splitting costs w/ spouse - we earn very different amounts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he is saving the rest of the money, will he help support you with these funds during retirement?

If he hasn't shared any of his funds with her before retirement and expects her to contribute 50% on 1/20th of the salary, I highly doubt he has any intention of sharing anything with her post retirement. I think it is strange he also chooses to live on 1/20th of his salary so that it can be 50-50. Or do you just stay home and not get involved in the aspects of his life (vacations) that he can afford and you can't? There is no trust here and little respect. With this kind of treatment of another person and this level of inequality, this sound svery much like a marriage of convenience for him and likely one she is stuck in.

[Anonymous]

If your husband is unaware of the stress you are feeling, let him know. If he wants to continue with your current arrangement after that you should question why he is willing to let his wife suffer when he could easily fix it.

[Anonymous]

My first relationship was like this. I was still in school, living off loans and work-study, and he had a nice job with a good salary. But he still insisted we split all the bills 50-50. He claimed this was the egalitarian, feminist way to handle money. In fact, it was totally unfair to me. Needless to say, the relationship didn't last.

OP, like others on this board, I am curious about your lifestyle. Your DH seems to have doomed your family to a substandard lifestyle based entirely on your salary. I find that odd.

[Anonymous]

DH and I started a household while I was in grad school, he was working (I had loans). We had separate accounts and both contributed an equal amount to the "joint" account from which household bills were paid.
(that did not work because DH is HORRID with money)
Once I figured that out, I took full control. His pay is deposited in one joint account, mine in another (I have since graduated and now make 2-3x him). We both contribute to retirement accounts. Basically my salary pays the bills and we live on his (beyond bills, does that make sense? Groceries, gas, fun stuff, etc).
I can't imagine wanting to split it 50/50 even, not to mention 60/40, 80/20, whatever. That's too much work in a relationship that is supposed to be built on trust and working together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife and and I have your arrangement except we pay common expenses in proportion to our income. I pay 2/3 she pays 1/3. And we keep the rest of our money separate.

This is what we do and we've been married 10 years. It works or us.

OP - talk to you husband and renegotiate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DH makes about 20x what I make. I came to the marriage with some assets, him with debt. But as you can see his career has been much more lucrative. For 25 years we have contributed 50-50 to expenses of the household (keep incomes separate), except when I've been on unpaid maternity leave (he pays 100%). I find I can really just barely afford my 50% of our our expenses on my income.

Does anybody else have this kind of arrangement? Any sage advice for how to try to unwind it? I know it is a bizarre situation, so please hold off on the judgmental comments if you can.

No, this is wrong. We have a budget that tallies up the monthly expenses. We pay commensurate with the percentage of monthly income we bring in. I.e. if monthly expenses are $10,000 and Spouse 1 brings home 30% of take home and Spouse 2 brings home 70%, then Spouse 1 contributes $3000 toward monthly expenses and Spouse 2 contributes $7000. That way neither of us is too poor to have some money and freedom to buy things for ourselves, have drinks with friends, etc. We still split our household and childcare responsibilities 50/50, and we consider our financial arrangement to be 50/50 as well because it is comensurate with income and we both have jobs we love.

Your arrangement seems patently unfair to you IMO. Not sure how you can unwind it after 25 years. Sounds like this is a holdover from your early days but he is I assume no longer in debt and you were and are not obliged to pay a "bride price" for the privilege of having married him. You need to sit home down and have a calm conversation about how you can more fairly contribute to your household.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I shacked up with first GF, we used the "expenses in proportion to income" approach. I made a lot more and it was my idea - worked very well. For married people to even address this issue is piss poor, if you ask me. It's a marriage, for Heaven's sake.

which is exactly why I think it's entirely appropriate for the spouse who earns more to let the other one have a lighter financial load, FFS... I neither think that it has to be 50-50 nor do I think the higher earner has to pay 100%.

I don't see why some get their panties in a wad over the idea of spouses agreeing -- consensually -- to share the load in a way that's comfortable for each. If your point is that all marriages must be run on joint and pooled accounts, then that's a personal preference that is completely fine, but it's not OK (IMO) for you to impose that /your construct there on everyone else. There are many ways to make marriages work, not everyone has to do it your way/ one way.

[Anonymous]

I far outearn DH, and we just pool our money, because as one pp mentioned, once children were in the picture, it became difficult to have our lifestyle dictated by his lower income as opposed to my higher income. Also, it was hard for him to save aggressively for retirement. However, before kids, we took the approach of each putting half of our paychecks into a joint account and then putting the other half into our own separate accounts. If you prefer not to adopt the all-in-one-pot method, something like that might work. Even now, with 100% of each of our paychecks going into a joint account, we still each get a monthly amount deposited into our individual accounts to do what we want with. That way, we still have some of "our own" money where we don't feel accountable to the other person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I far outearn DH, and we just pool our money, because as one pp mentioned, once children were in the picture, it became difficult to have our lifestyle dictated by his lower income as opposed to my higher income. Also, it was hard for him to save aggressively for retirement. However, before kids, we took the approach of each putting half of our paychecks into a joint account and then putting the other half into our own separate accounts. If you prefer not to adopt the all-in-one-pot method, something like that might work. Even now, with 100% of each of our paychecks going into a joint account, we still each get a monthly amount deposited into our individual accounts to do what we want with. That way, we still have some of "our own" money where we don't feel accountable to the other person.

We pool our money, too, to cover household expenses - including 401K contributions and health care premiums. We just do it in a way that is commensurate with our salaries. This leaves each of us with a comfortable amount of personal money with which to buy a new pair of shoes, or pants, or morning lattes, or drinks or dinner with friends. Our paychecks are deposited into our personal accounts and then we transfer agreed upon amounts every pay period into our joint account. There's more than one way to skin this cat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
We pool our money, too, to cover household expenses - including 401K contributions and health care premiums. We just do it in a way that is commensurate with our salaries. This leaves each of us with a comfortable amount of personal money with which to buy a new pair of shoes, or pants, or morning lattes, or drinks or dinner with friends. Our paychecks are deposited into our personal accounts and then we transfer agreed upon amounts every pay period into our joint account. There's more than one way to skin this cat.

OP here - this is what we do, and I am not morally conflicted about not totally pooling everything. Just that the contributions are not commensurate with earnings. There are some ways in which DH (or his job) contribute - such as health care premiums for stellar care, and I don't do anything. The biggest discrepency is vacations, which I cannot afford, so he pays for them. For those looking to say he is a total jerk, that's what I get for posting.

As an aside, I think it is interesting how most assume that even though most people spend money commensurate with what they make, everyone does. Neither of us is interested in profligate lifestyles. I think the biggest problems are (a) fairness and (b) the savings that I have not accrued over the life of the marriage.

[Anonymous]

I guess those that make less are worth less. sounds horrible thank god we just put all money in join accounts and hide nothing from each other. Also we don't plan on getting divorced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: No, this is wrong. We have a budget that tallies up the monthly expenses. We pay commensurate with the percentage of monthly income we bring in. I.e. if monthly expenses are $10,000 and Spouse 1 brings home 30% of take home and Spouse 2 brings home 70%, then Spouse 1 contributes $3000 toward monthly expenses and Spouse 2 contributes $7000. That way neither of us is too poor to have some money and freedom to buy things for ourselves, have drinks with friends, etc. We still split our household and childcare responsibilities 50/50, and we consider our financial arrangement to be 50/50 as well because it is comensurate with income and we both have jobs we love.

Your arrangement seems patently unfair to you IMO. Not sure how you can unwind it after 25 years. Sounds like this is a holdover from your early days but he is I assume no longer in debt and you were and are not obliged to pay a "bride price" for the privilege of having married him. You need to sit home down and have a calm conversation about how you can more fairly contribute to your household.

I appreciate that you understand this is a holdover from early days, when the financial picture looked much different. I am not suffering, and indeed live better than so many folks I know, so cannot complain on an absolute level (which is why I may have closed my eyes to it for so long). I also may be overlooking other benefits I get. But it is long past time to change, so I thanks for all the input and (from a few of you) support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess those that make less are worth less. sounds horrible thank god we just put all money in join accounts and hide nothing from each other. Also we don't plan on getting divorced.

Gosh! So friggin' judgemental! No evidence was presented of "hiding" or "planning on getting a divorce." So good for you, but maybe you can start your own self-congratulatory thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess those that make less are worth less. sounds horrible thank god we just put all money in join accounts and hide nothing from each other. Also we don't plan on getting divorced.

Gosh! So friggin' judgemental! No evidence was presented of "hiding" or "planning on getting a divorce." So good for you, but maybe you can start your own self-congratulatory thread.

OP said she is making 20x less and struggling to make her 50% of the payments while DH hoards his major share of the money to god knows where. How is that not hiding?

[Anonymous]

Cause I can see all his financial accounts whenever I want! There is no lack of honesty, whatever else you think about it.