Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too lazy to read all these posts.

We got married in our early 30s. He owned a condo so he continued to pay for it like he had been doing and I paid other expenses (childcare, groceries, etc.) Saw no need to merge our accounts but we did put each other's names on the accounts so we can access if we need to. He pays certain expenses, I pay others. We don't worry about things being "equal" because we consider it all our shared money. We contribute to a joint savings account. All is well.

What's the big deal?

The big deal is you're messing up the status quo for a lot of women. Most men would prefer separate accounts and once women start going along with that it becomes what is expected. In most cases it is a disadvantage to the gender that gives birth and raises children. You may not see this now but you will at some point in your life.

In other words, how dare you do what's best for you in your own life!

Anonymous wrote:Too lazy to read all these posts.

We got married in our early 30s. He owned a condo so he continued to pay for it like he had been doing and I paid other expenses (childcare, groceries, etc.) Saw no need to merge our accounts but we did put each other's names on the accounts so we can access if we need to. He pays certain expenses, I pay others. We don't worry about things being "equal" because we consider it all our shared money. We contribute to a joint savings account. All is well.

What's the big deal?

The big deal is you're messing up the status quo for a lot of women. Most men would prefer separate accounts and once women start going along with that it becomes what is expected. In most cases it is a disadvantage to the gender that gives birth and raises children. You may not see this now but you will at some point in your life.

Too lazy to read all these posts.

We got married in our early 30s. He owned a condo so he continued to pay for it like he had been doing and I paid other expenses (childcare, groceries, etc.) Saw no need to merge our accounts but we did put each other's names on the accounts so we can access if we need to. He pays certain expenses, I pay others. We don't worry about things being "equal" because we consider it all our shared money. We contribute to a joint savings account. All is well.

What's the big deal?

Anonymous wrote:
The idea is that merged accounts require force a couple to sit down, talk about future goals together, and talk about sometimes difficult issues. It sets a good precedent of communicating about on the relationship as a whole, and reduces the likelihood of the couple "drifting" apart, or allowing problems to fester.

Merged accounts don't prevent cheating, but can be an extra line of defense against it.

:Shrug:

We do that sort of talking all the time, without having to be forced into it. Without having merged finances.

It's almost like--gasp!--different strokes for different folks!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So far no one has given any details about exactly how this works? Does each spouse get a fixed amount of money each month in a personal account to spend however they want, maybe $1,000 a month or something, like an allowance, where as everything else goes into the joint account? I could see that working, because regardless of the spouses income they have the same amount of spending money.

It seems like most people are talking about a percentage split or something, though. That would work ok if both spouses had similar incomes, but what about if incomes are unequal? Say one parent is a partner at a law firm making $400K a year, while the other is a fed making $120K a year or so. Does the lower income spouse just have a lot less spending money than the higher income one?

That doesn't sound fair. If one spouse stays at home with the kids, it is even less fair.

This is what we do, and I posted about it earlier in the thread. But no one seemed to notice because it didn't fit their "one foot out the door" narrative. They were too busy jumping on those of us who don't have everything fully merged.

Those with joint and separate accounts don't seem to be bothered by those who have only joint accounts. Several posters with only joint accounts seem very interested in discrediting other people's arrangements. Why?

It's odd to me that a couple would merge every other aspect of their lives, down to merging DNA to make a kid, but then still have separate bank accounts. The whole process seems needlessly complicated: splits based on income, shuffling money around to multiple accounts, "borrowing" money from the person you are married to, and all that. What is gained by all that?

The only argument I've seen in favor of separate finances is to protect the woman from a jerk-off who would leave her high and dry, but I see that as a litmus test, if you don't trust him implicitly enough to merge money, don't marry him.

And yet I've seen people who say that merged finances are a way to "prevent" cheating (which is a ridiculous idea, but it's out there)--how is that somehow a display of implicit trust, but separate accounts aren't?

The idea is that merged accounts require force a couple to sit down, talk about future goals together, and talk about sometimes difficult issues. It sets a good precedent of communicating about on the relationship as a whole, and reduces the likelihood of the couple "drifting" apart, or allowing problems to fester.

Merged accounts don't prevent cheating, but can be an extra line of defense against it.

Most of the people here have merged accounts in addition to whatever personal accounts they have, so I'm sure they've had those discussions.

I don't buy the cheating argument in either circumstance.

It comes down to what works for a particular couple, doesn't it? Why make it more complicated? We all have slightly different circumstances.
DH and I have joint accounts in the sense that both our names are on all accounts. We have separate accounts in the sense that our paychecks are deposited into two different accounts, consistently. This works for us b/c my pay is rock steady while his fluctuates. My pay goes toward fixed expenses (ie, the mortgage and car payments are the same each month) and his go toward more "flexible" spending such as additional contributions to savings, extra $$ to daycare, groceries, gas, incidentals (ie, we can scale way back if needed, during a lean spell. We have done this and not had to worry about paying the mortgage - which is a big reason why we keep them split in this manner.
You could argue that I'm paying more of "the bills" but in our minds we are both responsible for everything. We've tried other systems over the years, but this one consistently WORKS and eliminates bickering (money fights were a big source of contention in our early years). Now, someone will probably tell me that we're doing this all wrong, but our bills are paid, we sleep at night, and we've eliminated a major source of conflict in our marriage (and have not replaced it with another )

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So far no one has given any details about exactly how this works? Does each spouse get a fixed amount of money each month in a personal account to spend however they want, maybe $1,000 a month or something, like an allowance, where as everything else goes into the joint account? I could see that working, because regardless of the spouses income they have the same amount of spending money.

It seems like most people are talking about a percentage split or something, though. That would work ok if both spouses had similar incomes, but what about if incomes are unequal? Say one parent is a partner at a law firm making $400K a year, while the other is a fed making $120K a year or so. Does the lower income spouse just have a lot less spending money than the higher income one?

That doesn't sound fair. If one spouse stays at home with the kids, it is even less fair.

This is what we do, and I posted about it earlier in the thread. But no one seemed to notice because it didn't fit their "one foot out the door" narrative. They were too busy jumping on those of us who don't have everything fully merged.

Those with joint and separate accounts don't seem to be bothered by those who have only joint accounts. Several posters with only joint accounts seem very interested in discrediting other people's arrangements. Why?

It's odd to me that a couple would merge every other aspect of their lives, down to merging DNA to make a kid, but then still have separate bank accounts. The whole process seems needlessly complicated: splits based on income, shuffling money around to multiple accounts, "borrowing" money from the person you are married to, and all that. What is gained by all that?

The only argument I've seen in favor of separate finances is to protect the woman from a jerk-off who would leave her high and dry, but I see that as a litmus test, if you don't trust him implicitly enough to merge money, don't marry him.

And yet I've seen people who say that merged finances are a way to "prevent" cheating (which is a ridiculous idea, but it's out there)--how is that somehow a display of implicit trust, but separate accounts aren't?

The idea is that merged accounts require force a couple to sit down, talk about future goals together, and talk about sometimes difficult issues. It sets a good precedent of communicating about on the relationship as a whole, and reduces the likelihood of the couple "drifting" apart, or allowing problems to fester.

Merged accounts don't prevent cheating, but can be an extra line of defense against it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So far no one has given any details about exactly how this works? Does each spouse get a fixed amount of money each month in a personal account to spend however they want, maybe $1,000 a month or something, like an allowance, where as everything else goes into the joint account? I could see that working, because regardless of the spouses income they have the same amount of spending money.

It seems like most people are talking about a percentage split or something, though. That would work ok if both spouses had similar incomes, but what about if incomes are unequal? Say one parent is a partner at a law firm making $400K a year, while the other is a fed making $120K a year or so. Does the lower income spouse just have a lot less spending money than the higher income one?

That doesn't sound fair. If one spouse stays at home with the kids, it is even less fair.

This is what we do, and I posted about it earlier in the thread. But no one seemed to notice because it didn't fit their "one foot out the door" narrative. They were too busy jumping on those of us who don't have everything fully merged.

Those with joint and separate accounts don't seem to be bothered by those who have only joint accounts. Several posters with only joint accounts seem very interested in discrediting other people's arrangements. Why?

It's odd to me that a couple would merge every other aspect of their lives, down to merging DNA to make a kid, but then still have separate bank accounts. The whole process seems needlessly complicated: splits based on income, shuffling money around to multiple accounts, "borrowing" money from the person you are married to, and all that. What is gained by all that?

The only argument I've seen in favor of separate finances is to protect the woman from a jerk-off who would leave her high and dry, but I see that as a litmus test, if you don't trust him implicitly enough to merge money, don't marry him.

And yet I've seen people who say that merged finances are a way to "prevent" cheating (which is a ridiculous idea, but it's out there)--how is that somehow a display of implicit trust, but separate accounts aren't?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So far no one has given any details about exactly how this works? Does each spouse get a fixed amount of money each month in a personal account to spend however they want, maybe $1,000 a month or something, like an allowance, where as everything else goes into the joint account? I could see that working, because regardless of the spouses income they have the same amount of spending money.

It seems like most people are talking about a percentage split or something, though. That would work ok if both spouses had similar incomes, but what about if incomes are unequal? Say one parent is a partner at a law firm making $400K a year, while the other is a fed making $120K a year or so. Does the lower income spouse just have a lot less spending money than the higher income one?

That doesn't sound fair. If one spouse stays at home with the kids, it is even less fair.

This is what we do, and I posted about it earlier in the thread. But no one seemed to notice because it didn't fit their "one foot out the door" narrative. They were too busy jumping on those of us who don't have everything fully merged.

Those with joint and separate accounts don't seem to be bothered by those who have only joint accounts. Several posters with only joint accounts seem very interested in discrediting other people's arrangements. Why?

It's odd to me that a couple would merge every other aspect of their lives, down to merging DNA to make a kid, but then still have separate bank accounts. The whole process seems needlessly complicated: splits based on income, shuffling money around to multiple accounts, "borrowing" money from the person you are married to, and all that. What is gained by all that?

The only argument I've seen in favor of separate finances is to protect the woman from a jerk-off who would leave her high and dry, but I see that as a litmus test, if you don't trust him implicitly enough to merge money, don't marry him.

I agree that it seems like a pain to shuffle money around and write checks to one another, but if those couples are fine with it, so what? DH and I don't have to do that because everything is done via direct deposit, so there's no time or effort wasted by either of us. I'm sure every couple here does something one would consider a waste of time, but if it suits their lifestyle, more power to them.

Most people here have a mix of joint and separate. Again, so what? It's also nice to have some back-up account options if joint banking or joint credit cards are compromised by fraud.

People are making a bigger deal out of this than it needs to be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So far no one has given any details about exactly how this works? Does each spouse get a fixed amount of money each month in a personal account to spend however they want, maybe $1,000 a month or something, like an allowance, where as everything else goes into the joint account? I could see that working, because regardless of the spouses income they have the same amount of spending money.

It seems like most people are talking about a percentage split or something, though. That would work ok if both spouses had similar incomes, but what about if incomes are unequal? Say one parent is a partner at a law firm making $400K a year, while the other is a fed making $120K a year or so. Does the lower income spouse just have a lot less spending money than the higher income one?

That doesn't sound fair. If one spouse stays at home with the kids, it is even less fair.

This is what we do, and I posted about it earlier in the thread. But no one seemed to notice because it didn't fit their "one foot out the door" narrative. They were too busy jumping on those of us who don't have everything fully merged.

Those with joint and separate accounts don't seem to be bothered by those who have only joint accounts. Several posters with only joint accounts seem very interested in discrediting other people's arrangements. Why?

It's odd to me that a couple would merge every other aspect of their lives, down to merging DNA to make a kid, but then still have separate bank accounts. The whole process seems needlessly complicated: splits based on income, shuffling money around to multiple accounts, "borrowing" money from the person you are married to, and all that. What is gained by all that?

The only argument I've seen in favor of separate finances is to protect the woman from a jerk-off who would leave her high and dry, but I see that as a litmus test, if you don't trust him implicitly enough to merge money, don't marry him.

Anonymous wrote:So far no one has given any details about exactly how this works? Does each spouse get a fixed amount of money each month in a personal account to spend however they want, maybe $1,000 a month or something, like an allowance, where as everything else goes into the joint account? I could see that working, because regardless of the spouses income they have the same amount of spending money.

It seems like most people are talking about a percentage split or something, though. That would work ok if both spouses had similar incomes, but what about if incomes are unequal? Say one parent is a partner at a law firm making $400K a year, while the other is a fed making $120K a year or so. Does the lower income spouse just have a lot less spending money than the higher income one?

That doesn't sound fair. If one spouse stays at home with the kids, it is even less fair.

This is what we do, and I posted about it earlier in the thread. But no one seemed to notice because it didn't fit their "one foot out the door" narrative. They were too busy jumping on those of us who don't have everything fully merged.

Those with joint and separate accounts don't seem to be bothered by those who have only joint accounts. Several posters with only joint accounts seem very interested in discrediting other people's arrangements. Why?

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we're odd, but we got married in our 30's and never thought or talked too much about having joint accounts. We have each always maintained our own accounts. I make more than DH, but we are definitely a team financially and every other way and neither of us has "one eye on the door." Maybe we were just too lazy to change things, but it's never been an issue. I pay the mortgage every month and he pays the other bills. If we're out buying things, we don't think about who pays-- it's just whoever runs the errand or is closer to the register. Honestly, it's not an issue. If he is short in his account, I pay a bill. If I'm short, he pays. We honestly don't care because we feel that all our assets are joint family assets. I find the preoccupation with the type of accounts people have as kind of odd.

In the past there has seemed to be a bit of a conservative/religious tint to a lot of the Anything Other Than Fully Merged Is Evil posts. You know, how can you be one before God if you don't make sure every penny is where the husband can get to it at all times.

Maybe we're odd, but we got married in our 30's and never thought or talked too much about having joint accounts. We have each always maintained our own accounts. I make more than DH, but we are definitely a team financially and every other way and neither of us has "one eye on the door." Maybe we were just too lazy to change things, but it's never been an issue. I pay the mortgage every month and he pays the other bills. If we're out buying things, we don't think about who pays-- it's just whoever runs the errand or is closer to the register. Honestly, it's not an issue. If he is short in his account, I pay a bill. If I'm short, he pays. We honestly don't care because we feel that all our assets are joint family assets. I find the preoccupation with the type of accounts people have as kind of odd.

People are who they are and having joint accounts or not does not change that. I have made more than DH, we now make the same, and I fully expect that at some point he will make more than me. We happen to have merged finances but keep separate accounts for daily living that simplify our lives.

Spouses can choose to split up expenses in any way that makes sense for them. When I question the arrangement is when one spouse considers their retirement or savings as individual or something the higher earning spouse is more entitled than the lower earning spouse. They are not operating as a unit and that is not a marriage I would want to be part of.

I do not worry about what happens if we unexpectedly divorce. If we divorce our life is all screwed up for many reasons, but we are both gainfully employed professionals that can support ourselves and having merged finances is not going to take that independence away from either of us.

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Proving my contention that people who insist on separate accounts already have one eye on the exit. They may be wise to do that, but it's still telling.

Tell that to my parents who have been married more than 45 years. They have zero joint accounts.