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

....... · 18-04-2017 08:26PM

This post has been deleted.

Murrisk · 18-04-2017 08:31PM

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

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 and disposable income which there wouldn't even be visibility of either way.

If you were married and your wife earned, say, three times what you did, would you genuinely be fine with her having so much more disposable income than you?

And what if she got a large inheritance or windfall? How would that be dealt with? Would you expect her to share it with you or keep it for herself?

Pac1Man · 18-04-2017 08:57PM

....... wrote: »

When you marry someone you bring two households together.

I can't see how non joint finances could work over a lifetime. In my own marriage I have more often been the higher earner, sometimes by vast amounts. If we had non joint finances he'd be sitting in unable to afford to buy new clothes or eat out or go to the movies. So I'd just be enjoying my extra money alone? What's the point in one person having 5 times the disposable income of the other?

Did you always have seven dots? I could have sworn I saw nine dots around here before. Do you have other multi-dot relations?

18-04-2017 09:09PM

Murrisk wrote: »

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!

I wasn't suggesting anyone should grow up?

Just pointing out that life has a lot of variables, and what works right now probably will not always work...

18-04-2017 09:09PM

Can't see how separate finances works over the long term, most women are going to have children which is going to see their incomes decline during maternity leave. Someone is likely to have to miss a spell of work due to ill health or redundancy. If the industry a person works in declines or expands they could find themselves earning a v different amount from their partner.

I don't think it's practical first and foremost, but if someone would find it v hard to pool their money I'd have doubts about their capacity to really give of themselves. Maybe there are some individual circumstances where it works best, but surely it's not the best thing for most healthy relationships.

Murrisk · 18-04-2017 09:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting anyone should grow up?

Oh sorry, that was a different poster.

18-04-2017 09:21PM

This thread had turned in to the na na I am right verses na na your wrong and I am right.

Who ownes the money or money its self has very little to do with it. Its all about where their head's at: children, family life making a home and seeing that as having a value, verses thinking all the fun is down the pub and thinking they missing out because they are 'forced' to be around at the weekend.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz · 18-04-2017 09:48PM

Cyrus wrote: »

or you act like grown ups, realise you are married, pool everything together, pay all the bills, agree on an house hold budget, amount to save etc and split the remainder.

a marriage where one person has more disposable income than the other doesnt seem fair to me

It is fair that a persons disposable income should be their disposable income after all expenses have been paid.

Take it to the extreme, your partner earns €1000 and you earn €15,000. House hold expenses total a neat €4000 leaving your pool with €11,000. Your partner then gets 50% of what remains at €5,500. If this is fair to you, then I'm happy for you.

Although I'm willing to bet you're in the minority on that one.

Agree to disagree.

Electric Sheep wrote: »

What about the other stuff the OP is paying for? Children's clothes and activities, Christmas, Birthdays, Holidays? Shouldn't these also come from the family pot? The kids have two parents who should both be contributing.

Absolutely. Those items you have mentioned are a household expense.

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.

"men" you say?

18-04-2017 09:51PM

Murrisk wrote: »

If you were married and your wife earned, say, three times what you did, would you genuinely be fine with her having so much more disposable income than you?

And what if she got a large inheritance or windfall? How would that be dealt with? Would you expect her to share it with you or keep it for herself?

It would be no different, same for inheritances their money given to them my their family and no expectation that I would have any claim to it and vice versa. Not saying there wouldn't be some amount of sharing either way but it would remain seperate and not be pooled resource.

Pooling money also leads to people having to "discuss" purchases etc even if they can afford it. No thanks, if I want to blow my money on something I will. It's nearly like being a child asking permission to spend their birthday money.

Murrisk · 18-04-2017 09:56PM

Tanner Brief Gypsy wrote: »

It is fair that a persons disposable income should be their disposable income after all expenses have been paid.

Take it to the extreme, your partner earns â‚¬1000 and you earn â‚¬15,000. House hold expenses total a neat â‚¬4000 leaving your pool with â‚¬11,000. Your partner then gets 50% of what remains at â‚¬5,500. If this is fair to you, then I'm happy for you.

Although I'm willing to bet you're in the minority on that one.

Well, that scenario would represent something serious happening in the lives of that couple. Unemployment, serious illness etc. So yeah, it wouldn't be an ideal scenario but I wouldn't think it was unfair. That's what people are talking about when they say a couple must be able to weather tough times together too and that means that splitting expenses evenly and not sharing disposable just wouldn't work in many scenarios.

As I asked another poster, in this 50/50-plus-keep-all-disposable-separate scenario does this extend to receiving an inheritance or some other windfall? Would you be happy for your spouse alone to benefit from their windfall? I mean, it's theirs, right? I find it hard to believe you'd be happy to in no way benefit from it but I could be very wrong on that.

18-04-2017 10:10PM

Murrisk wrote: »

Well, that scenario would represent something serious happening in the lives of that couple. Unemployment, serious illness etc. So yeah, it wouldn't be an ideal scenario but I wouldn't think it was unfair. That's what people are talking about when they say a couple must be able to weather tough times together too and that means that splitting expenses evenly and not sharing disposable just wouldn't work in many scenarios.

Of course its unfair, you would be losing half your salary in tax and then handing over half of what's left over. That's money that the higher earner went out and earned and its thier money, with such a disparity in income there could be a certain amount of an allowance given but certainly not all pooled into communal money.

Stheno · 18-04-2017 10:13PM

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

Of course its unfair, you would be losing half your salary in tax and then handing over half of what's left over. That's money that the higher earner went out and earned and its thier money, with such a disparity in income there could be a certain amount of an allowance given but certainly not all pooled into communal money.

I earn a lot more than my partner.

As a result I always pay for holidays (which I instigate), days out, and general leisure.

We don't pool our money but instead recognise that there is a difference, and if I suggest something he is comfortable knowing that I won't be expecting him to shell out.

....... · 18-04-2017 10:16PM

This post has been deleted.

contrary_mary · 18-04-2017 10:17PM

When my then boyfriend (now husband) and I moved in together we split all expenses 50:50 (paying the same amount into a joint account every month). I earn a fair bit more than him so this meant I had more disposable income. As I don't exactly have an extravagant lifestyle it mainly went to savings. Things stayed the same when we got married as there doesn't seem to be any reason to change things.

Then we had kids... we have 2 in crèche in Dublin so our expenses have skyrocketed. Immediately we changed the system so that we end up with the same amount of disposable income in our personal accounts every month. This means I pay more to the joint account than him but that doesn't bother me in the slightest. The personal money can be saved or spent as we each want. We're very much a partnership and if one of us pays for something "family-related" on a personal account then we both have the attitude that it's all "our money" anyway and it will even out in the end.

I'm very happy with the system and don't feel in the slightest hard done by and I know my husband wouldn't either if he was the bigger earner. When we first moved in together I was definitely more territorial over "my" money but the trust built over the years together - as it should.

....... · 18-04-2017 10:18PM

This post has been deleted.

Electric Sheep · 18-04-2017 10:20PM

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

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.

We wouldn't go to that extreme - one dinner out, I might pay, another time he might pay. We don't keep extreme count. He food shops, I food shop.

We don't really have time go to receipts, etc. Though mind you, it is probably a good budgeting exercise.

Murrisk · 18-04-2017 10:20PM

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

Of course its unfair, you would be losing half your salary in tax and then handing over half of what's left over. That's money that the higher earner went out and earned and its thier money, with such a disparity in income there could be a certain amount of an allowance given but certainly not all pooled into communal money.

You wouldn't necessarily have to pool every single penny. But the much bigger earner should probably contribute more in order for the lower earner to be able to join them on holidays, concerts etc.

Also, the lower earner also goes out and earns their money unless they don't work. Different jobs can have big disparities in remuneration but it doesn't mean the lower earner works less hard. Often the disparities aren't indicative of how hard the person works.

Cyrus · 18-04-2017 10:23PM

Tanner Brief Gypsy wrote: »

Take it to the extreme, your partner earns €1000 and you earn €15,000. House hold expenses total a neat €4000 leaving your pool with €11,000. Your partner then gets 50% of what remains at €5,500. If this is fair to you, then I'm happy for you.

Seems fair to me as I said a marriage is a partnership of equals and there has to be give and take with everything. If I'm successful in my career you can be sure my wife will have had a hand in it and vice versa

Cyrus · 18-04-2017 10:25PM

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

Pooling money also leads to people having to "discuss" purchases etc even if they can afford it. No thanks, if I want to blow my money on something I will. It's nearly like being a child asking permission to spend their birthday money.

No

You both still have your own money to do with what you like but it's the same amount each so blow away if you want

Chuchote · 18-04-2017 10:28PM

Tanner Brief Gypsy wrote: »

"men" you say?

Men I say. With stay-at-home wives. I'm very very old!

lawred2 · 18-04-2017 11:07PM

Beyondgone wrote: »

Loads of fathers bugger off and have zero family involvement. Plenty don't even acknowledge that they have a child, or a family. So bearing down on someone who goes missing for the weekend is quite harsh considering plenty are missing 24/7/365. Perhaps a little perspective is needed here?

Incredibly low bar you set there

Murrisk · 18-04-2017 11:14PM

contrary_mary wrote: »

When we first moved in together I was definitely more territorial over "my" money but the trust built over the years together - as it should.

This is it in a nutshell. It's all about trust. And a marriage without trust isn't a marriage. To be so cagey about money within a marriage is odd for this very reason. I'm the same as you, I'm happy to share my money with my husband and see it as symbolic of our trust in each other and love.

lawred2 wrote: »

Incredibly low bar you set there

I know! These are the options? :eek:

meeeeh · 18-04-2017 11:15PM

Nox001, no offense but were you ever in a relationship that lasted longer than one drinking session? What you are suggesting is basically unworkable in normal healthy relationship especially with kids who add cost and affect earning power of at least one partner. There is a lot of unpaid hard work done in a relationship and in normal functioning situation the non monetary contribution to family life would be taken into consideration.

18-04-2017 11:26PM

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

It would be no different, same for inheritances their money given to them my their family and no expectation that I would have any claim to it and vice versa. Not saying there wouldn't be some amount of sharing either way but it would remain seperate and not be pooled resource.

Pooling money also leads to people having to "discuss" purchases etc even if they can afford it. No thanks, if I want to blow my money on something I will. It's nearly like being a child asking permission to spend their birthday money.

I don't know you so I certainly can't judge you and you're surely a complex person like us all, but between this and the amount you're saying you drink you're painting a not entirely flattering picture of yourself here! Fair play though, from your posts you seem to have found a woman who is in agreement with you on finance and booze.

ceadaoin. · 18-04-2017 11:55PM

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

It would be no different, same for inheritances their money given to them my their family and no expectation that I would have any claim to it and vice versa. Not saying there wouldn't be some amount of sharing either way but it would remain seperate and not be pooled resource.

Pooling money also leads to people having to "discuss" purchases etc even if they can afford it. No thanks, if I want to blow my money on something I will. It's nearly like being a child asking permission to spend their birthday money.

This is a strange attitude to have if you are married or in a long term relationship with kids. stuff like inheritance etc is usually shared or put towards things that benefit the family. Going through receipts and deducting what isn't shared is also extreme and pretty unworkable in a family situation.

Without kids and with both partners earning roughly similar amounts I suppose it would work but it seems a lot of effort to split everything so precisely rather than taking turns to buy dinner or shopping. Surely if you actually like spending time with your partner you wouldn't mind paying the extra sometimes for their share if they couldn't afford it?

You never answered the question about how you think finances should work if one partner gives up work to raise kids and isn't earning for several years. Do they give up all right to a disposable income while the working partner can spend as they want?

19-04-2017 12:22AM

Electric Sheep wrote: »

We wouldn't go to that extreme - one dinner out, I might pay, another time he might pay. We don't keep extreme count. He food shops, I food shop.

We don't really have time go to receipts, etc. Though mind you, it is probably a good budgeting exercise.

Well I didn't mean every shopping trip, dinner out would be split on the spot but an accurate running total would be kept and settled up every week or two. As for going through receipts its only fair if people are buying stuff regularly only for their own use. It only takes a few mins to quickly subtract the non-shared items.

meeeeh wrote: »

Nox001, no offense but were you ever in a relationship that lasted longer than one drinking session?

I'm in a long term relationship and it works just fine.

Cyrus wrote: »

You both still have your own money to do with what you like but it's the same amount each so blow away if you want

But if I earn far more and want to buy something I may not be able to because I'm handing over a larger portion of my own salary in order to "even up" the amount of disposable income. Just wouldn't do it for me.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

You never answered the question about how you think finances should work if one partner gives up work to raise kids and isn't earning for several years. Do they give up all right to a disposable income while the working partner can spend as they want?

It's a unique scenario where the earner obvioulsy has to fund everything including disposable income for the non-earner though not necessarily an equal split of the disposable income.

Murrisk · 19-04-2017 12:30AM

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

But if I earn far more and want to buy something I may not be able to because I'm handing over a larger portion of my own salary in order to "even up" the amount of disposable income. Just wouldn't do it for me.

The reality is, if children are on the scene, that extravagant item might not be possible and keeping the money to yourself wouldn't change that. It would just mean that the deficit would be felt elsewhere if you did purchase the item. When children are in the picture, both parents need to make sacrifices at times. If you are the higher earner, you will probably need to put more money towards the upbringing of the children. Unless you are very wealthy, a lot of extravagance will probably have to be jettisoned.

Widdershins · 19-04-2017 12:44AM

I have to admit I found it a bit weird when my friend mentioned the fiver her husband owes her.

19-04-2017 12:47AM

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

Well I didn't mean every shopping trip, dinner out would be split on the spot but an accurate running total would be kept and settled up every week or two. As for going through receipts its only fair if people are buying stuff regularly only for their own use. It only takes a few mins to quickly subtract the non-shared items.

I'm in a long term relationship and it works just fine.

But if I earn far more and want to buy something I may not be able to because I'm handing over a larger portion of my own salary in order to "even up" the amount of disposable income. Just wouldn't do it for me.

It's a unique scenario where the earner obvioulsy has to fund everything including disposable income for the non-earner though not necessarily an equal split of the disposable income.

So, what proportion of the disposable income do you think your partner should have, and is your long term partner aware of your feelings/plans on this issue?

Electric Sheep · 19-04-2017 12:51AM

Deleted User wrote: »

So, what proportion of the disposable income do you think your partner should have, and is your long term partner aware of your feelings/plans on this issue?

if he is going through receipts to jettison the "non-shared" items, I guess she does. However (correct me if I am wrong, Nox) I think they have only started cohabiting quite recently.

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

Comments