I’d like to hear from some other couples of this board about how they manage finances post-marriage.
My partner and I have fully lived together for about two years now. We’ve got quite a good and functional system going, but it was developed at a time when I was paying off my house with my money, and I was reluctant to let him help. I obviously don't feel the same way anymore! Basically, I earn double him, but nearly half of my income is automatically deducted to pay the bank. We therefore pretty much ignore it. We both then put an equal amount into a shared account that we used to pay the bills and buy the groceries. The remaining money, we kept for ourselves. We shared the major purchases – it was often decided on such a basis as who had the money or the spare credit at the time.
Thing is, though, my mortgage repayments are falling and my income is rising, which means I end up with a lot more than my fiancé - and it will likely be increasingly so in the future. Besides which, post-marriage, this rigid separation all seems a little silly – after all, my parents simply shared everything! Apart of me thinks that’s a very important part of marrying. I’m not particularly worried about differing values – we’re both fairly miserly. But I also don’t want to create any additional angst, or feel like I'm rubbing my extra income in my husband's face (he is occasionally sensitive about it...).
I’m interested, what do other people do about finances?
Suze Orman suggests that the payment of joint expenses should be in proportion to income. If you make twice what he does, you contribute $200 to joint expenses for $100 he pays.
To me, that's a very good baseline that should be modified by the two people involved, according to individual circumstances. If he has dependents, you would probably expect less to be paid by him. Same thing for you.
If the house will continue to be owned solely by you and solely in your name, then payments on it are your sole responsibility. In this case, I would expect an adjustment to your joint fund that is equivalent to him paying rent.
Have you read up on the marital property laws of your jurisdiction? They may have a big effect.
__________________ Heavily medicated for your safety.
I'm guessing you won't be putting him on title so you'll never truly be 'sharing everything'.
No, I'll be putting him on the title to the house. He's kind of reluctant because of that annoying manly pride thing, but it would be unfair not to. If he's not on the title and something happens to me, he'll have to go through the probate rigamole. Besides, we're married, so he should share the assets.
But I do think Suzie Ozman's system sounds like a good one. Thanks!
With all due respect, it's far less fair that he be on title for a house he didn't pay for. Should he leave you, you may have to buy out his half of the house in a divorce settlement - a house you've already paid for.
Yes, I agree with Outcast. (So does Suze by the way.) The house is your property and it MUST stay solely in your name, IMO. You can readily deal with the probate issue by creating a trust which grants him a life estate, and there are probably other options as well.
He should share marital assets. IMO, he should not be made a gift of half of your sole assets unless it's money/property you can easily afford to lose.
I'm also in agreement with Outcast and SoleMate....
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoleMate
He should share marital assets. IMO, he should not be made a gift of half of your sole assets unless it's money/property you can easily afford to lose.
Divorce changes everything. I put my ex on the title as a "non-contributing spouse", he hadn't paid rent or bills in years and paid for a fence for the house and that was it, and when we divorced he wanted me to give him 8K to buy him out of the house. I would keep that house completely in your name.
__________________
I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
Divorce changes everything. I put my ex on the title as a "non-contributing spouse", he hadn't paid rent or bills in years and paid for a fence for the house and that was it, and when we divorced he wanted me to give him 8K to buy him out of the house. I would keep that house completely in your name.
You have no PMs, so I have to tell you I had a dream about you last night. You sent me a postcard and I had it up on my fridge, and it looked like your avatar.
__________________
I love these little people; and it is not a slight thing when they, who are so fresh from God, love us.
You have no PMs, so I have to tell you I had a dream about you last night. You sent me a postcard and I had it up on my fridge, and it looked like your avatar.
Ha! Cool. I really like your avatar/quote combo, BTW.
While I appreciate the advice, whether I put my husband's name on the title or not would make absolutely no difference in divorce proceedings here. The only times it would make a difference is for probate or something like that. Anyway, there is no way I would leave my husband in the position my father left my mother when he died many years ao - his name was the only one on the title to the house, and it took her forever to get clear title (plus, he gave a share to his mother, who she had to buy out!), during which she was struggling to maintain a big house on a little income.
Besides, I don't get this marital assets thing. If you marry someone with a house, of course you're not going to buy one yourself. Then you get divorced, and they have a house you've contributed toward the expenses of for years, and you've got nothing. Maybe that's okay after a year or two, but it's not okay after 10.
It's possible my husband will leave me; it's possible I'll leave him. But I'm willing to take that risk. Undoubtedly I'd feel differently if I had kids to look after, but I don't. So I'll choosing a husband, not a boarder.
Besides, I don't get this marital assets thing. If you marry someone with a house, of course you're not going to buy one yourself. Then you get divorced, and they have a house you've contributed toward the expenses of for years, and you've got nothing. Maybe that's okay after a year or two, but it's not okay after 10.
Contributing towards the expenses of a home is a mere tiny fraction of the cost of the actual asset.
If you don't mind ladyinwaiting, I was hoping I could add/ask a question on this same topic.
Since you are coming into a marraige making twice as much money, do you think you this will bother you during the marriage?
I am going to be also entering into a marraige where I just came of age to touch a quite large stock account. I'm thinking that since I have the money for a great downpayment on a house, and he doesn't, that it would be kind of expected of me to pay it? I don't really have a desire to kind of spend it all at once though. The money was a gift to ME thats been growing since as long as I can remember. Its already been decided that I will be staying at home when we have children...
Is this really selfish of me? I don't really want to touch this money unless I have to...kind of like a safety net. What do you think?
__________________
Girl you thought it was a man but it was a MUFFIN
Musicwoman, I don't really think I'm in a position to comment on your position, because our relationships are so different.
My fiancé and I have similarish occupations - given a few tweaks in our backgrounds we could have ended up in opposite positions. It's just that he's kind of socially aware and community-focused in his priorities, and therefore he's always going to have a low-paid, service-oriented public sector job. I'm far more ambitious and materialistic, and therefore I've gone into the private sector and I earn heaps.
The money issue has never been a big issue, despite the dire predictions of our friends and family. We do argue about the morality of my work occasionally, but for the most part my fiancé understands that he can do his dream job and live the lifestyle he's accustomed to only because I can fund it. That's not to say that he likes the situation - he's man enough to wish he could provide for his woman, but he's also wise enough to know that's not going to happen. Even if he did earn a lot, I would still want to keep myself. Also, we don't plan on having children (he told me on our 3rd date that he did not want to add to the world's population problems - I totally disagree with his reasoning, but I'm not inclined toward motherhood so I'm not going to argue about the end point) so there is no reason for me to ever have to rely on him.
For my part, I don't care that he earns less. Part of what I love about him is his dedication and idealism. I also feel much better about my job, knowing I'm helping support someone doing some actual good. But I don't run things in. The only time the money issue becomes a problem is times like holidays, when he wants to pay his share, but that means we have to downgrade accommodation or something. But his compensation for earning less than me is that he gets far more time to actually go on holidays that I do, so I can usually justify shouting him for my week off a year, and he pays for the fishign and camping trips he takes when I'm stuck at work!
In your case, I would put the money on a house, but that's just me. I'm kind of miserly and go for security every time. But it is your money. If you want to keep it for yourself, you should. And if you won't be earning any money at all while you have kids, it's probably a good idea to have enough for you that you don't have to rely on your husband. That's my thoughts, for what they are worth.
Please note: The suggestions and advice offered on this web site are opinions only and are not to be used in the place of professional psychological counseling or medical advice. If you or someone close to you is currently in crisis or in an emergency situation, contact your local law enforcement agency or emergency number.
Linear Mode
