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

BNT

Cuidadosa wrote: »

So what's a comment of the type "if you are married the only way to do it is everything belongs to both of you and that's the only way it should be, otherwise that's not a marriage"?

Your view, BNT, has nothing to do with the view of those that I'm referring to. You are not passing judgement, you only explain your way and you also explain that you wouldn't do it the splitters way. But go back and look at some comments and you'll see what I meant.

The sort of comment you quote is wrong in tone, but not in content. How a couple organises its finances doesn't alter the fact that the money does belong to both of them. Yes, I accept you are right that such a comment (and the others like it) do come across as judgmental and demonstrate an lack of willingness to accept that money in individual accounts can be shared just as easily as money in a joint account. However, I also think that some of the early posts from people who split their finances seemed to treat money in the individual accounts as 'my money' and money in the joint account as 'our money'.

I couldn't pass judgment even if I wanted to, as I'm not sure whether I'm a splitter or a pooler. My wife and I do have seperate accounts as well as joint accounts. Sometimes that's because of local legislation/regulations, sometimes it is for tax reasons and sometimes it depends on who was around when the forms needed to be signed. For me, as long as I don't forget that the money belongs to both of us, it is irrelevant which account it sits in.

RadoJo

But even a relationship where one person might have savings which they consider 'theirs' is valid so long as both partners are happy with that. Specifically, I am aware of a couple where one partner came to the relationship with significant savings which they wanted to be allocated to their child in their will rather than going to their (admittedly also relatively well-off) partner. They both agreed that this was fair and are both happy with the arrangement, and whilst it might not be for everyone, it's a perfectly legitimate way to organise their finances regardless of what anyone else might think. Indeed, so long as both partners are happy with an arrangement, I think pooling, splitting, sharing, lending and borrowing, pocket money and any number of other systems are fine regardless of whether I personally would be happy with them in my relationship.

pennypinchUK

Why on earth are you posting such a question on this site, when you should be talking to your husband about it? Surely, you've got a relationship in which you can talk about the finer points of money? If not, it's not much of a marriage!

Speak to him!

Mojisola

pennypinchUK wrote: »

Why on earth are you posting such a question on this site, when you should be talking to your husband about it? Surely, you've got a relationship in which you can talk about the finer points of money? If not, it's not much of a marriage!

Speak to him!

I think it's quite valid to canvass opinions before you have a talk about a potentially touchy subject.

The replies have shown the OP that there are many different ways of organising a couple's finances and that they will have to sort out something that suits them. If her OH comes back at her with "this is the only way that's fair", she will have solid grounds to challenge his opinion.

EllaJones

We think we have the ideal solution. Over the years, sometimes I have earned more than my husband and sometimes my husband has earned more than me. Either way, we both pay our wages into a joint account from which all the bills are paid. We also have 2 monthly standing orders from the joint account for an equal amount which is paid into each of our own accounts for personal spending. Not only does this ensure that we don't overspend each month, but there are no arguments about what we each choose to spend our 'pocket money' on. I can buy clothes and shoes and handbags if I want to, without feeling guilty, and he can spend his on gadgets and books and whatever else he wants to. Any occasional surplus in the joint account goes towards joint savings, holidays or overpaying the mortgage.

burntfingers_2

pennypinchUK wrote: »

Why on earth are you posting such a question on this site, when you should be talking to your husband about it? Surely, you've got a relationship in which you can talk about the finer points of money? If not, it's not much of a marriage!

Speak to him!

Think that this is a tad too judgemental, the OP is in a dilemma and one that could arise in any relationship whether married/living together etc. Finances which have been 'sorted' for a time need sometimes to be adjusted to reflect income/expenditure but it can be a difficult subject to bring up as it can cause rows and if she has been feeling frustrated with the situation for a while then it could be that she is very anxious about bringing up such an emotive subject. We only have to read the comments on here, what works for one doesn't always work for another, we are all individuals with different expectations of what a marriage or even as to how finances are divided.

MsHoarder

All that I am I give to you, and all that I have I share with you

We took our promises and vows to heart, and share everything. That said, most of the savings have been given to me due to my not working and therefore lowering our tax burden. But they are withdrawn for family use, not just for my own use.

There are clearly exceptions to this if there are dependent children of only one party or one party is irresponsible with money (ie cannot budget or will get the family deeply into debt alone) but for the most part this should be discussed before you decide whether or not to get married, not assume that you can act independently for life.

mbooth

To the OP / Original dilemma (No I haven't read the whole thread )
....are you sure you're married? You've agreed to spend the rest of your life with this person. To become a union forever....and you're splitting finances like this?

My wife and I have separate bank accounts. I earn twice as much as her.
I pay most of the bills as I earn the most, but what money is left over in both our accounts (regardless of whose wages it came from) is jointly ours to spend. I think to split the finances so logically is......can I say "cold"?, "impersonal"?
I used to work with someone who when he upgraded something, like his computer monitor, instead of letting his wife have it for her computer (as it was bigger than hers anyway), he would sell it to her.

Regards

Aldahbra

jamespir wrote: »

i think when you are married you should split things 50/50 so i don't think he should pay more

Surely that would mean that he splits his money in half with her? Then he should "pay more"?

Shouldn't the money all be pooled and then divided out, "what is mine is yours etc"

Bodincus

I feel I have to explain again, because most of the posters concentrated their attention on the munnies.

It's the economy, stupid!

Money has NO use, it's only a conventional method we use to assign a cost or a value to something.

The value of the Pound you have in your wallet is not absolute (inflation) nor fixed (currency exchange fluctuations), and if you are giving that lump of metal or piece of paper so much meaning, you're barking at the wrong tree.

You can't eat money, you can't drink money, you can't heat your house with money, you can't dress yourself with money.
You can have all the money in the world, but if all of the world's water is contaminated, you can't drink a drop of it.
If there is no wheat to make bread, you can have all the money in the universe, but you're going to starve.

Too many of you are obsessed with money, and can't see beyond that. Money is a convention, what has real value are things.

You buy things with money. You pay services with money. Money is a vector, a force. But if you can't apply that force to a solid point, you're not moving.

When you spend money for items that the whole household benefits from, in equal measure, it's only fair that everybody in the household shares the cost in equal measure.

When you spend money on thing for yourself, you can do it only if you have contributed to the maintenance of the communal household items you benefit from, and there is (lucky you!) spare cash left.

Money is not yours, you don't own a penny, ever.

When you have cash with you, you are carrying a deed from the bank that printed the banknote, or the Mint that coined it.

When your bank account has a nominal amount of pounds in it, you are merely recognised a credit.

Therefore, nobody ever owns money.

If you say the money is yours, you knowingly lie to yourself.
But you can own things. If you accept this principle, everything automatically descends from it.

Again, anything else is an illusion based on false pretences.