Anonymous wrote:the pattern seems that the spouse who makes more money doesn't want to integrate finances. Its not morally right for one to feel inferior because they make less money and will result in the equalization of the marriage partnership.

The pattern where? Not on this thread.

I make less and I didn't want to integrate accounts.

Anonymous wrote:the pattern seems that the spouse who makes more money doesn't want to integrate finances.

I'm seeing that, too.

I don't think anyone can argue that having separate accounts is a way to assert independence. I don't buy the "inertia" argument -- it's a lot easier to fill out a new direct deposit form than to keep track of multiple accounts and remember to transfer cash every month.

This is a comfort issue. Some people are comfortable "baring all" -- i.e. joint accounts -- while others need to keep control of their stash.

Personally, I would be uncomfortable if my partner felt the need to keep some money/spending to herself. I can't imagine "vetoing" or even questioning something she wanted to buy, or vice versa.

I got married young becuase I was LUCKY to have found the one early in life, not everyone meets the person of their dreams early in life. I don't ASSume that eveyone else has had the same fate in life as me.

Furthermore, studies show that people who get married later in life have a lower divorce rate than those who marry early.

10:04 and your ilk, how do you explain that? I would think that people who have "trust" issues would have a higher divorce rate than those who don't have trust issues. Why are the trusting people so prone to divorce?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people have totally joint accounts. But a lot of people married later in life and had been managing their own money for years before they met. It can be hard to all of a sudden merge all your money when you have two different spending/saving styles. Easier for some couples to have some joint money and some individual money. I'm single and 39 so if I married, I'd do it this way - I will never be comfortable with an 100% joint account. (and I have assets and a child to protect.)

something is wrong if you are still single and 39 (trust issues) and it will show when you are married with your seperate accounts

+1

Antiquated thinking.

Why bother getting married at all, it's so antiquated

Good point, many people don't, and that is OK too.

the pattern seems that the spouse who makes more money doesn't want to integrate finances. Its not morally right for one to feel inferior because they make less money and will result in the equalization of the marriage partnership.

We keep separate accounts just because its more practical. We got married in our late 30s when we had already established credit, accounts, retirement savings etc. We set up one new account that we bay all our bills and expenses from each month. We both transfer roughly equal amounts of money into this account. Sometimes I transfer more because I make 50K more than DH. The one joint account makes it easier to look back and see what we are spending to budget plan. We also do it for general security. We maintain some savings in the accounts that our paychecks go into but the only deduction is the transfer that we do into the joint account. We do on-line paying and some automatic deducations from the joint account and do not maintain a substantial balance below what we need. If the account was ever compromised from any of the on-line payments the impact would be less. I didn't change my name either because frankly in your late 30s it would have been a PITA. Back when people got married in their early 20s, had very little credit history, work history and nothing it would make more sense to create joint accounts.

Pp, you shouldn't have to explain yourself to the Judgy McJudgers here. There are many valid reasons to not be married at 39 that don't reflect some perceived flaw in you. And anyway, it's none of their damn business why you aren't married, and really doesn't seem to have anything to do with the original question. As I understand it, you were pointing out that someone's pre-marriage life (like having a child) could influence why they would want separate accounts in a marriage. And to the op - one size does not fit all, and thinking one way is best for all is just silly.

I'm the 39-year-old PP who apparently has "trust issues." Trust me, I don't. I had my chances to get married in my 20's, but I didn't see myself being happy with the guy forever. If you can already forecast that a year into a relationship, you don't marry the guy. After that, I dated a few guys that I liked, but the timing was off - they either weren't ready for "serious" or something had just happened to rock their world like a parent dying or a cancer diagnosis, and things got messed up. When I had a kid at 36 (with a guy I really liked, but again - timing), it became a lot harder to meet a guy I liked. I trust people, but trusting them and wanting to spend your life with them are two different things.

This thread seems to indicate that many of your marriages are based more on sharing finances and having joint accounts than on other priorities and goals. Money isn't everything, lady. It's important, but it's not everything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people have totally joint accounts. But a lot of people married later in life and had been managing their own money for years before they met. It can be hard to all of a sudden merge all your money when you have two different spending/saving styles. Easier for some couples to have some joint money and some individual money. I'm single and 39 so if I married, I'd do it this way - I will never be comfortable with an 100% joint account. (and I have assets and a child to protect.)

something is wrong if you are still single and 39 (trust issues) and it will show when you are married with your seperate accounts

+1

Antiquated thinking.

Why bother getting married at all, it's so antiquated

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mother was married for 22 years. Their accounts were all joint. He took care of everything. She had, and still doesn't, have any clue how to budget, set aside for retirement or savings. She had no part in the money management process throughout their entire marriage.

I don't ever want to be that way. There. That's why we have yours/mine/ours accounts.

I'm someone who posted earlier who is on the extreme and has had a joint account since we were dating and properties owned....

However, I do NOT think that the status of your bank account determines if you are "all in" or not.

My mom was a SAH and they had joint accounts. Apparantly my dad was not "all in", as he traded her in for a younger, perkier model. They divorced despite having joint bank accounts. A joint bank account is not a litmus test to predict a successful marriage.

True but the opposite is a good indicator of trust issues and predictor of divorce. If you are already preparing for divorce you are not focused on making things work. ME ME ME isn't marriage, it's US US US

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people have totally joint accounts. But a lot of people married later in life and had been managing their own money for years before they met. It can be hard to all of a sudden merge all your money when you have two different spending/saving styles. Easier for some couples to have some joint money and some individual money. I'm single and 39 so if I married, I'd do it this way - I will never be comfortable with an 100% joint account. (and I have assets and a child to protect.)

something is wrong if you are still single and 39 (trust issues) and it will show when you are married with your seperate accounts

+1

Antiquated thinking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people have totally joint accounts. But a lot of people married later in life and had been managing their own money for years before they met. It can be hard to all of a sudden merge all your money when you have two different spending/saving styles. Easier for some couples to have some joint money and some individual money. I'm single and 39 so if I married, I'd do it this way - I will never be comfortable with an 100% joint account. (and I have assets and a child to protect.)

something is wrong if you are still single and 39 (trust issues) and it will show when you are married with your seperate accounts

+1

Anonymous wrote:Because we are a gay couple. If we had joint accounts that we didn't contribute equal money into the IRS would treat the excess I put it as a gift and tax me at 45% on the excess. We have joint accounts and separate accounts. It actually makes life difficult and is deeply offensive to us.

Cause that's not marriage

Anonymous wrote:9:29, having a joint account doesn't automatically give you joint economic goals. That should be obvious.

Correct, but you need join economic goals whether your finances are separate or joint. If one of the main reasons your finances are separate is that you don't want your spouse to know what you're spending, I wonder if that couple does in fact agree on how much to save for the kids' college, when to target retirement, etc. The way we handle it is that we each get a certain amount to spend that the other spouse isn't privy to, but we set that amount after maxing out retirement, setting aside the agreed upon amount in the 529, etc.