Early-retirement wannabe

happyandcontented

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 and rapidly 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.

My wife finds it a good arrangement, primarily as she never has to worry about anything finance related (eg, bills, ISA, pension contributions and mangement, etc).

Pull the other one.

Your post is littered with controlling language, repetition of your point of view and the lauding your own fiscal savvy whilst denigrating hers. It is an outdated, unsustainable way to run a marriage or any relationship where the partners are equal contributors to the pot and/or equally important participants in the relationship.

Your wife may not have to worry about the things you consider important to spend on, what she does have to worry about is your misuse of her money, your patriarchial control freakery, and the lack of respect for her that is evident in the choice of language you use to describe her perceived financial 'shortcomings'.

Clearly, she also has to worry about how to garner the money together to purchase things she wants without you having to sanction it.

I cannot imagine being questioned by my OH in the manner you obviously use to control her spending. I feel so sorry for her.

You need to take a good long look in a mirror and also note the date on the calendar whilst you are at it.

How she manages to hold down a job which nets £3400 pcm I can't imagine.....for the avoidance of doubt, that was sarcasm.

Marine_life

hugheskevi wrote: »

She is perfectly free to spend as she wishes, it is just a way of reining in wasteful spending.

Look, I understand in most relationships one person has more interest in finances than the other. In our relationship that's certainly the case (I manage our investments and my wife manages the bills)

But read the above statement and then read your quotes below.

hugheskevi wrote: »

I keep a very detailed track of everything, including all of my wife's accounts
…for which she had no convincing explanation when questioned.
...The answer turned out that my wife knew she had no channels of expenditure which were not closely monitored, except cash spend.
…which she knew I would never agree to purchase
...Without oversight…..ensure there nothing excessive is going on.

Now ask yourself the question...is she really "free to spend as she wishes" or is she "free to spend as she wishes" if it has your approval (which is unlikely to be given)?

If she were - would she feel the need to build up a cash buffer over a number of weeks?

PS. I'm still hoping someone hacked your account

happyandcontented

justme111 wrote: »

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.

No, I don't recognise anything about that scenario.

DairyQueen

justme111 wrote: »

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.

The 'poor woman' is so controlled that she can't buy undies without authorisation from 'himself'. It must be like 'Big Brother' is watching you.

Hiding her spending suggests that she is fearful of the consequences of being found out. Wonder why that is?

kidmugsy

DairyQueen wrote: »

... approximated in the scene when the wife handed over her entire pay packet to her husband. That scene was set in the 1910s.

In my boyhood it was typically the other way round. He handed over his pay-packet and she gave him back his beer money.

As far as I know the habit died partly because pay-packets vanished and wages were instead paid into bank accounts.

crv1963

Like MarineLife- I enjoy the planning and future planning, Mrs CRV manages the bills. I don't know what the exact amount is for those. I trust that we both split them evenly.


If I attempted to tell Mrs CRV what she may or may not spend her own earnings on I would rightly be the owner of a divorce petition.


We agree I can manage the macro (future planning), she the micro (the household budget), both trust the other to communicate any bumps in the road and agree the way over them.


She enjoys a petrol guzzling car, I prefer economy over size- she could taxi everywhere for what it costs in tax, petrol, insurance and depreciation. But- as she pointed out when I asked "it's my car, my money, my choice and I don't ask you to contribute towards it". She doesn't question if I want to gift my sons anything, or go down the pub every now and then.


So Hugh, sorry I think you should re-visit your post, thinking and attitude to your wifes money, it's her money and you can guide but not take charge of it. It has to be a joint venture and making someone female or male feel obliged to hide spending so they can buy something they want when they more than earn enough to buy it at a whim is controlling at best and abusive at worst.

Spreadsheetman

crv1963 wrote: »

.....
So Hugh, sorry I think you should re-visit your post, thinking and attitude to your wifes money, it's her money and you can guide but not take charge of it. It has to be a joint venture and making someone female or male feel obliged to hide spending so they can buy something they want when they more than earn enough to buy it at a whim is controlling at best and abusive at worst.

Absolutely, very well put.

I trust my wife to meet half of our joint financial commitments and what she does with the rest of her money is her business. If there isn't enough to go around we discuss and agree how we can make the numbers work and both compromise accordingly. In retirement mode we will both have personal spending amounts that are not to be questioned even if they come from a common income pot.

seven-day-weekend

happyandcontented wrote: »

No, I don't recognise anything about that scenario.

Neither my husband nor myself would dream of lying about those things (nor about anything else).

We have never had a huge income, but now in our retirement do save a decent amount each month. Neither of us would spend money out of these long-term savings without discussing it with the other. Some of it is not actually long-term savings, but goes towards paying the ground rent on our static caravan, and other associated expenses, but the money is saved in Regular Saver accounts so that we get decent interest.

With our own spends, we each have £65 a month, plus my husband has any money he makes from his music or selling his paintings. Theses are ours to spend as we wish, without having to consult the other.

I think everyone needs their own personal money that they don' have to account for.

Slinky

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.

Given that she felt the need to try and squirrel away some money, it's perfectly obvious that your wife is NOT happy with the arrangement of you policing every spend of every penny.


I'd be squirreling a running away fund if you were my OH.

vulcanrtb

DancingBadger wrote: »

Please say this is a wind-up.

He said it was a smart watch.