Totally separate accounts person here. I'm amused by how many people think it's got to be a problem, or an indicator that we're not in this for the long haul, or don't communicate, etc. And loving the melodrama of "You've merged DNA, why not bank accounts?!?!). It's not that complicated. We live together. We pay our bills. We don't keep tabs on who has spent more or making sure that our expenses are exactly even, etc. For heaven's sake-- just like a lot of other issues in marriage, you don't keep a tab. We don't calculate who has spent more time with the kids this month either or who has loaded the dishwasher more times.

We pay our bills. We don't quiz each other on how much the new sweater, the new shoes, the coffee, or anything else costs. When a bill comes in, one of us will pay it. If one doesn't have enough in the account, the other person pays it. We have mutual investment funds and separate 401(k)s from our work places. All funds are considered mutual, in that if our family needs to pay for something we will pay for it out of one or both of our accounts. Maybe it works because we're both grown ups who know what our mortgage costs, what our bills are, etc. and we don't overspend and have to tell our spouse at the end of the month that it's all on them to pay the bills.

Our intention is to be married for life. Are there any guarantees? Nope. And there wouldn't be if we had joint accounts either.

Anonymous wrote:

Look at it this way. Having both types of accounts accomplishes the same thing. You each know that a certain amount of your paychecks will be deposited in the joint account to cover household expenses and in the joint savings account to meet goals. What's left in the separate accounts is much less, and that's the"little fun" money for each person.

So the end result is the same, unless you ONLY have separate accounts and don't communicate at all.

EXACTLY! We have to discuss exactly how much money is being transferred from our individual checking accounts into the joint account each month. We have to discuss how to pay if the joint account ends up short at the end of the month. We discuss if the joint account has some extra money that can be moved to savings.

It just means that the rest of our monies--outside of the big wad to pay household expenses--stays in each spouse's account to play with. Or save, as the case may be.

I feel like a lot of people in this thread don't grasp that there is a large space between fully merged and fully separate, and it's not an affront to God or the rest of the female population to have household finances configured that way.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One of the biggest things couples fight about is money. (The other is sex, as you can see from the relationship boards here.) If keeping separate accounts helps minimize money fights, it sounds brilliant to me. If merging accounts helps people minimize money fights, it also sounds brilliant. Do what works best for your family. In our case, we keep separate accounts. I am a huge spender and husband is a huge saver. This way I don't eat into savings. And best of all, we don't fight. And therefore we have lots of sex.

It goes like this: if one couple is a spender and the other is a saver, splitting accounts to stop the fighting just papers over the problem. It's less efficient because if one tends to saving and the other tends to spending in an uncoordinated way, they won't build up nearly the wealth that they could.

The better solution (in my opinion, because isn't that what anonymous message boards on the internet are for, unsolicited opinions lol?), is joint accounts, because it forces the couple to coordinate for the greater good of the household. The spender adjusts their attitude and reins it in, and the saver learns to have a little fun now and then.

Look at it this way. Having both types of accounts accomplishes the same thing. You each know that a certain amount of your paychecks will be deposited in the joint account to cover household expenses and in the joint savings account to meet goals. What's left in the separate accounts is much less, and that's the"little fun" money for each person.

So the end result is the same, unless you ONLY have separate accounts and don't communicate at all.

You make a good point also. We find all joint accounts simpler to maintain, but I can see some people like the multiple accounts also. It's no skin off my back, just an internet debate, haha!

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.

One of the biggest things couples fight about is money. (The other is sex, as you can see from the relationship boards here.) If keeping separate accounts helps minimize money fights, it sounds brilliant to me. If merging accounts helps people minimize money fights, it also sounds brilliant. Do what works best for your family. In our case, we keep separate accounts. I am a huge spender and husband is a huge saver. This way I don't eat into savings. And best of all, we don't fight. And therefore we have lots of sex.

It goes like this: if one couple is a spender and the other is a saver, splitting accounts to stop the fighting just papers over the problem. It's less efficient because if one tends to saving and the other tends to spending in an uncoordinated way, they won't build up nearly the wealth that they could.

The better solution (in my opinion, because isn't that what anonymous message boards on the internet are for, unsolicited opinions lol?), is joint accounts, because it forces the couple to coordinate for the greater good of the household. The spender adjusts their attitude and reins it in, and the saver learns to have a little fun now and then.

Look at it this way. Having both types of accounts accomplishes the same thing. You each know that a certain amount of your paychecks will be deposited in the joint account to cover household expenses and in the joint savings account to meet goals. What's left in the separate accounts is much less, and that's the"little fun" money for each person.

So the end result is the same, unless you ONLY have separate accounts and don't communicate at all.

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.

You're full of shit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It goes like this: if one couple is a spender and the other is a saver, splitting accounts to stop the fighting just papers over the problem. It's less efficient because if one tends to saving and the other tends to spending in an uncoordinated way, they won't build up nearly the wealth that they could.

The better solution (in my opinion, because isn't that what anonymous message boards on the internet are for, unsolicited opinions lol?), is joint accounts, because it forces the couple to coordinate for the greater good of the household. The spender adjusts their attitude and reins it in, and the saver learns to have a little fun now and then.

Just out of curiosity.... In your household, are you the saver and DH the spender?

I'm the DH, and we're really about the same, tend towards saving.

Anonymous wrote:

It goes like this: if one couple is a spender and the other is a saver, splitting accounts to stop the fighting just papers over the problem. It's less efficient because if one tends to saving and the other tends to spending in an uncoordinated way, they won't build up nearly the wealth that they could.

The better solution (in my opinion, because isn't that what anonymous message boards on the internet are for, unsolicited opinions lol?), is joint accounts, because it forces the couple to coordinate for the greater good of the household. The spender adjusts their attitude and reins it in, and the saver learns to have a little fun now and then.

Just out of curiosity.... In your household, are you the saver and DH the spender?

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.

One of the biggest things couples fight about is money. (The other is sex, as you can see from the relationship boards here.) If keeping separate accounts helps minimize money fights, it sounds brilliant to me. If merging accounts helps people minimize money fights, it also sounds brilliant. Do what works best for your family. In our case, we keep separate accounts. I am a huge spender and husband is a huge saver. This way I don't eat into savings. And best of all, we don't fight. And therefore we have lots of sex.

It goes like this: if one couple is a spender and the other is a saver, splitting accounts to stop the fighting just papers over the problem. It's less efficient because if one tends to saving and the other tends to spending in an uncoordinated way, they won't build up nearly the wealth that they could.

The better solution (in my opinion, because isn't that what anonymous message boards on the internet are for, unsolicited opinions lol?), is joint accounts, because it forces the couple to coordinate for the greater good of the household. The spender adjusts their attitude and reins it in, and the saver learns to have a little fun now and then.

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.

One of the biggest things couples fight about is money. (The other is sex, as you can see from the relationship boards here.) If keeping separate accounts helps minimize money fights, it sounds brilliant to me. If merging accounts helps people minimize money fights, it also sounds brilliant. Do what works best for your family. In our case, we keep separate accounts. I am a huge spender and husband is a huge saver. This way I don't eat into savings. And best of all, we don't fight. And therefore we have lots of sex.