Should I split the bills by proportion?

[Wicksta]

Have a joint account doesn't mean you can't do all those things anyway.

One account where our income is paid into and the bills, family expenditure is paid out of. One account which hold the majority of our money as savings. One account for emergency expenditure. One account which is the trust for our son.

Both of us have access to all accounts, we generally buy things jointly anyway and reconciling the budget is easer as there is only one budget and not three.

If I want to buy something as a surprise for the wife (or vice versa) then I can use my CC or just withdraw some cash, it is no big deal.

As for fraudulent transactions, it is pretty obvious if a significant amount of cash goes walkies that it is fraudulent and it doesn't need separate individual accounts to combat that. And neither does having separate individual accounts mean that it is less likely to be emptied by fraudsters either.

You can do all these things with jointly held accounts, you need not retain individual ownership of bank accounts to protect those accounts.

Most of those points have nothing to do with anything in my post you quoted (apart from the fraudulent one)

Anyway, I'm off - only came upstairs to install xbmc on a PC up here, I knew I shouldn't have checked this thread again. Carry on with your quality day/evening of arguing on the internet, I'm going to spend more time with my lovely partner.

 

[Ace Modder]

when you live together money should be shared, regardless of who earns the most.

 

[RDM]

I think the difference lies in the implication of ownership. The way we organise our finances means that regardless of who contributes the ownership is joint, in other words there is no "me" as everything is "we".

In your situation, she would not be giving me "spending money" because as with the rest of our marriage there is no implication of individual ownership and as such there is no subsidising of anyone as there is effectively only one entity, Us. (that does not detract from our individuality either, as we complement and enhance each other in that respect without compromising our individual traits and interests)

There is zero real difference though. It really does seem that you are arguing over semantics. Or possibly you place a much greater importance than others on finance and so this is why you feel it is so important that you are unified in that area?

Does the question mark mean you are not sure?

Not in the slightest. I do not feel that there is a lack of trust, respect or commitment in my marriage just because we hold seperate bank accounts.

However, let's get back to those sweeping generalisations I mentioned earlier. The primary reasons I can see for wishing to maintain separate accounts are :

1. Selfishness - "It's MY money, not ours, MINE!"
2. Trust issues - "She might leave me so I'd better have a nest egg."
3. Deceitfulness - "Heh, she'll never know I bought this new processor."

[/generalisations]

Alternatively it is because I would feel horribly guilty about spending any money just in case I impacted my wife's ability to do something/buy something. So I would actually spend a lot less. (And she would likely do the same). It seems to work for us as one thing we have never argued about is money.

Remember that this is a computer forum and that attracts a type of person who - generalisations back on - will be more likely to be selfish, inward looking and self-focussed.

Is that why yourself and Castiel are incapable of seeing another point of view on this one? Too inward looking and self-focused?

 

[Castiel]

There is zero real difference though. It really does seem that you are arguing over semantics. Or possibly you place a much greater importance than others on finance and so this is why you feel it is so important that you are unified in that area?

I feel we place less importance on money, as we do not feel the need to retain individual control over our individual income for whatever reason.

Not in the slightest. I do not feel that there is a lack of trust, respect or commitment in my marriage just because we hold seperate bank accounts.

A Freudian slip maybe?

Alternatively it is because I would feel horribly guilty about spending any money just in case I impacted my wife's ability to do something/buy something. So I would actually spend a lot less. (And she would likely do the same). It seems to work for us as one thing we have never argued about is money.

Why would you feel guilty, do you not talk to your wife about making purchases of such a magnitude that would impact on the ability of the other to access money?

That is works for you is great, however I fail to see how keeping your finances separate really means that you are more able to spend whatever you want.

I always talk to my wife about buying stuff, not because I want or need her permission, but just her opinion, such as the amplifier I bought earlier this month, after talking to her about it I ended up buying a better model because she pointed out some things I had not considered. Trust me, my wife has no interest in AV Receivers other than she doesn't want me buying something cheaper if it means I'll only moan about it and upgrade it anyway.

Is that why yourself and Castiel are incapable of seeing another point of view on this one? Too inward looking and self-focused?

I can see other POV's just fine, I just don't see any justification for them other than retaining ownership of your separate finances. Which is something I feel shows less commitment, but that is my opinion and yours may differ which is fine.

 

[starfighter]

My parents share all their money, I can't imagine it being any other way. It's like you are only in a short term relationship or planning for the divorce any other way. Hopefully if I meet someone who I plan to live with for the rest of my life I will do the same.

I'm not saying it can't work, I just can't see it personally.

 

[RDM]

A Freudian slip maybe?

No, just offering it up as a possible explanation, tentatively because I knew that you had already made you mind up that others are in a lesser relationship because they do not share your financial arrangements.

Why would you feel guilty, do you not talk to your wife about making purchases of such a magnitude that would impact on the ability of the other to access money?

Possibly because for a quite a few years "purchases of such a magnitude" where actually quite small before it started having an impact.

That is works for you is great, however I fail to see how keeping your finances separate really means that you are more able to spend whatever you want.

Because the money in my account after the montly transfers have been done is mine to spend how I wish with zero chance of impacting upon my wife's ability to spend?

I can see other POV's just fine, I just don't see any justification for them other than retaining ownership of your separate finances. Which is something I feel shows less commitment, but that is my opinion and yours may differ which is fine.

I think you have made that abundantly clear with most of your posts. "Oh feel free to do what you like of course, it is such a shame you don't have the same trust and commitment I have in my relationship."

 

[Castiel]

No, just offering it up as a possible explanation, tentatively because I knew that you had already made you mind up that others are in a lesser relationship because they do not share your financial arrangements.

Assumptions again RDM, you seem pretty good at that.

I am not saying that the relationship is any less, only that it seems to imply a reticence to commit fully in all things, that doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad thing just different in the way people approach their relationships. Some are more "all in" than others.

As yet no-one has really given any definitive reason why that is not the case. You yourself could only forward a question.

Possibly because for a quite a few years "purchases of such a magnitude" where actually quite small before it started having an impact.



Because the money in my account after the montly transfers have been done is mine to spend how I wish with zero chance of impacting upon my wife's ability to spend?

Yet you said you don't have any money? your wife gives you pocket money.

With my wife and I, there is simply no concept of separateness with regard to our finances or marriage.

I think you have made that abundantly clear with most of your posts. "Oh feel free to do what you like of course, it is such a shame you don't have the same trust and commitment I have in my relationship."

That was not my intent to judge you as individuals as I have plainly said time and again.

I simply do not understand the motivations for not committing everything, including finances completely to a marriage.


Anyway, I'm going to bed now. Goodnight

 

[RDM]

Assumptions again RDM, you seem pretty good at that.

It seems to have been correct as even after I have explained the question mark you came out with this:

As yet no-one has really given any definitive reason why that is not the case. You yourself could only forward a question.

Would it make you feel better if I went back and deleted the question mark?

I am not saying that the relationship is any less, only that it seems to imply a reticence to commit fully in all things, that doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad thing just different in the way people approach their relationships. Some are more "all in" than others.

So the fact that you feel there is a reticence to commit fully in all things is not a negative then? It is certainly coming across as one.

Yet you said you don't have any money? your wife gives you pocket money.

With my wife and I, there is simply no concept of separateness with regard to our finances or marriage.

If instead the money went in to a joint account and I just drew from that then it would be absolutely no different. It would still be my wife providing the money whether she technically "gives" it to me or not. I just do not see the same distinction that you do.

That was not my intent to judge you as individuals as I have plainly said time and again.

I simply do not understand the motivations for not committing everything, including finances completely to a marriage.

But we do commit everything, we just manage it in a different way. (No question mark this time!).

 

[Castiel]

It seems to have been correct as even after I have explained the question mark you came out with this:



Would it make you feel better if I went back and deleted the question mark?

why would you change what you wrote just to validate yourself. I accept that you were making a suggestion rather than a statement. It doesn't explain the difference in commitment to any degree however.

So the fact that you feel there is a reticence to commit fully in all things is not a negative then? It is certainly coming across as one.

Not necessarily, it depends on how you define your relationship.

If instead the money went in to a joint account and I just drew from that then it would be absolutely no different. It would still be my wife providing the money whether she technically "gives" it to me or not. I just do not see the same distinction that you do.

I don't understand how you do not see the difference.

Regardless of who earns the money, the ownership should be jointly held, not retained by the individual to be parcelled out as they see fit. That seems to me to be demeaning to the other person.

When I was the only earner, I did not "give" my wife spending money, she used the bank account as she saw fit as the money was ours, not mine regardless that I earned it. I didn't give her an amount and label it as hers.....and that is the fundamental difference I am talking about.

But we do commit everything, we just manage it in a different way. (No question mark this time!).

So when you want or need money (from you joint total including individual accounts, joint accounts whatever) you have access to it regardless of whether it exceeds the money your wife gives to you or not?

 

[EdwardTeach]

I fully agree with Castiel in this, cannot understand the need for separate finances.

 

[RDM]

why would you change what you wrote just to validate yourself. I accept that you were making a suggestion rather than a statement. It doesn't explain the difference in commitment to any degree however.

I wouldnt be changing it to validate myself, I would be changing it so you stop getting hung up on a question mark. Especially after explaining the question mark did not mean what you think it meant.

I don't understand how you do not see the difference.

Regardless of who earns the money, the ownership should be jointly held, not retained by the individual to be parcelled out as they see fit. That seems to me to be demeaning to the other person.

Only if you choose it to be, because at the end of the day whether you give it to them directly or let them dip in to it as they see fit you are still the one providing the money. The source is absolutely no different and the outcome is absolutely no different.

When I was the only earner, I did not "give" my wife spending money, she used the bank account as she saw fit as the money was ours, not mine regardless that I earned it. I didn't give her an amount and label it as hers.....and that is the fundamental difference I am talking about.

I just don't see it as a fundamental difference, just a label. Same source, same outcome. I just see little point in pretending it isn't my wifes wages I am spending.

So when you want or need money (from you joint total including individual accounts, joint accounts whatever) you have access to it regardless of whether it exceeds the money your wife gives to you or not?

Yep. It just involves a little extra communication (e.g. Bike tax is due this month, need to take a bit extra).

 

[Castiel]

Only if you choose it to be, because at the end of the day whether you give it to them directly or let them dip in to it as they see fit you are still the one providing the money. The source is absolutely no different and the outcome is absolutely no different.

That is the difference, it doesn't matter who is providing the money, as we are a single family unit. I see no need to imply individual ownership over who provides what.

I just don't see it as a fundamental difference, just a label. Same source, same outcome. I just see little point in pretending it isn't my wifes wages I am spending.

We simply do not differentiate between the source of the money as we are essentially a single family unit so it isn't the Wifes wages, but the family income. And that seems to be a fundamental difference in how we view the contributions of each other to our respective families and like I said before it is not necessarily a bad thing.

Yep. It just involves a little extra communication (e.g. Bike tax is due this month, need to take a bit extra).

That is cool, and validates what you said about different management rather than different levels of commitment.

However that is not always the case with such as system, as I have pointed out earlier with one example of a couple we know. It can be an excuse to not commit and can imply as much, which is what I was trying to explain rather than making judgements on you as individuals, which is how some of you took it.

 

[RDM]

That is the difference, it doesn't matter who is providing the money, as we are a single family unit. I see no need to imply individual ownership over who provides what.

We simply do not differentiate between the source of the money as we are essentially a single family unit so it isn't the Wifes wages, but the family income. And that seems to be a fundamental difference in how we view the contributions of each other to our respective families and like I said before it is not necessarily a bad thing.

Just seems like a difference in labels to me and not a fundamental difference at all. Set theory if you like, the family income set is made up of Wife's Wages and Husband's Wages.

However that is not always the case with such as system, as I have pointed out earlier with one example of a couple we know. It can be an excuse to not commit and can imply as much, which is what I was trying to explain rather than making judgements on you as individuals, which is how some of you took it.

Using one example to make a generalisation is possibly not a good thing to do. There are so many cases of a single joint account causing so many problems in relationships too, I wouldn't however use it's presence to make comment on the level of commitment in a relationship. Us using seperate accounts is more of a budgetary tool than anything else, nothing to do with differing amounts of commitment.

 

[Castiel]

Just seems like a difference in labels to me and not a fundamental difference at all. Set theory if you like, the family income set is made up of Wife's Wages and Husband's Wages.

Indeed, except when the family income is made up of a portion of the Wife's wages and a portion of the Husband's wages. Thus the fundamental difference.

Using one example to make a generalisation is possibly not a good thing to do. There are so many cases of a single joint account causing so many problems in relationships too, I wouldn't however use it's presence to make comment on the level of commitment in a relationship. Us using seperate accounts is more of a budgetary tool than anything else, nothing to do with differing amounts of commitment.

It was a illustrative real world example, rather than a single one.

With your use of separate accounts, is there a reason why they are not all jointly held if they are only a budgetary tool?

We hold more than one account for the same reasons, however they are all jointly held, would you (or your wife) be opposed to such a move and if so why?

I am trying to understand the motivations of why people hold on to such things after they commit to marriage and I am not making judgements on you RDM, just to be clear.

 

[HangTime]

My partner used to earn more than meand we split 50:50.
Although, I've paid a lot more of the cost of the house than she has. At one stage I had this idea that because I'd paid a much bigger proportion of the house than her that she should be subsidising me on bills, but that never came to anything.

Regarding the 'one pot' approach, I think every couple needs to take their own choices. Personally, I think we'd have more tension/arguments if we did that, since every time I bought a computer upgrade she'd get annoyed, and I'd get more fed up with the neverending stream of bags/clothes/kitchenware/random tat that springs up in our house every week.

That said, maybe if we had completely shared finances we'd be a bit more cautious about spending money as we'd be worrying about it being scrutinised by each other. Whether that is a good or bad thing, I don't know.

 

[EdwardTeach]

My partner used to earn more than meand we split 50:50.
Although, I've paid a lot more of the cost of the house than she has. At one stage I had this idea that because I'd paid a much bigger proportion of the house than her that she should be subsidising me on bills, but that never came to anything.

Regarding the 'one pot' approach, I think every couple needs to take their own choices. Personally, I think we'd have more tension/arguments if we did that, since every time I bought a computer upgrade she'd get annoyed, and I'd get more fed up with the neverending stream of bags/clothes/kitchenware/random tat that springs up in our house every week.

That said, maybe if we had completely shared finances we'd be a bit more cautious about spending money as we'd be worrying about it being scrutinised by each other. Whether that is a good or bad thing, I don't know.

I think it makes a big difference if you are married or not. If I wasn't married I would be a lot more cautious and wouldn't have completely unified finances.

 

[Amnesia]

we have seperate accounts but who pays what depends on what they earn....i earn more so i pay more. if she wants money from me she has to ask nicely but we have never ever done a 50/50 on the bills. if she wanted to buy something but it would leave her with little then i would simply pay for it.
even though we have our seperate accounts we both have access to each others cards and pin numbers, the seperate accounts only really come in handy when we want to buy each other a surprise gift.

 

[Jaap74]

Just get ready for marriage and give her all the money and then let her give you a small allowance from that.........

 

[Fr0dders]

we stopped referring to money as mine or hers about 3 / 4 years into the relationship and just had a joint bank account where all our money got paid into and used to pay all our bills with.

I think it makes a big difference if you are married or not. If I wasn't married I would be a lot more cautious and wouldn't have completely unified finances.

marriage is a meaningless bit of paper.

A meaningless bit of paper that we hadn't bothered getting until last year after being together almost 8 years. We'd had unified finances from long before we get married.

It depends entirely upon how serious you view the relationship tbh.

 

[RDM]

With your use of separate accounts, is there a reason why they are not all jointly held if they are only a budgetary tool?

Because before we got married we had an account each, when we got married we set up a joint account, there really wasn't much reason at that point to set up multiple joint accounts. Any time we have required a new account it has been a joint one. But the accounts our wages go in to have just historically been our personal accounts.

We hold more than one account for the same reasons, however they are all jointly held, would you (or your wife) be opposed to such a move and if so why?

The only reason we would be opposed would be the pointlessness of it when we have a setup that already does the job. We would need to set up two additional joint accounts for no real gain.

I am trying to understand the motivations of why people hold on to such things after they commit to marriage and I am not making judgements on you RDM, just to be clear.

We found a way that worked for us and have gone with that. I honestly think you are reading too much into the situation and looking for motivations that possibly aren't even there. It may also be that the experience with your friends is colouring your view?