couples and money

74jax

GobbledyGook wrote: »

I can't imagine one partner being able to afford a holiday and the other not for example. It just baffles me. I also can't imaging having an OH and not wanting them to be equal to me. I wouldn't want to be able to have an expensive hobby if my husband couldn't afford it.

That has never happened but I agree if it occurs in a relationship it may well be a problem, but £700 a month for me to spend is way beyond what I would like to spend anyway. We've been together 7 years (this June :T) and since living together we've never had an issue of a holiday that neither can afford. If one of us didn't have any spending money and the other did, then I'm not sure how we would work it, but it's never cropped up in 2 years of living together. If anything before we lived together I felt a little more uneasy, no idea why. I don't see that he has 2k extra month to spend asI don't see his bank or anything like that, if he wants to buy a 1k kite then he does, he doesn't tell me, just the same as if I got a dress for £200 I don't tell him, the prices are different but to me it's our money - to spend/save etc. Bills are paid so it's ours. I can't really comment on if he wanted something for us both and I couldn't afford it what would happen, as it's never happened. But say he wanted to go to Australia for a month and I couldn't afford it, he would pay and I'd probably arrange a treat for him whilst we were out there. But it's all guess work as it's never happened.

Differences are what make the world interesting I suppose. Perhaps I'm in for a very big shock if I have a new relationship at any point!!

Differences are fab! That's why this site is amazing at times. I think as long as something works for you then that's good, but when you think 'this can be improved' then this site can be excellent - as in why the op posted.

People can be very critical on here, but as long as you know you've both worked out what's right for you, then things should be plain sailing.

Betty2012

74jax wrote: »

It's really does work for us. After OH has transferred his 60% and I have transferred my 40% to the bills he has around 2k spending money and I have about £700. It makes no difference to me. He also has money coming in from renting out his apartment too so really he has much more.

We both spoil each other, buy our own things, and it works. Just because he might go out and buy something for his hobby costing several hundred doesn't mean I should have access to his money to do the same.[/QUO
If it works for you then its great.

Do you think you would feel different though if you had kids?

I understand some people cant/dont want children but I always think this puts a different perspective on the equation.

chirpchirp

When I was married all our money went in one pot and everything came out of it. For most of my marriage I was a SAHM so this worked well on the surface but my ex had a funny view of money and we were constantly overdrawn with thousands being swapped from 0% credit cards to other 0% credit cards. By the time we left the divorce court he had £29,000 worth of debt despite earning a huge amount. As he was the wage earner he looked after the bills and the money, with hindsight perhaps i should have done more but it was difficult to take control of as he spent so much on lunches with work colleagues etc

My parents had a different way of doing things. My Dad paid all the bills and gave my Mum housekeeping and what she earnt was her own. I always felt this was unfair on Dad despite the fact Mum earnt very little.

I have some friends who half everything that is to do with the house. For example my friend will come home from the shops and tell her boyfriend of 18 years "Hey Babe, I bought some mugs so you owe me £5" if they go for a meal they both pay half. I find this weird but as they live together it's apparently what a solicitor told them they should do in case they split up.

It's an interesting question, as I now have my own house etc and I'm dating. With children from my marriage and with him with children from his marriage if we ever decided to move in together we would both have to consider the needs of own children and perhaps protecting inheritance for both sets of children based on money which has come from our previous relationship ie equity from our homes.

74jax

Betty2012 wrote: »

74jax wrote: »

It's really does work for us. After OH has transferred his 60% and I have transferred my 40% to the bills he has around 2k spending money and I have about £700. It makes no difference to me. He also has money coming in from renting out his apartment too so really he has much more.

We both spoil each other, buy our own things, and it works. Just because he might go out and buy something for his hobby costing several hundred doesn't mean I should have access to his money to do the same.[/QUO
If it works for you then its great.

Do you think you would feel different though if you had kids?

I understand some people cant/dont want children but I always think this puts a different perspective on the equation.

I really don't know and as we won't be having any I've never thought about it. We do it this way for us as a couple now. If we find in the future it doesn't work (ie he loses his job or vise versa) we'd look at changing it - as anyone would given different situations.

I really can't comment on the children bit as that won't apply to us.

FBaby

My partner and I (3 years together, 16 months living together) worked our budget out starting from an equal disposable income. We started with a 50/50 share on the basis that we both earn about the same, but then realised this wasn't fair as he has all car related costs paid through work whilst I don't and I have all my children's costs (which he doesn't). As a result, I contribute about 1/3rd less to the bills. There are two things that we haven't included in because they can't be relied on, his annual bonus and the maintenance I get from my kids' dad. At the moment, it means he is about £5000 better off at the end of the year than I am, but then a lot of this money goes on the house anyway. Overall, he does spend more money on himself than I do, but I don't have a real issue with that, it doesn't have to be exactly 50/50 just like other aspects of our lives are probably not 50/50 either. What matters is that if I wanted to buy something for myself and couldn't afford it, I know he would give me some money towards it.

jarvo28

Hi i dont have a bank account anymore my DH gives me house keeping every week he pays all the bills exept gas,elec,tv i pay them as on meaters and tv is in my name ......

I pay for all houshold things shopping anything we need realy ....

amycool

I think perhaps it makes a big difference if you're on a tight budget compared to people with a large disposable income. In our case, things are tight, so we put everything into the joint account and then have a very small monthly allowance for anything unnecessary. This way we can put as much as possible into savings, we both get exactly the same to spend on fun things, and there's one simple account to set up bills from. My husband will spend 100% of whatever he has, given the chance, so any other way would mean far less in the savings pot.

He earns far more than me as I have a chronic illness and I originally put more into the house deposit but we see everything as 50/50.

dawn1980

We have always been seperate. We pay bills not 50/50 but in proportion to the fact that he has more than me so pays more than me. He also naturally has more spare cash than me. If I gave him an extra £80 a month we would be completely equal in payments but not spare cash.
I don't care that my spare cash is lower, it's still plenty for me and I never need to ask for any. He's also very generous anyway-alot of the money he has above what I have ends up being spent on holidays and days out. In a few years I should be trained and on nearly 5k more than him (and three times my current wage) so I'll be the one paying more and treating everyone else more.
We split the children's needs roughly 50/50 so all lunches, trips, clothes, presents and back to school although we may choose to treat them and won't expect the other to contribute.

So we do have seperate money but it passes freely between us. We never ever argue about money. If it was all together we would be arguing over who spent the most and whether we really needed to buy something. We are both debt free and never spend what we don't have.

throwa

Tigsteroonie wrote: »

Here here.

I completely agree. I am the main breadwinner, and for mortgage purposes the only breadwinner. My husband is better educated than I am (he has a Masters degree) but chose a more vocational job, which is self employed and where he only gets paid 2-3 times per year (large lump sum each time, really doesn't work if you're trying to pay monthly bills). It also allows him to spend 2 days at home with our child, which both of them love. I have a more stressful job with longer hours and international travel - but I do get paid enough to compensate, and we are both lucky in that we both enjoy our jobs.

I pay all bills and expenses including childcare out of my account - anything left over goes to savings which is held in his name due to tax implications. We both have access to this online. He has a joint credit card on my account in case he needs to get something large e.g. for the house or which he can't afford from his (he tells me first to check this is ok, I'm not talking about day to day stuff here!)

As and when he gets paid, (having saved a bit for tax) he puts most of this also into the 'house savings' account and we might then treat ourselves to a holiday, do some non urgent work to the house, you get the idea.

We have a child already and I'm due to go off with my second in a few weeks - I have made sure that we will have enough spare cash from my maternity and savings to cover all bills in the 12 months I will be off, as it was my choice (and he fully supports this) to have the full 12 months off, not to go back when the maternity pay stops after 9 months.

As other posters have said, I do find it incredible in this day and age that people expect the man to be the main breadwinner. Our arrangement is a bit unique due to the relatively large disparity between our earnings but we are both happy with it and how it works for us. I don't understand at all people who restrict what they / their partner / their family can all do together, purely because x has more disposable income per month than y...

BugglyB

GobbledyGook wrote: »

I just couldn't live with that inequality. I think a partnership should give both parners equal opportunities in life. Perhaps it is different because without my sacrafices my ex wouldn't have had the same earning power, but I just wouldn't be happy with that at all.

I can't imagine one partner being able to afford a holiday and the other not for example. It just baffles me. I also can't imaging having an OH and not wanting them to be equal to me. I wouldn't want to be able to have an expensive hobby if my husband couldn't afford it.

Differences are what make the world interesting I suppose. Perhaps I'm in for a very big shock if I have a new relationship at any point!!

What I'm about to say only applies to couples without children:

I think its odd to use the language of equal oppurtunities when you're talking about who earns more in a relationship. Equal opportunities is about everyone having the same opportunity.

As long as you are not in a relationship where one person curtails the others freedom, then surely you do have the same earning opportunity/potential.

Its not true to say if you dont have the same amount of spending money you aren't 'equal'. Equality isn't about money its about attitude.