Do proportional household budgets just perpetruate sexism?

[lesley33]

By proportional household budgets I mean any arrangement where partners put a proportion of their salary into a pot to cover household expenses and the rest is the individual's to spend as they wish. This arrangement seems to be becoming more common these days rather than having just family money.

Now I know there are individual reasons why this might be a good idea. And I know some women earn more than men. But most women and especially mothers earn less than their male partners. So this proportional allocation means in most cases the man gets more money to spend on himself and the woman gets less.

And I can't help thinking that in most cases this arrangement just perpetruates the sexism in this society around women, mothers and part time work being lower paid than many men and thus having less money to spend on themselves. So what do you think?

Interesting question. I think the issue is different before children are involved when many women give up/reduce their earning capacity- but I don't think its the same pre children. At that stage both parties have the same potential earning pwer and if the higher earner was to put in a higher proportion of salary this is in effect subsidising the lower earner and encouraging reliance/dependence

But even pre children women are on average paid less - not I suspect because they are less independent - but because of sexism. For example, teachers and parents encouraging girls to pursue courses careers seen as suitable for girls and generally lower paid.

I'm not really a fan of having 'private' money. I prefer everything to go into the family pot, and we spend as required, and consult and agree for big purchases.

I appreciate that for a lot of people though, this doesn't work for them. If there is to be a private money allowance, then I think that both should have the same 'spending' money, not as a proportion.

I think it's unfair. Both parties should have the same amount of disposable fun money at the end of the month.
A SAHM / parttimer may be financially dependent on the WOHP, equally the WOHP is dependent on the SAHM in other practical ways. Both contributions are valid, and even if society doesn't value your contribution, your prtner should have enough nous to.

That is an interesting question. I think you are right. Me and DH did this for a while. First of all we put the same amount of money in, then we put a proportion in and now we leave the same amount of money in our own accounts and all the rest goes in the joint account. The latter is easier to manage and fairer, definitely.

However, it was more advantageous for me as I was the higher earner but I was also the one that instigated the change to how it is now - as it didn't seem fair that I could accumulate a lot of savings and DH couldn't (that has all change since then too - we now have a joint savings account).

Whether a proportional household budget is appropriate rather depends on who is doing the unpaid jobs of housework and parenting, or whether those jobs are outsourced and neither parent is doing them.

IMO it definitely leads to women having on average less money to spend on themselves than men; in that sense I suppose your suspicion may in fact be correct.

DH and I use a different model - in fact I copied this from my parents: We pool our incomes and pay all our expenses from the joint account. Whatever is left over is divided by two and is ours to spend on ourselves (or save) respectively. At the moment, this works slightly in DH's favour as I earn more than he does. However, he definitely contributed much more while I was studying.

TBH I'd feel slightly apprehensive about declaring all money simply "family money" due to our different spending habits. DH loves going out with his mates and usually spends his money on drinks, kebabs and the extra fuel needed for simply driving around. I tend to save up for bigger investments (e.g. a weekend away, a sewing machine, etc.). If I didn't have my "reserve amount" I could easily see him spending my share at the pub - not out of malice but because he's pretty casual about spending until the money runs out.

Running a home and family is a team effort. One half of the team shouldn't be priviledged over the other - if either downed tools things would suddenly become very different.

When I was a PG student I lived with my boyfriend and we decided to split expenses. This was outrageously unfair to me as our major expense, apart from rent, was food and he ate 3x the value of the food I did!

SinicalSanta - I agree, it's a team effort and I actually think that in the long run it is easiest to pool all money and to reach agreement on a family budget. It is actually pretty easy to establish if one person is taking the mickey if you run your budgets efficiently!

I think it's the opposite. Sharing out leftover money equally masks the inequality and potentially removes some of the impetus for the female to try to correct the low-female-pay situation (either by lobbying for a certain sort of job as a whole to be taken more seriously and regraded, or by altering her own ambition levels re type of job she does, or the level at which she does something).

Northey - So you think it is up to individual women to take on the whole of patriarchy by herself to change her individual situation? Of course everyone should challenhe inequality, but I would never see it as an individual women's responsibility while her male partner does nothing.

No, but I think that change is generally caused when the disadvantaged party feels their disadvantage, and that that feeling of disadvantage would be masked in this situation. It would be a sort of sticking plaster, rather than tackling the root cause of the inequality. So if the women aren't feeling it so intently, changing it will be a lower priority for them. And if men aren't seeing women feeling it, changing things will be a lower priorit for them, as well.

So what would be fair? My husband and I have always prorated what we put into the joint account according to our incomes. Some years I earned more, some years he.

When I was on SMP only he paid a much larger proportion in than me, and I did the same when he was on JSA.

I prefer us having both our own money and a joint pot, because if I want to treat myself to something then I've saved for it and it's mine. If I want to buy him a present, it's not just me spending joint money, but a present from me to him.

Also, we both have relatively expensive hobbies. By both of us having our own accounts, we can buy stuff for them without thinking twice about it whether it's fair on the other.

A complete joint account is something I guess which appeals to the lower earner in a couple with a huge differential in pay, but having my own on top of the joint gives us more independence and I value that.

I find the separate money thing to be highly problematic and not a little dishonest.

If one partner is out earning the other, and is facilitated in being able to do so, because their partner takes on more childcare, surely they should be billed?

I mean if you are going to be that individualistic about things then surely you need to take everything into account. If one partner earns less but does more in the home they should bill for their time and services.

That would soon even a lot of things up. Bit god-awful depressing though.

If you're going to split it up like that then better to both have the same spending money and all else into the pot. Spent on the usual stuff and hols and any leftover into savings.

We have a joint account and then exactly the same amount of personal money each month. We both know what each other earns and worked it out together. We are more likely to argue if we don't have personal money that is our own.

DH is paid more than I am, so pays more into the household pot.

we have separate money,separate personal account
joint for mortgage,nursery fees,groceries etc
I actively like having my money,and don't want one pot arrangement. I chose not to have shared finances
frankly if woman wants more money and autonomy get a job don't be beholden to the other adult wage. don't give up work

Important point is that if you can save then ISAs are usually a good bet and they are individual.

Plus as a cautious person I like to have my own savings, DH has his too. Although not at the moment as we cleared them out for work on the house. And actually I do all the finances so I was the one who set them all up and had all the passwords and stuff and he didn't have a clue. So actually I could have cleared out with the lot

we do proportional budgets but from the other side. We worked out how much we needed to pay into the joint account to cover mortgage/bills/ childcare etc and then allocated the same amount of spending money. DH pays about 65% of the joint account money each month.

I wouldn't find the billing for childcare situation depressing at all, beachcomber. To me it's actually the most honest and clear cut way of all to do things. It's actually what I would prefer

Slighy overuse of "actually" ...

I actually much preferred having joint savings when our mortgage was offset.

I hate the new hsbc system which means I can't get an overall picture of how much we have saved and instead have to ask DH to log onto his accounts. He does without quibbling, but still.

billing for housewifery?
risible

it's not a job

We are exactly the same as Scottishmummy.

Big expenses like holidays we each agree how much extra to put into the joint. If the joint runs low we each top it up.

It helps that we earn roughly the same amount.