Early-retirement wannabe

Marine_life

hugheskevi wrote: »

Reminds me of something that happened a few years ago...

Being a fan of spreadsheets and having an interest in personal finance, I keep a very detailed track of everything, including all of my wife's accounts (updated weekly).

For a period, my wife seemed to be making unusually high cash withdrawals, for which she had no convincing explanation when questioned.

Then one day she was ill at work and had to get a cab home. Her work paid for the cab, and she said it had cost £40. When the payment from work arrived in her bank account, it was only £20. When challenged, she said it was because she did not think it fair to have claimed it all.

That was a step too far, and I didn't believe it. The answer turned out that my wife knew she had no channels of expenditure which were not closely monitored, except cash spend. She wanted some nonsense gadgetry, a Smart Watch of some description, which she know I would never agree to purchase. So she was trying to squirrel away enough cash to purchase it covertly.

I was quite pleased with my expenditure monitoring though, to pick up on something like £200 of abnormal spend, spread over about 4 weeks

Mind you, she insisted on keeping the watch, as it had already been ordered :mad:

I can only assume that someone has either hacked your account or you left your account open and someone typed messages while you were away from your computer?

JoeEngland

hugheskevi wrote: »

It is an efficient way of managing affairs. Her natural habit would be to spend a lot more, as she lacks financial discipline. She also wants to retire early, spend years travelling the world and so forth, but left to her own devices would lack the financial discipline to achieve it.

By most modern definitions. It is a fairly typical circa-1960s style arrangement though.

If you look back through this thread you can see I've been posting since it started many years ago (and more generally, to the pension board for years). Definitely not a troll.

It really isn't, it is a very effective financial management system. She naturally lacks discipline with finance and would be wasteful. We would generally spend around £30,000 p/a excl mortgage, savings and debt repayment which is a reasonable amount without being extravagent.

Of that amount, she spends significantly more than I do, I've never broken it down, but I'd guess that in terms of the entertainment budget, she would spend about 75% compared to my 25%.

Without oversight, her expenditure would steadily increase, leading to very significant imbalances. Over time that would cause its own issues as there is a direct relationship between expenditure and financial independence, both in the short and long term (higher expenditure now also requiring higher expenditure in the future to maintain a given lifestyle).

It basically boils down to goal-achievement. We both agree that our goal is early retirement and lots of travel at an age where we are young and fit enough to do pretty much anything. I have a lot more discipine than she does to stick to a plan, so it is more efficient for me to generally take oversight of expenditure and ensure there nothing excessive is going on.

TBH it seems like you already have issues of one sort if your wife feels the need to lie about how she spends her own money.

enthusiasticsaver

hugheskevi wrote: »

Reminds me of something that happened a few years ago...

Being a fan of spreadsheets and having an interest in personal finance, I keep a very detailed track of everything, including all of my wife's accounts (updated weekly).

For a period, my wife seemed to be making unusually high cash withdrawals, for which she had no convincing explanation when questioned.

Then one day she was ill at work and had to get a cab home. Her work paid for the cab, and she said it had cost £40. When the payment from work arrived in her bank account, it was only £20. When challenged, she said it was because she did not think it fair to have claimed it all.

That was a step too far, and I didn't believe it. The answer turned out that my wife knew she had no channels of expenditure which were not closely monitored, except cash spend. She wanted some nonsense gadgetry, a Smart Watch of some description, which she know I would never agree to purchase. So she was trying to squirrel away enough cash to purchase it covertly.

I was quite pleased with my expenditure monitoring though, to pick up on something like £200 of abnormal spend, spread over about 4 weeks

Mind you, she insisted on keeping the watch, as it had already been ordered :mad:

I am a fan of financial discipline too but no way would my DH accept that level of control over his own money. I don't think it is a healthy
Relationship if your DW feels she has to hide her spending on clothes etc. There has to be a balance. After all it is not like she could not afford it or was not providing for early retirement/savings etc.

hugheskevi

I can only assume that someone has either hacked your account or you left your account open and someone typed messages while you were away from your computer?

Nope, although I did type the message in a bit of a hurry before leaving.

Given the reaction, it would seem to come across in a rather different way than intended, which was just as an amusing anecdote about how closely I monitor finances, but has been interpreted differently, eg around financial hegemony.

It is really as simple as me dealing with all finances (by mutual agreement) which includes close monitoring, and so will show up expenditure which may be not required which we both agree should be eliminated where necessary. She is perfectly free to spend as she wishes, it is just a way of reining in wasteful spending.

coyrls

hugheskevi wrote: »

By most modern definitions. It is a fairly typical circa-1960s style arrangement though.

Surely you mean an 1860s style arrangement.

enthusiasticsaver

hugheskevi wrote: »

Nope, although I did type the message in a bit of a hurry before leaving.

Given the reaction, it would seem to come across in a rather different way than intended, which was just as an amusing anecdote about how closely I monitor finances, but has been interpreted differently, eg around financial hegemony.

It is really as simple as me dealing with all finances (by mutual agreement) which includes close monitoring, and so will show up expenditure which may be not required which we both agree should be eliminated where necessary. She is perfectly free to spend as she wishes, it is just a way of reining in wasteful spending.

I deal with our finances too, by mutual agreement and categorise spending on a spreadsheet to help with budgeting but we both get £200 a month to spend as we wish. My DH spends his on hobbies, I spend mine on clothes, hair, manicures sometimes or gifts for grandchildren. No judgement from either of us. I cannot see that is any worse than you spending £400 on groceries which is about 25% higher than our spend or £1000 on entertainment.

How would you define wasteful? It cannot be a want rather than need as you are quite happy to spend significantly on other areas you obviously feel are not wasteful. Is spending on cars (we have two) more wasteful than spending on travel to cold countries? I am sorry, but I don't understand that either. Only travelling in Europe iwith presumably the aim being a long trip when you retire early? None of us know what's around the corner, we saved for early retirement but also did some great holidays to US and Australia, Asia etc. Are you sure your wife is ok with that or is it just easier for her to let you call all the shots?

DairyQueen

hugheskevi wrote: »

Reminds me of something that happened a few years ago...

Being a fan of spreadsheets and having an interest in personal finance, I keep a very detailed track of everything, including all of my wife's accounts (updated weekly).

For a period, my wife seemed to be making unusually high cash withdrawals, for which she had no convincing explanation when questioned.

Then one day she was ill at work and had to get a cab home. Her work paid for the cab, and she said it had cost £40. When the payment from work arrived in her bank account, it was only £20. When challenged, she said it was because she did not think it fair to have claimed it all.

That was a step too far, and I didn't believe it. The answer turned out that my wife knew she had no channels of expenditure which were not closely monitored, except cash spend. She wanted some nonsense gadgetry, a Smart Watch of some description, which she know I would never agree to purchase. So she was trying to squirrel away enough cash to purchase it covertly.

I was quite pleased with my expenditure monitoring though, to pick up on something like £200 of abnormal spend, spread over about 4 weeks

Mind you, she insisted on keeping the watch, as it had already been ordered :mad:

These days my husband earns the money and I invest it. We feel that we have a partnership of trust and equality. It would never cross my mind to monitor his spending (or vice versa). We both know our income and we trust each other not to overspend. We discuss our finances in broad sweeps and agree our budget together. We each earmark a monthly amount for personal spends within that budget.

I am trying to imagine a marriage in which one partner controls the spending of the other, and to the point where one can't spend an extra 20 quid without the other clamping down, and on a £7k p.m. joint income of which both contribute approx. 50%.

Nope. That's too much of a stretch.

I watched the film 'Suffragette' last weekend. The scenario you describe was approximated in the scene when the wife handed over her entire pay packet to her husband. That scene was set in the 1910s.

There is nothing admirable about financially and emotionally controlling another human being. There is nothing smart or clever about your behaviour. As you have now doubt noted from previous posts most people are (rightly) appalled at your pathetic behaviour.

Do you need to control your wife in order to feel empowered?

What happens when your wife's pre-marital wardrobe finally wears out? I suspect that she will find a method of replacement that marginalises you. She doesn't need you. Get used to the idea.

JoeEngland

hugheskevi wrote: »

Nope, although I did type the message in a bit of a hurry before leaving.

Given the reaction, it would seem to come across in a rather different way than intended, which was just as an amusing anecdote about how closely I monitor finances, but has been interpreted differently, eg around financial hegemony.

It is really as simple as me dealing with all finances (by mutual agreement) which includes close monitoring, and so will show up expenditure which may be not required which we both agree should be eliminated where necessary. She is perfectly free to spend as she wishes, it is just a way of reining in wasteful spending.

You've gone from saying this:

"That was a step too far, and I didn't believe it. The answer turned out that my wife knew she had no channels of expenditure which were not closely monitored, except cash spend. She wanted some nonsense gadgetry, a Smart Watch of some description, which she know I would never agree to purchase. So she was trying to squirrel away enough cash to purchase it covertly."

To now saying she can spend freely as she wishes. :huh:

Triumph13

I have absolutely no problem with having one partner being 'in charge' of finances because they are better at it. My brother and his wife are in a far better financial situation than they would otherwise have achieved because of this kind of arrangement, but the two big differences from the situation Hughskevi described are a) that money genuinely was tight for them raising 3 kids on much, much lower incomes and b) that my SIL gave my brother an agreed (small)amount of pocket money that he could spend as he saw fit without having to justify it to her. The idea that one member of a relationship feels that they have to lie to their partner to be able to afford a purchase which is so immaterial compared to their income really is dreadful.

justme111

I was very impressed by hugheskevi's non consumering lifestyle.
As far as I remember a new sofa accounts for 3 times more carbon effect than eating steak every day for a year.
Re control of finances - I know , can sound a bit freaky but give the guy a break , surely almost in every couple both sides have been known at some point in their lives to hide some expenses not for any sinister reason - for example lending money to a friend that one knows other would disapprove of or hiding money that one spends on BOTOX or some other vanity project or lying about money one had when one went out and and lost due to something stupid mistake or parking tickets or speeding fines one had to pay and did not want to disclose etc etc.
So I do not see why to be outraged at the fact that poor woman was trying to hide the money - it happens occasionally in almost any couple I reckon.
The arrangement when one of family members goes through the expenses of other with a fine toothcomb always is very unusual , I agree. But if it works for them then why not. Majority is far from always right.