Joint finances when you have children?

Marisco

Percy1983 wrote: »

As it is with our first child on the way we are setting up for this and can say I see no problems as we don't operate on mine and yours.

As it is I do earn more and we have settled into a pattern of me paying enough into the joint to cover all the household bills and she generally pays for the shopping/petrol etc. Overall with this I do put more in on a monthly basis but I earn more so why not, with that I would rather she stays in the career she likes rather than trying to keep pace with my salary.

I do plan to use shared parental leave which will cut my income back at points while she works.

Past that the intention is for her to cut back to 3 days a week on here return, with the offset of my last promotion this will leave us back at where we was both full time before my promotion.

So we will need to do some tweaks but overall it will just mean we will have a little spare cash (as you would expect having a baby), but overall most money will go in the joint account where she is free to spend it how she pleases (as we both know we will both be reasonable), there is no reason to explain where every penny goes and of course we will discuss big purchases.

That is a big part of having a joint a/c I think. If one cannot keep their mitts out of the cookie jar or is a shopaholic/gambler etc, then it makes perfect sense not to have a joint account, otherwise I cannot see the point.

BigAunty

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

A few threads recently have had women posting that their OHs control all their money and seem to imply if they are SAHMs then they should get very little as they do not "work". This seems to me a very controlling and nasty attitude to have to the mothers of their children but it does make me wonder why did this question not come up before having kids? How many miserable women are out there dependent on their OHs for money each week (really Housekeeping in this day and age?)

There was an atypical post a month or two ago. A woman at Uni took sole control of the families benefits income at her husband's request because he shunned all responsibility for it.

He suffered severely from social anxiety and OCD, I think, and had a fear that his wife would die so he monitored her every move, shut down her social opportunities and tried to stop her attending classes due to his fear he'd be left alone with the children unable to cope.

Logically, if that is his fear, it would make sense if he learned how to operate the finances and took interest in the bills if he thought he'd be widowed at any moment.

However, it was mooted (probably by me) that conveniently his mental illness dominated his wife's every moment - he'd call the police if she was late home, pick an argument before she was due to leave the house and bombard her with calls and texts. And conveniently, he was hands off with very basic housekeeping duties and made himself 100% dependent on her, another way of tethering her. He just wanted pocket money and wouldn't look at statements, bills, budgets, etc.

Funnily enough his severe social anxiety didn't extend to limiting his activities. Though his wife was upset that he tried to make her housebound. He had an active social life that she was forbidden to have and he undertaking a distance learning Uni course and applying for a full time course while sabotaging her degree.

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

In view of the £12bn cuts in welfare imminent I would think tax credits may be seeing reductions over the next few years so this problem may get worse. Any thoughts on this?

The move to the Universal Credit system where tax credits are scrapped is flagged up as even harder for victims of domestic abuse because apparently it is paid to just one claimant in the household.

http://www.theguardian.com/local-government-network/2013/jun/19/welfare-reform-domestic-violence

"In cases of domestic violence, this could give perpetrators command of household income, further enabling them to control and isolate their partners."

I'm not really familiar with the proposed changes but as we see from numerous threads on this forum, allegedly joint benefit claims still get totally controlled by one party - the other person doesn't even get to see the claim form that is submitted, for example.

Goldiegirl

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

I take your point and yes it makes sense that no one in the early stages of a relationship is going to be wearing a sign to say they are liable to be an abuser but presumably there are clues that this is the way a relationship will go? I am an innocent in this as never been in an abusive relationship so fully accept I may be a bit naïve so perhaps we should be educating ourselves more before launching into serious relationships and marriage.


Incidentally when my husband and I got married 33 years ago we had to attend marriage classes at the local church we were getting married in and they brought up issues like would both of us work if we had children. How would we feel if we could not have children. Whether our view of each other would change if either of us had an affair or lost our job or suffered mental or physical illness. I wonder if they still do that? My daughter and her husband got married in a civil ceremony at a local country club so there was not that level of discussion although they had been living together for almost two years before they got married. Maybe parenting and relationship classes should be put on the education curriculum along with financial education

I also got married 33 years ago, although my local church didn't do 'marriage classes'.


However, before we got married we fully discussed how it would work, and we both agreed on how the finances would work in our marriage.


In our case, all money coming into the house would be regarded as 'ours', we'd have joint accounts, and both would have an equal say in what is spent.


This has worked well for us over the years, and at various times he has earned more, at others I've earned more, and at other times we've earned more or less the same.


But I can't help thinking that a potential abuser would not be willing to have open and honest discussions before the marriage.... as you say, surely there must be warning signs of a persons character?

Goldiegirl

DS4215 wrote: »

I suppose in some ways we are like that. I am the only one that works, and all my wage goes into my account, *but* at the same time I pay for *everything*. So while my wife just gets the child benefit (no tax credits for us now ) and usually spends it on our child, due to our current financial situation she actually has more "cash" available to spend each month than I do.

If she was working, I would expect her to contribute towards the household expenses but not to spend her entire wage on bills.

Do you discuss and agree with each other things like major purchases and large expenditures?

rachy182

What i would want to know in those situations is how much spare money is available. Its alright complaining that the stay at home woman hasn't got any money to spend for herself but if there isn't any money in the first place, where are they expecting it to come from? I imagine a lot of families struggle to live on one wage with little left over to spend on themselves or luxuries after all the bills have been paid.

In a lot of threads on this topic this question is never answered and its automatically assumed that the working partner is abusive. If the partner was spending money like it was going out of fashion but then expect the SAHM to have nothing then that would raise flags to me. However if both had the same amount of disposable income no matter how small then that's fair.

rinabean

rachy182 wrote: »

What i would want to know in those situations is how much spare money is available. Its alright complaining that the stay at home woman hasn't got any money to spend for herself but if there isn't any money in the first place, where are they expecting it to come from? I imagine a lot of families struggle to live on one wage with little left over to spend on themselves or luxuries after all the bills have been paid.

In a lot of threads on this topic this question is never answered and its automatically assumed that the working partner is abusive. If the partner was spending money like it was going out of fashion but then expect the SAHM to have nothing then that would raise flags to me. However if both had the same amount of disposable income no matter how small then that's fair.

or how about he only has 20 quid a week, but she has nothing. That is just as unfair as him spending thousands and her having nothing.

You're implying that women who post here who are being financially abused are simply too thick to realise they're poor. The fact is if both had the same money to spend on the same things they wouldn't complain! So it's obviously an unfair situation which is normally due to abuse

I don't have any spending money and neither does my husband, so that's obviously not a relationship/abuse problem and I wouldn't frame it as one!

Newly_retired

Going back 40 years when I was a SAHM, we were on a very low income. There were no tax credits, so we had to manage on what he earned. At that time he paid all the bills. Neither of us had any money to call our own.
If one of us really needed something it would be bought out of the housekeeping ( eg toiletries), or we would have to find it somehow - or go without.
I just did not go into town shopping and there was no internet. We might ask for specific things we needed for birthday or Christmas.
It was hard but we were ok, though life was easier when I went back to work. Actually I don't recall that we pooled our finances into a joint account, but he still paid the bills and I bought anything extra, so it was swings and roundabouts.
The only help from the state was child benefit. I do think there is a culture of relying on tax credits and I believe these will be cut or reduced, and child benefit will be restricted. I know it will be hard for some, but may be inevitable.

Goldiegirl

rinabean wrote: »

You're implying that women who post here who are being financially abused are simply too thick to realise they're poor. The fact is if both had the same money to spend on the same things they wouldn't complain! So it's obviously an unfair situation which is normally due to abuse

These women aren't necessarily thick, but they have allowed themselves to become unequal partners, but not understanding the household finances.

In most cases it would be a simple matter of stepping up, and making the effort the understand, and behaving as equals, regardless of who earns what

fierystormcloud

thorsoak wrote: »

I'm another who finds it strange that (a) a woman would allow herself to be placed in such a situation and (b) that such a situation exists.

Yep me too!

Marisco wrote: »

I'm another who doesn't understand the "mine and yours" situation either. And the one that I really don't understand, are those who work out % of their income so that both are paying the same amount!! :eek: Are folk so afraid that one will "get away" with paying in less than the other??

It's strange isn't it???

Goldiegirl wrote: »

These women aren't necessarily thick, but they have allowed themselves to become unequal partners, but not understanding the household finances.

In most cases it would be a simple matter of stepping up, and making the effort the understand, and behaving as equals, regardless of who earns what

^^^ Agree with all 3 of these.

I also don't get why ANY woman would even entertain a man who was controlling and selfish with money. Maybe they weren't like that to start with?

I know a woman whose husband spoilt her quite a lot in the dating stage, and paid for their nights out etc... but when they married 2 years after meeting, he took full control of everything... she had zilch most of the time, and even if she wanted her hair doing at the hairdressers, she had to save for it out of the £10 a week pocket money he gave her. Dreadful situation.

She tolerated it for around 20 years, then when they were in their mid 40s, he left her (and their two kids) for another woman, and she was left struggling and destitute because she had not worked for 20 years, she was lost, not knowing which way to turn, and she was penniless.

Over the following half a year or so, he and his new fancy piece had new cars, flashy holidays and a flashy rented apartment with fancy furniture, and all sorts. On further investigation it turned out he had £45,000 in a bank account when he left her, that he had saved out of 'his' money. Not sure exactly what happened after that, as I didn't see much of her after, but I don't think said woman ever saw any of that money.

Me and my husband are, always have been, and always WILL be equal. We have 2 joint bank accounts, and joint savings in an ISA account. We also know what each other earns. I find it very odd when women don't know what their man earns. it's 2015 FGS, not the 1960s!

No way will I ever be in that category of woman where she works part time, (or is a SAHM because she needs to look after the children,) and she can't afford to go out or have a haircut or new clothes, because the man thinks because he earns more, he gets to keep more money for himself, to spend on jollies like boozing and expensive hobbies, whilst never lifting a finger in the house, or contributing to childcare, as it's 'her job.'

Guest101

fierystormcloud wrote: »

Yep me too!



It's strange isn't it???



^^^ Agree with all 3 of these.

I also don't get why ANY woman would even entertain a man who was controlling and selfish with money. Maybe they weren't like that to start with?

I know a woman whose husband spoilt her quite a lot in the dating stage, and paid for their nights out etc... but when they married 2 years after meeting, he took full control of everything... she had zilch most of the time, and even if she wanted her hair doing at the hairdressers, she had to save for it out of the £10 a week pocket money he gave her. Dreadful situation.

She tolerated it for around 20 years, then when they were in their mid 40s, he left her (and their two kids) for another woman, and she was left struggling and destitute because she had not worked for 20 years, she was lost, not knowing which way to turn, and she was penniless.

Over the following half a year or so, he and his new fancy piece had new cars, flashy holidays and a flashy rented apartment with fancy furniture, and all sorts. On further investigation it turned out he had £45,000 in a bank account when he left her, that he had saved out of 'his' money. Not sure exactly what happened after that, as I didn't see much of her after, but I don't think said woman ever saw any of that money.

Me and my husband are, always have been, and always WILL be equal. We have 2 joint bank accounts, and joint savings in an ISA account. We also know what each other earns. I find it very odd when women don't know what their man earns. it's 2015 FGS, not the 1960s!

No way will I ever be in that category of woman where she works part time, (or is a SAHM because she needs to look after the children,) and she can't afford to go out or have a haircut or new clothes, because the man thinks because he earns more, he gets to keep more money for himself, to spend on jollies like boozing and expensive hobbies, whilst never lifting a finger in the house, or contributing to childcare, as it's 'her job.'

Why did she not work for 20 years?!

I can understand until youngest is at school. But surely after that you'd go to work?