Wives... were you glad pubs weren't open today

Electric Sheep · 18-04-2017 05:50PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes but they wouldn't be shouldering half the bills for anyone other than themselves in that case would they?

Exactly! The OPs husband seem to contribute nothing to family expenses outside the mortgage, and there are many more expenses that that. Teenagers are expensive.

Murrisk · 18-04-2017 05:57PM

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

I'm not saying the way the ops household finances are managed is ideal (everything should be shared 50/50) but there is nothing wrong with not pooling everything together, in fact I'd be personally quite against that and much prefer sharing out bills 50/50, shared food expenses 50/50 but no pooling and each manage our own salary and anything left over after bills is yours to spend/save as you please even if the amount left over is different for each person. Saying you have to pool money into one pot to "act like a grown up" is quite condescending.

Imagine one half of the couple earns far more than the other. That leaves one of half of the married couple with far more disposable income, if expenses are split 50/50. If one is sharing their life with someone, that seems like a recipe for resentment. If I earned twice as much as my husband, I would happily shoulder more of the expenses because I would want us to have equal disposable income so that we can do things together on equal footing. I only plan to be married the one time so I would see my money as our money, even if we keep separate bank accounts. Or if I had significantly more disposable than him, I put proportionately more towards holidays, concerts etc. I'd much rather be there with him than alone because he couldn't afford to stump up half. It goes against the spirit of marriage to not lend a hand to one's spouse financially if they need it.

ceadaoin. · 18-04-2017 06:02PM

Murrisk wrote: »

Imagine one half of the couple earns far more than the other. That leaves one of half of the married couple with far more disposable income, if expenses are split 50/50. If one is sharing their life with someone, that seems like a recipe for resentment. If I earned twice as much as my husband, I would happily shoulder more of the expenses because I would want us to have equal disposable income so that we can do things together on equal footing. I only plan to be married the one time so I would see my money as our money, even if we keep separate bank accounts. Or if I had significantly more disposable than him, I put proportionately more towards holidays, concerts etc. I'd much rather be there with him than alone because he couldn't afford to stump up half. It goes against the spirit of marriage to not lend a hand to one's spouse financially if they need it.

Exactly. Allowing your spouse to live without access to money while having plenty of disposable income yourself is seen as a form of abuse in severe cases- financial abuse.

18-04-2017 06:06PM

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

There could be a little give and take with something like a holiday or maybe a greater contribution towards a car/house deposit from the higher earner due to higher savings but in general I think the salary you earn is yours. If the lower earner was single they would have to manage on the salary they have.

Also what if the higher earner has higher non-shared expenses due to their live style prior to marriage? Owning property, expensive car etc.

So, basically "I love you, I want to spend the rest of my life with you as your life partner - but keep your hands off my money!"

I don't understand this attitude. I really don't.

In my home, income was always regarded as joint. If one of us wanted something, we bought it, no questions asked. (Btw, most of the time, I was on the higher income!)

The only discussion was about major expenses, eg. a car.
Apart from that, we gradually developed a system where he chose the cars, since he knew more about them than I did. I chose all the electronics, and household appliances.
Holidays were jointly chosen, and extra expenses for teenagers just came out of the overall budget, which was adjusted when necessary.

To me, that seems to be a partnership. But, whatever works for others is up to themselves, I suppose.

One eyed Jack · 18-04-2017 06:08PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Exactly. Allowing your spouse to live without access to money while having plenty of disposable income yourself is seen as a form of abuse in severe cases- financial abuse.

Ahh here, you can't honestly be suggesting what I think you're suggesting? The OP may hardly even have processed the suggestion that her husband may be an alcoholic yet, and now you're suggesting...

No, can't be surely.

ceadaoin. · 18-04-2017 06:10PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh here, you can't honestly be suggesting what I think you're suggesting? The OP may hardly even have processed the suggestion that her husband may be an alcoholic yet, and now you're suggesting...

No, can't be surely.

No I'm not suggesting the OPs husband is financially abusive, although i don't think it's fair the way their expenses are split. I was referring to the poster saying that even with disparate incomes, all expenses should be split 50/50 and the rest should be for the earner only. That could be construed as financial abuse in some cases

Murrisk · 18-04-2017 06:15PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh here, you can't honestly be suggesting what I think you're suggesting? The OP may hardly even have processed the suggestion that her husband may be an alcoholic yet, and now you're suggesting...

No, can't be surely.

That poster seemed to be speaking in general terms, that financial restriction was used as a form of control back in the day. And still maybe is, though to a lesser extent maybe. I don't think she meant the OP. My husband had a neighbour growing up who escaped an abusive marriage with the help of my husband's parents. She had been trapped in part by having no access to money. My husband's mother got her job in her place of work with gave her the liquidity to leave. The job helped build her bet-down confidence too.

Electric Sheep · 18-04-2017 06:28PM

Murrisk wrote: »

That poster seemed to be speaking in general terms, that financial restriction was used as a form of control back in the day. And still maybe is, though to a lesser extent maybe. I don't think she meant the OP. My husband had a neighbour growing up who escaped an abusive marriage with the help of my husband's parents. She had been trapped in part by having no access to money. My husband's mother got her job in her place of work with gave her the liquidity to leave. The job helped build her bet-down confidence too.

I think most of us of a certain age can remember the days when the husband, as the single earner, would pay the mortgage and give his wife a "housekeeping allowance" every week. She was expected to fund all the housekeeping expenses out of that. He kept the rest for his own use.

I can remember friends parents give the kids just home made chips for tea (or egg and chips if they were lucky) on Thursday because the housekeeping money had run out. Husband was in the pub on Thursday, though, as he was "entitled to his few pints".

It seems OP's husband views her salary as the Housekeeping Allowance. I wonder if she had to pay all the child care expenses as well when the kids were smaller, as there would not be child care expenses if she did not work.

There is a happy medium.

Chuchote · 18-04-2017 06:33PM

Electric Sheep wrote: »

I think most of us of a certain age can remember the days when the husband, as the single earner, would pay the mortgage and give his wife a "housekeeping allowance" every week. She was expected to fund all the housekeeping expenses out of that. He kept the rest for his own use.

I worked with men who - 99% of them, and they had utter contempt for the one who didn't - handed up their wages to their wives and were given back pocket money for a few drinks or their hobby. Their wives simply managed the money, buying all the clothes for the family (in consultation with whoever was going to wear them), all the food, paying the bills, saving for holidays and for a rainy day, etc.

Murrisk · 18-04-2017 06:41PM

Chuchote wrote: »

I worked with men who - 99% of them, and they had utter contempt for the one who didn't - handed up their wages to their wives and were given back pocket money for a few drinks or their hobby. Their wives simply managed the money, buying all the clothes for the family (in consultation with whoever was going to wear them), all the food, paying the bills, saving for holidays and for a rainy day, etc.

That's mad. I find the idea of one half of a couple handling all the money so bizarro. Even with completely joint accounts, both should have full access to the money.

0ph0rce0 · 18-04-2017 06:44PM

Chuchote wrote: »

I worked with men who - 99% of them, and they had utter contempt for the one who didn't - handed up their wages to their wives and were given back pocket money for a few drinks or their hobby. Their wives simply managed the money, buying all the clothes for the family (in consultation with whoever was going to wear them), all the food, paying the bills, saving for holidays and for a rainy day, etc.

Any lad i know who has a wife / long term girlfriend this is how it works.

Poor ****ers can't buy or do anything even when there's plenty of money to spend.

One eyed Jack · 18-04-2017 06:46PM

Murrisk wrote: »

That's mad. I find the idea of one half of a couple handling all the money so bizarro. Even with completely joint accounts, both should have full access to the money.

I'm almost relieved Chuchote posted it because I rarely come across couples who manage their finances this way nowadays, but not even 20 years ago this was very common.

18-04-2017 06:53PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Exactly. Allowing your spouse to live without access to money while having plenty of disposable income yourself is seen as a form of abuse in severe cases- financial abuse.

What utter nonsense, becuse a couple decide to manage their finances by splitting everything 50/50 it is financial abuse. Let's get this straight, two people are going out and earning a wage that is their money anf they keep their money seperate that could be considered finincial abuse? How and on what planet?

Did people consider that the person earning less may not want to pool money either?

I'd see compelling a person to share there disposable income as being closer to financial abuse than not sharing it.

One eyed Jack · 18-04-2017 06:53PM

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

Any lad i know who has a wife / long term girlfriend this is how it works.

Poor ****ers can't buy or do anything even when there's plenty of money to spend.

That's generally not the way it's supposed to work. Your friends do know that, right?

Electric Sheep · 18-04-2017 06:54PM

Chuchote wrote: »

I worked with men who - 99% of them, and they had utter contempt for the one who didn't - handed up their wages to their wives and were given back pocket money for a few drinks or their hobby. Their wives simply managed the money, buying all the clothes for the family (in consultation with whoever was going to wear them), all the food, paying the bills, saving for holidays and for a rainy day, etc.

Yes, it certainly did go the other way as well, and which way it went generally had to do with how the husband prioritized family and drink.

Murrisk · 18-04-2017 06:55PM

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

What utter nonsense, becuse a couple decide to manage their finances by splitting everything 50/50 it is financial abuse. Let's get this straight, two people are going out and earning a wage that is their money anf they keep their money seperate that could be considered finincial abuse? How and on what planet?

Did people consider that the person earning less may not want to pool money either?

If everything is split 50/50, and that leaves one half of the marriage with barely any money and the other half with a lot, how is that ever going to be a happy union?

The 50/50 expenses could be quite high, especially if the bigger earner is used to a certain lifestyle that the lower earner can't match.

One eyed Jack · 18-04-2017 06:57PM

Murrisk wrote: »

If everything is split 50/50, and that leaves one half of the marriage with barely any money and the other half with a lot, how is that ever going to be a happy union?

Some people are only happy when they have something to complain about!! :pac:

I'd like to say I was joking, but...

Parchment · 18-04-2017 06:58PM

Deleted User wrote: »

So, basically "I love you, I want to spend the rest of my life with you as your life partner - but keep your hands off my money!"

I don't understand this attitude. I really don't.

In my home, income was always regarded as joint. If one of us wanted something, we bought it, no questions asked. (Btw, most of the time, I was on the higher income!)

The only discussion was about major expenses, eg. a car.
Apart from that, we gradually developed a system where he chose the cars, since he knew more about them than I did. I chose all the electronics, and household appliances.
Holidays were jointly chosen, and extra expenses for teenagers just came out of the overall budget, which was adjusted when necessary.

To me, that seems to be a partnership. But, whatever works for others is up to themselves, I suppose.

I dont understand the idea that my money has to become my partners or his money has to become mine. I will never share/pool my money.

I live with my partner, we have a shared mortgage and pay the same amount into an account that all the bills/mortgage comes out of. The rest of my money is mine to do what i please with, same for him.

I dont think this makes us less of a partnership.

ceadaoin. · 18-04-2017 07:00PM

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

What utter nonsense, becuse a couple decide to manage their finances by splitting everything 50/50 it is financial abuse. Let's get this straight, two people are going out and earning a wage that is their money anf they keep their money seperate that could be considered finincial abuse? How and on what planet?

Did people consider that the person earning less may not want to pool money either?

I'd see compelling a person to share there disposable income as being closer to financial abuse than not sharing it.

I didn't say it is automatically financial abuse not to pool money. I said in some severe cases ie: when the couple have vastly different incomes and where one partner is left with no money while the other spends as they please.

What do you propose in marriages where one person has left work to look after children? Or isn't working for other reasons. Should the finances still be based on your principal? So the person working has all the money and bar being provided with the bare necessities of food and shelter, the non working partner gets nothing?

Murrisk · 18-04-2017 07:07PM

Parchment wrote: »

I dont understand the idea that my money has to become my partners or his money has to become mine. I will never share/pool my money.

I live with my partner, we have a shared mortgage and pay the same amount into an account that all the bills/mortgage comes out of. The rest of my money is mine to do what i please with, same for him.

I dont think this makes us less of a partnership.

In a marriage though with a big difference in the salaries, this could cause big problems. The higher earner will have become accustomed to a lifestyle to match their earnings and the lower earner would struggle to keep up with that, even the 50/50 expenses might be raised by having a high earner in the marriage. It's hard to see that not causing strife. I know the higher earner could just shrug and say "I'm not apologising for my success" but that wouldn't really be a good attitude to have towards a loved one, would it? If I was a much higher earner, I'd happily contribute much more to the running of the household but I realise people differ in their views on this.

In relationships with salaries that are not far apart, the separate money thing would probably work out just fine though.

Chuchote · 18-04-2017 07:08PM

Parchment wrote: »

I dont understand the idea that my money has to become my partners or his money has to become mine. I will never share/pool my money.

I live with my partner, we have a shared mortgage and pay the same amount into an account that all the bills/mortgage comes out of. The rest of my money is mine to do what i please with, same for him.

I dont think this makes us less of a partnership.

But surely by what you describe you are pooling your money by doing this, or certainly most of it, keeping back some pocket money each.

One eyed Jack · 18-04-2017 07:18PM

Murrisk wrote: »

In a marriage though with a big difference in the salaries, this could cause big problems. The higher earner will have become accustomed to a lifestyle to match their earnings and the lower earner would struggle to keep up with that, even the 50/50 expenses might be raised by having a high earner in the marriage. It's hard to see that not causing strife. I know the higher earner could just shrug and say "I'm not apologising for my success" but that wouldn't really be a good attitude to have towards a loved one, would it? If I was a much higher earner, I'd happily contribute much more to the running of the household but I realise people differ in their views on this.

In relationships with salaries that are not far apart, the separate money thing would probably work out just fine though.

It absolutely could cause problems, depending upon how the couple as individuals themselves value money, financial security, financial independence, and hell, even an exit strategy (back in the day it was called a "running away fund", is that still a thing?) My wife had about ten different accounts at one stage before she realised I didn't give a sh*te.

There are numerous things that could cause problems in a marriage though, money of course being one of the main ones, who wears the pants in the household and all that.

Murrisk · 18-04-2017 07:27PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It absolutely could cause problems, depending upon how the couple as individuals themselves value money, financial security, financial independence, and hell, even an exit strategy (back in the day it was called a "running away fund", is that still a thing?) My wife had about ten different accounts at one stage before she realised I didn't give a sh*te.

It could also be as basic as "When I contribute my 50% to the 50/50, I have nothing left".

....... · 18-04-2017 07:42PM

This post has been deleted.

somesoldiers · 18-04-2017 07:44PM

I used to go out every Friday night after work, usually first thing Sat morning then recover all day Sunday. Probably skirted close to the line of having alcohol issues more than a few times. Since those days I have gotten married and have two kids. I seldom go out, maybe once every 6 weeks, I find a quiet bar where I'm not likely to bump into anyone I know, otherwise I end up out half the night and dying the next day & have 7-8 pints of Guinness and do my Times Jumbo Cryptic Crossword ....heaven.

To go back to my old ways would be extremely selfish & the wife would be waiting with the rolling pin when I got home.

18-04-2017 07:55PM

Parchment wrote: »

I dont understand the idea that my money has to become my partners or his money has to become mine. I will never share/pool my money.

I live with my partner, we have a shared mortgage and pay the same amount into an account that all the bills/mortgage comes out of. The rest of my money is mine to do what i please with, same for him.

I dont think this makes us less of a partnership.

I suppose it depends on a lot of things.

eg.
How long has the partnership lasted?
Is it a lifetime commitment?
Are there children involved?
Are incomes roughly equal?

Btw, I rather specifically said "whatever works for individual couples" at the end of that post.

From a womans viewpoint, children tend to change the dynamic.
Maternity leave reduces a womans income, at a time when she has the added expense of maternity clothes, and various other bits and pieces.

Equally, it would be unreasonable to expect to pool resources in a "trial" partnership, for instance.

On the other hand, where one partner earns significantly more than the other, or a partner loses their job, or goes through a period of illness, how can not pooling resources possibly work?

In those circumstances,either one "partner" is constantly losing out, or the budget needs to be adjusted.

Certainly, in my own case, most of the time, I earned more than my husband.
But there were times when he earned more than I did, too. One particular pregnancy was very difficult, which reduced my income a lot, obviously.
Equally, maternity leave/expenses tend to put a hole in the budget - so, overall, it balanced out - not that I counted, tbh.

To me, we were a family unit - not two individuals who shared joint expenses.

As I said, whatever works for individual couples is fine, but I would be very wary of entering into rigid "structures" for the budget, because life has a habit of throwing unplanned items into the mix - and rigid "agreements" about the budget could cause problems too easily for my taste in those circumstances.

Electric Sheep · 18-04-2017 08:00PM

Murrisk wrote: »

If everything is split 50/50, and that leaves one half of the marriage with barely any money and the other half with a lot, how is that ever going to be a happy union?

The 50/50 expenses could be quite high, especially if the bigger earner is used to a certain lifestyle that the lower earner can't match.

This is very true. When I got married, my husband earned about 4 times what I did. I always paid half the mortgage and bills, but my husband had been brought up in a much more middle class environment than I had. There were things he wanted that I could not afford, like high end cars and fancy vacations, so he paid for them(for both of us). My job did provide things like health insurance, life insurance, etc, so in a way it evened out.

20 years later, my earning power is much greater, and we earn around the same amount, though my jobs still provides insurance and other perks that his does not. There are swings and roundabouts. It is worth keeping in mind that one person will not always hold the financial power. The person insisting on a 50/50 split today could regret it down the road.

Mr.Wemmick · 18-04-2017 08:15PM

Yes, agree with lochlach, think it eventually has to develop into to a more flexible system that a rigid one.

There is also the trust between couples which is important. I once wasn't earning much and my OH was, but I lived, much to my OH's annoyance, like I had very little money and wouldn't spend as I felt it wasn't mine as such.

Then later I sold a property which made us so much better off and it was my turn to share. So it's swings and roundabouts until you get to that place of trust as a couple where you respect each other and what each other brings into the relationship to spilt your money 50/50.

Murrisk · 18-04-2017 08:20PM

Whilst lochlach might seem harsh in saying to people to "grow up" when it comes to managing money in a marriage, I think he/she has a point and the last few posts have done a good job of expanding on that. Life throws all kinds of curveballs and to be rigidly married to the idea of expenses being 50/50 or nothing might not work out at all times in the marriage and, IMO, it does sound a tad spoiled to be unwilling to consider contributing more than 50% of money to the union. Life is messy!

18-04-2017 08:25PM

Chuchote wrote: »

But surely by what you describe you are pooling your money by doing this, or certainly most of it, keeping back some pocket money each.

Not really, i would work a similar system. Bills come in one pays and the other is reimbursed 50%, same with shopping receipt kept (non share items subtracted) and the rest reimbursed to the person who paid (50/50), restaurant, cinema, pub etc all 50/50. Aside from shared expenses everything else is your own for your personal bills, personal savings and disposable income which there wouldn't even be visibility of either way.

Wives... were you glad pubs weren't open today

Comments