had no disposable income,while I had lots.

I mean, what sort of man is prepared to flash his "own" cash under your nose, whilst watching you struggle and go without. And call you 'grabby' while he's at it.

A manipulative bastard sort of man, clam.

And then convince you that he is being really really generous to lend the household expenses pot some money to pay for heating. While treating himself to a car that takes £300 tyres.