Real life MMD: My hubby earns more. Should he pay more of joint bills?

nakmeister

I say yes, or get a joint savings account where he contributes more than you and it is joint money.

jonnic

The very fact you have asked that question shows your marriage is on stoney ground. I pay most bills and the wife pays for odds and sods. If I am short the wife will give me some money and vice-versa but there is never a presumption that it should be repaid. I have been out with couples before and they go dutch when eating out and buy rounds, once he borrowing a 20 and saying you'll get it back at the weekend. I could not believe what i was witnessing. The wife could have my last breath never mind my last quid.

Frogletina

tescobabe69 wrote: »

A question for the "splitters" please, what if your partner became unemployed and the JSA ran out ?

Me and my partner spilt the bills equally, and what we had over was ours to do what we wanted. He spent most of his, I was a saver.

10 years later, he was made redundant and asked what I thought of him going to university as he knew he would need some financial support. He did get some redundancy money but not enough to last him for 3 years.

I was happy to do this without question with no thought of any repayment. Unfortunately after a year he decided he wanted us to split up. He didn't move out and I supported him until he did just before his finals, the house was valued, I bought him out of the property, and his share was calculated to take into account the amount I had spent supporting him which he saw as a fair thing to do.

Had we originally had a full joint account, I would never have built up the savings necessary to buy him out and the house would have had to be sold. He ended up with enough money to put a deposit down on a new house, but squandered it in two years.

Tightasyoulike

I was so amazed that you had to ask this question that I signed up just to answer you. If you need to ask this question, you should also be asking yourself about the state of your marriage. You have signed up for a lifelong partnership, come what may, promising to support each other through thick and thin (not quite the words used,I agree) yet you're talking about who pays for what. In a family situation, everyone pays into the pot for the good of the family, not for individual needs. You are talking like a student sharing a rented flat, not a life partner. Hope it works out.

pistjordy

It's great these people that never understand other people's situations and believe in the "you are married you should pool in everything and half everything!". Rubbish, every couple is different, do what is best for you.

Our salaries (mine - about 1/3 more) get paid into our own accounts then we have a set amount that goes into a joint account each month which pays mortgage, bills, food shopping etc. I pay more but certainly not in proportion to the extra amount I earn. It means that although I have more disposable income, I also save a lot more for our future and for additional costs: home maintenance, car purchases etc. including a large house deposit for our recent house move to which she (understandably) contributed little. It works for us, my wife is happy (we've discussed pooling option and she doesn't want to) so why change? She can go shopping and buy expensive fancy shoes and I can spend money on football matches without any arguing

Traveller1981

BNT wrote: »

It makes sense, but I am not sure we are disagreeing. Whether we have a joint account or seperate accounts isn't going to make a difference to what personal items I buy. As the higher earner I would have more money in my seperate account. That doesn't mean I have more to spend on personal items. We have the same household income and can afford the same things as if the money is all in one pot. I guess I could tell my wife that I am going to buy a new TV, so she'll have to do without her yoga classes this year, but then I am acting as an individual with my own source of income rather than as a husband with a household budget. I'd have support from the children though.

I find it interesting that you put a TV or a console under personal items. Surely those are household items. One person might make more use of them than other family members, but I assume you don't have your own room where you sit and watch TV or play games.

Of course I don't have a separate room to watch television, what I meant is, I feel no guilt paying £2k for a TV out of my own money, but had the money all been joint, I wouldn't feel right spending that same £2k as it comes out of a joint pot, and I know my partner would happily go without that sort of TV. Therefore, having my own money to spend on those things works for me, as I can buy what I want, anyone can use it, but I don't feel like I am making my partner pay for something she doesn't really want.
Again with the separate personal money, I would never be buying something that meant that my partner would have to go without, like you mentioned with the yoga classes. I want the TV, she wants the yoga classes, and we pay for them out of our own pots. The house still doesn't go without, and neither does the family as the pots of money are separated.

Any

tescobabe69 wrote: »

A question for the "splitters" please, what if your partner became unemployed and the JSA ran out ?

Eh? I suspect exactly the same as if you as a main earner was in that situation - we would have to strugle together.
Just because we split money currently when we are both earning doesn't mean that we would let the other live on bread and water.
We split, because it is easier to budget and manage and because we have our own independence.
If I go on maternity leave, loose job or fall ill that will be special circumstance requiring different arrangements.

Traveller1981

tescobabe69 wrote: »

A question for the "splitters" please, what if your partner became unemployed and the JSA ran out ?

That is no different really to us having a baby. Partner only gets statutory maternity pay, which is a pittence, so I pay all the bills. We split normally, and will again, when she goes back to work. I have no issue paying for everything while she is looking after our daughter, but when she is back at work, we will return to how we were, but adjust the percentages that we pay to the joint to accommodate her part time pay.

Traveller1981

pistjordy wrote: »

It's great these people that never understand other people's situations and believe in the "you are married you should pool in everything and half everything!". Rubbish, every couple is different, do what is best for you.

Our salaries (mine - about 1/3 more) get paid into our own accounts then we have a set amount that goes into a joint account each month which pays mortgage, bills, food shopping etc. I pay more but certainly not in proportion to the extra amount I earn. It means that although I have more disposable income, I also save a lot more for our future and for additional costs: home maintenance, car purchases etc. including a large house deposit for our recent house move to which she (understandably) contributed little. It works for us, my wife is happy (we've discussed pooling option and she doesn't want to) so why change? She can go shopping and buy expensive fancy shoes and I can spend money on football matches without any arguing

Well said.
If you hadn't written that, I could have sworn it was me. That is exactly how things are in my house.

Marco12452

As many have already said, this isnt something you should need to ask !!
A marriage is joint so all monies are joint, if not there is something more serious wrong here ?
Use a joint account for both wages to go into, or get the additional cash you need from you husband.
Either way, talk to him first, not us.