living with someone who would have to contribute more financially

Lunar_Eclipse

Tropez wrote: »

Yes, I'm accumulating savings, we both are. I've always been one to like to save money away.

In this case, I'd like to retire when I'm 45 so a lot of my money gets put away but there's also the old addage about not knowing what the future might bring so saving just make sense.

I think one of the potential problems with financial systems that aren't combined for people living together in a long term relationship (like the one above where one person in a relationship is better off than the other) is that couples might not make joint life decisions, which are often influenced by financials.

For instance, although your partner may also be planning to retire at the same time/age as you or not (through choice perhaps), retirement age, which is usually determined by financial ability to do, is one of those major life decisions that couples should plan together. Not necessarily do at the same time, but plan together. Perhaps it's just the wording that's been used above, but I can't help but notice it didn't say 'we're planning/hoping to retire at 45'.

I also feel the same about holidays together. Someone, perhaps the same poster, said something like 'we'd never choose a holiday the other person couldn't afford' and again I'm wondering where that mindset comes from. It's not saying 'couple' to me, but 'independent.' I think it's different for holidays with friends, but joint holidays surely start with 'where shall we go this year', or 'I'm dying to go to the Pyramids, do you fancy it?' type conversations. Then, 'can we afford it?' not 'can you afford it?'

Someone pointed out that separate finances were not indicative of commitment issues within a relationship, but typing this post out has made me wonder if in reality, there could be a commitment difference to the two schools of thought in some cases. Obviously there's no 'right or wrong' but I can see that they're different and personally prefer the closer, combined one. I couldn't imagine asking to borrow money off hubbie.

getmore4less

Each to their own.

The bottom line its to think the exit statagy first ie: how you will split the joint assets if you ever split and do what fits in with that plan.


Anyway to stratagies.

50:50 is one option
proportional is another

Another stratagy that can work for all or some of the spends

Set a budget for the lower earner and the higher earner matches.
If it won't buy the standard that you want the higher fills the gap.

eg: holiday, lower can afford £500, but the higher wants a £750 holiday so they put in the £250 for the lower earner to make up their budget to £750.
(going on seperate holidays seems wrong to me)



We decided that joints assets were 50:50 so that was the contributions, what left was our own,
But we did have 3 houses at that point 1 joint and one each.

Tropez

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

For instance, although your partner may also be planning to retire at the same time/age as you or not (through choice perhaps), retirement age, which is usually determined by financial ability to do, is one of those major life decisions that couples should plan together. Not necessarily do at the same time, but plan together. Perhaps it's just the wording that's been used above, but I can't help but notice it didn't say 'we're planning/hoping to retire at 45'.

Well that's simple, she doesn't have such plans but then it doesn't matter whether she does or not because she knows about my plans and supports them.

Whether she continues to work past that age or not isn't going to have an effect on our relationship. Why should it?

I also feel the same about holidays together. Someone, perhaps the same poster, said something like 'we'd never choose a holiday the other person couldn't afford' and again I'm wondering where that mindset comes from. It's not saying 'couple' to me, but 'independent.' I think it's different for holidays with friends, but joint holidays surely start with 'where shall we go this year', or 'I'm dying to go to the Pyramids, do you fancy it?' type conversations. Then, 'can we afford it?' not 'can you afford it?'

But you're defining things based on whatever you consider the ideals of a couple. Neither of us are maintaining some sort of list of "off-limit" places because the other wouldn't be able to afford it. We have the same discussions about where to go and when to go as anybody else but neither of us would try and push upon the other to go somewhere at a specific time if the other was short on funds. All being good, we have a lifetime together to go in the future. Even if we tied our money together, the holiday is still going to cost the same amount and it is my partner who would have the issue with feeling like I'd paid for everything, or even a majority. She doesn't want to spend my money, she wants to spend her own - it makes her happy and there is simply no necessity for me to have any access at all to her money, so everything works out fine.

Someone pointed out that separate finances were not indicative of commitment issues within a relationship, but typing this post out has made me wonder if in reality, there could be a commitment difference to the two schools of thought in some cases. Obviously there's no 'right or wrong' but I can see that they're different and personally prefer the closer, combined one. I couldn't imagine asking to borrow money off hubbie.

And my partner has never yet asked to borrow money off me.

Some people desire to maintain independence in certain aspects of their relationship. The only way this speaks about the relationship is if the relationship is monetarily focused. Mine isn't, I'm happy to say. But I will admit, I look at some of the people here, who say that they "let" their partners have a paltry amount as "spends" for the month, and I think how utterly demoralising that would be if I was in that kind of relationship. Luckily for me, I'm not and my partner shares the same viewpoint. We're no less close than any other couple, and unlike some couples we know, we don't row, neither of us feels pressured by the other, and we're both quietly content that funds allowing we can make the "major" purchases such as a new car without feeling that we're spending the other person's money to do that.

As far as we're both concerned, providing the bills are paid and we have a roof over our heads, then everything is fine and there is no need, whatsoever, to start combining our finances.

Lunar_Eclipse

Tropez wrote: »

But you're defining things based on whatever you consider the ideals of a couple.

You're right, although anyone with a vague view about anything is clouded by their own experiences and beliefs, it's only natural. I am part of a team, married and with children. It has definitely changed how I look at a lot of things. Long gone are the days of 'mine' and 'yours' in terms of material matters and personal actions. Obviously we are still two separate people.

In terms of finances, we have one pool of money and a family budget that was agreed by both adults in the family and reviewed annually. The children also contribute to decisions that involve money, as part of their developing life education that is within our role as parents. We also have our own life goals, that we discuss and work towards together.

I do think that when you are married there are legal forces that dictate how assets are viewed, regardless of how money is handled on a daily basis and when you have a family, you are interdependent in new ways that affect financial circumstances and ultimately one's views in this area.

Lunar_Eclipse

Tropez wrote: »

As far as we're both concerned, providing the bills are paid and we have a roof over our heads, then everything is fine and there is no need, whatsoever, to start combining our finances.

Totally agree that there is no need to do this, yet it's a practical choice that many people like to make.

Tropez

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

You're right, although anyone with a vague view about anything is clouded by their own experiences and beliefs, it's only natural. I am part of a team, married and with children. It has definitely changed how I look at a lot of things. Long gone are the days of 'mine' and 'yours' in terms of material matters and personal actions. Obviously we are still two separate people.

In terms of finances, we have one pool of money and a family budget that was agreed by both adults in the family and reviewed annually. The children also contribute to decisions that involve money, as part of their developing life education that is within our role as parents. We also have our own life goals, that we discuss and work towards together.

I do think that when you are married there are legal forces that dictate how assets are viewed, regardless of how money is handled on a daily basis and when you have a family, you are interdependent in new ways that affect financial circumstances and ultimately one's views in this area.

I can understand why people choose to combine their finances which include the ideas of being a team and everything else, but just as I can understand that, I also understand more personally that two people can share their lives without sharing all of their material goods.

Now we're not married and never likely to be. If my partner were not so opposed to the institution of marriage then perhaps I would have asked her by now but that isn't the case, and I'm not overly concerned about that. But I do understand the legal views of marriage and the coming together of possessions as well as people but even in marriage, people can still maintain independence, assuming of course, it never ends up in the divorce court.

Children are something else neither of us want, her for career reasons and me because I think I'd be a crap father, so that also works out fairly well. Obviously were children involved then I would consider my own financial situation differently, although even then I wouldn't necessarily believe it necessary to fully unite our finances but that is because of both of our financial positions. My best friend comes from a family where both parents were well off and kept separate finances, and everything worked for them.

Tropez

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

Totally agree that there is no need to do this, yet it's a practical choice that many people like to make.

I don't disagree with that but it is equally as practical not to combine finances for a number of reasons which aren't just limited to a desire not to.

Mojisola

If people have had experiences in their lives that make them prefer to be financially separate, they would probably be happier in a relationship that worked that way. If joint finances were forced upon them, anxiety about money could drive them apart.

It really is a case of couples looking at the options and deciding what suits them.

Lunar_Eclipse

Tropez wrote: »

I don't disagree with that but it is equally as practical not to combine finances for a number of reasons which aren't just limited to a desire not to.

I agree with that too.

Whilst I entered into the world of joint finances early on in my relationship with my now husband, I think I would have had similar feelings to yours in this area before we were married and had children. (Children make relationships permanent in a way nothing else does in my experience, as in hubbie & I are linked for life through our children, come what may.)

Also, we've been together since before university so we never had a situation of one partner being better or worse off before things were combined, which in a way, makes things more straightforward.

I guess the key is everyone being happy with their own financial management system, whatever that is. Yours obviously works for you, ours does for us, so that's all dandy!

catkins

onlyroz wrote: »

That's fine if you're married, but I don't think it's quite the same when you've just started living together.

I guess so but as we got married after only knowing each other 5 months and did not live together first it was for us "just starting to live together"