fobs, I completely agree with you. That's exactly what I was trying to say in my post. I find it strange when two people who have committed to each other are actually counting who-pays-what and keeping a little bit aside (secretly) from the other. My partner was unenmployed for a while also, and it never occurred to me (or him) that he wasn't entitled to have nights out and enjoy himself. I always made sure there was cash in the house (in a particular box) and he just went there and took it when he needed it. I suppose horses for courses, but I couldn't work on the principle of "mine" and "his".fobs said:We are married and have a joint account and pool all our money together. This was always the case from once we got engaged. All our money is spent jointly and we don't take inot acconut what the other contributes. This was important when my partner was off work for a while through illness,I was on maternity leave etc...It was never an issue of one person funding the other as I feel marriage is a joint venture. Think it is more important when kids come along as how do people aportion the spend on kids? Whatever works for people but I do find it strange when married couples have completely seperate finances and have to "pay each other back" for things.
Winnie said:My husband & I both earn a similar basic wage, however he earns about €15k extra in overtime - why should I take 1/2 of that when he is the one who has had to put in the extra work?
Danmo, you've hit the nail on the head when you said "It's all the same". That's the point. You're a family when you're a couple ... surely it's one for all and all for one!Danmo said:Me! When we started living together I was all for keeping it separate and it was ridiculous. He "owed" me for this and I "owed" him that and it just got to be so much hard work that it's easier to pool everything. We are married now and this is what we do. If he gets a bonus, we might make a payment off both credit cards or book a holiday or if I get one I might buy something for the house etc. It's all the same.
With regard to having "completely different spending habits" I think this is probably where the difference arises between those of us who are saying "it's OUR money, not his or hers" and those of you who are saying "keep separate accounts, and split meals out etc". The very nub of the argument (for me) is that I would never have been happy to marry my partner if our spending habits were completely different anyway! We're of pretty much one mind when it comes to spending. I wouldn't have been attracted to spending my life with someone who would expect to be able to over-spend drastically just on himself, without a thought for "us". It works because we think of ourselves as "us" and not as people who are entitled to spend whatever we want just because we earned it, but without a thought for the family/union that we have created.Winnie said:I guess I can just never imagine not having my own separate finances.
We do have joint savings & all household expenses come from our joint account so its not completely separate.
But as regards his car loan - that is his, the car is his & i have nothing to do with it
My SSIA & his savings - We are planning on building a house in the near future so in reality it will be spent on joint stuff. But if we werent planning that, then yes the SSIA would be mine to spend as I was the one to save it.
My husband & I both earn a similar basic wage, however he earns about €15k extra in overtime - why should I take 1/2 of that when he is the one who has had to put in the extra work? I usually choose to take my overtime as days off instead & that is my choice.
We are starting to join our finances up a bit more than previously but we both agree that we will always want our separate money.
I just wonder what couples do when they have completely different spending habits & yet put all their money into one pot - does this not cause awful rows.
In the case of children - I think things will prob change a bit more when that happens. But if one of us cut down on hours to look after them I imagine that we will just change the ratio of money going into joint account to take that into account.
But yes - if we are out we will split the bill.... as amazing as people find it.
Am I correct in saying that the only reason the the courts here do not recognise Pre Nups is because no body has put one in front of them. I think that in the future that will change so anyone who feels that they need one should go ahead and get one because they may be recognised when the time comes.Sherman said:Seanie, I think the point people are trying to make here is that if you get divorced or whatever, it is usually the court that decides on the way in which the assets, if any, are split. Courts here don't recognise pre-nups or arrangements like them. As pointed out by extopia, you did contribute indirectly to your girlfriend buying her house, and a court would likely see it that way too.
Am I correct in saying that the only reason the the courts here do not recognise Pre Nups is because no body has put one in front of them.
- yep, it probably will - the courts are starting to take more notice of what 'consenting adults' agreed to in a pre-nup, particularly if there are no dependent children involved.in the future that will change
Andrewa said:With regard to having "completely different spending habits" I think this is probably where the difference arises between those of us who are saying "it's OUR money, not his or hers" and those of you who are saying "keep separate accounts, and split meals out etc". The very nub of the argument (for me) is that I would never have been happy to marry my partner if our spending habits were completely different anyway! We're of pretty much one mind when it comes to spending. I wouldn't have been attracted to spending my life with someone who would expect to be able to over-spend drastically just on himself, without a thought for "us". It works because we think of ourselves as "us" and not as people who are entitled to spend whatever we want just because we earned it, but without a thought for the family/union that we have created.
All my friends think I'm mad!! They think I should be keeping some secret stash somewhere! ("running away money" they call it!). I suppose you can laugh at it (and I do), but on a more serious note I feel that keeping separate monies (or even secret stashes) insinuates a mistrust of the other, and that's not a great start in a marriage.
Sounds to me like he is someone that a person would need a "running away money" fund for. If I was living with him I would have one as well.extopia said:Didn't someone here recently find the "running away money" hidden on top of the kitchen cupboards? As far as I remember he just spent it himself.
"it's OUR money, not his or hers" and those of you who are saying "keep separate accounts, and split meals out etc". The very nub of the argument (for me) is that I would never have been happy to marry my partner if our spending habits were completely different anyway! We're of pretty much one mind when it comes to spending.
Andrewa said:I find it strange when two people who have committed to each other are actually counting who-pays-what .....
Andrewa said:....and keeping a little bit aside (secretly) from the other.
Andrewa said:My partner was unenmployed for a while also, and it never occurred to me (or him) that he wasn't entitled to have nights out and enjoy himself.
extopia said:I think having seperate accounts and the culture of individual owership of money above and beyond immediate needs for bills mitigates against good financial planning for the future - especially if it discourages discussion of significant "individual" purchases such as the €500 shoes or a trek up the Himalayas.
extopia said:Individual purchases still affect your joint position, your net worth as a couple.
Sherman said:I don't think so - I heard that plenty of people have presented a pre-nup in court. The courts sometimes have regard to whatever arrangements were entered into in a pre-nup, but they don't have to, and jealously guard their prerogative to, as they see it, order proper provision for both parties.
- yep, it probably will - the courts are starting to take more notice of what 'consenting adults' agreed to in a pre-nup, particularly if there are no dependent children involved.
extopia said:Hey, if someone wants to blow €500 on shoes that's OK with me. We all need a little luxury now and then. But just because the money comes from "your" account doesn't mean it's not affecting your partner's financial position. The fact is, as a couple, you are also a single economic unit. When it comes to buying a house, or paying an existing mortgage, the €500 is still gone.
I think having seperate accounts and the culture of individual owership of money above and beyond immediate needs for bills mitigates against good financial planning for the future - especially if it discourages discussion of significant "individual" purchases such as the €500 shoes or a trek up the Himalayas.
Individual purchases still affect your joint position, your net worth as a couple. So they should still be jointly "approved" if your net worth as a couple is important to you. Why wait to have kids to make big changes to financial arrangements? If you've decided to have kids (and especially if you think one of you might cut down or stop working) it might be a good thing to plan ahead financially and place less emphasis on individual buying power.
Just my opinion. All other things being equal people should do what works for them, of course.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?