denise_xo Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 I've met a lot of couples where one party "leeches off" the other (one works and the other doesn't). It seemed to me that it was accepted by society and "shouldn't" cause resentment. Or maybe it depends on gender? I'd only feel resentful because of his family situation. I would look at it differently: I think it's a great compliment to your partner that he wants to make his own way in life and be financially independent of his family, in spite of being from a wealthy background. If I were you, I would really encourage and support that attitude, rather than implying to him that his parents should pay. He is an adult, right? I would not encourage him to rely on his parents as if he is still some teenager.
Silly_Girl Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 I've met a lot of couples where one party "leeches off" the other (one works and the other doesn't). It seemed to me that it was accepted by society and "shouldn't" cause resentment. Or maybe it depends on gender? I'd only feel resentful because of his family situation. If it's a strategy of the couple/family then I don't consider it leeching. If it's a conscious choice that's considered the BEST OPTION all round then all well and good. If someone doesn't work, with no good reason, and someone else is working their nuts off, I don't see how there can be a happy ending. Why do you need your boyfriend not to work and not to contribute to the household bills?
denise_xo Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 I'm not sure I want a joint account. I guess we can withdraw cash and put it in a pool somewhere. Even if we get married someday, and we're thinking about it, I don't think joint accounts are a good idea. This is just based off what I've seen in others' marriages. I also like the idea of making and having my own spending money without getting consent from others about how I should spend it. For our entire relationship we have paid for ourselves when we go out. I prefer it this way, so I'm not sure that I would ever want a joint account. A joint account doesn't mean that all of your money is pooled. What's very common today (at least where I live) is that couples have one joint account for expenses where both parties contribute an agreed amount of money every month. Some people also have a joint savings account. In addition to this, they have their separate checking account and sometimes separate savings accounts and what have you.
Author joschmo Posted September 8, 2012 Author Posted September 8, 2012 A joint account doesn't mean that all of your money is pooled. What's very common today (at least where I live) is that couples have one joint account for expenses where both parties contribute an agreed amount of money every month. Some people also have a joint savings account. In addition to this, they have their separate checking account and sometimes separate savings accounts and what have you. Are there any tax ramifications for having a joint account?
Author joschmo Posted September 8, 2012 Author Posted September 8, 2012 If it's a strategy of the couple/family then I don't consider it leeching. If it's a conscious choice that's considered the BEST OPTION all round then all well and good. If someone doesn't work, with no good reason, and someone else is working their nuts off, I don't see how there can be a happy ending. Why do you need your boyfriend not to work and not to contribute to the household bills? I don't see how it'd ever be a good strategy for married couples with no children, unless that person has a serious disease, yet I know a few couples where one stays at home and does nothing all day. I want him to work and he wants to as well, but it's a tough job market right now.
denise_xo Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 Are there any tax ramifications for having a joint account? Where I live, not necessarily - but you would have to check your national legislation, I'm guessing we're not in the same countries.
CC12 Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 I've met a lot of couples where one party "leeches off" the other (one works and the other doesn't). It seemed to me that it was accepted by society and "shouldn't" cause resentment. Or maybe it depends on gender? I'd only feel resentful because of his family situation. When you say "family situation," that means their money, right? I really think you should drop this mindset. It doesn't matter how much money they have, they are under no obligation to provide for their adult son. If they didn't want to give him a dime, they'd be well within their rights to do that. And that would be none of your business. It's kind of like when someone wins the lottery. You hear stories of all these people coming out of the woodwork and asking the winner for money. Their reasoning is, "But you have SO MUCH money, and I need money SO BADLY. Why can't you just be cool and give me some?" It's this weird sense of entitlement some people get when in the vicinity of large amounts of other people's money. Anyway, if you can afford the place on your own and don't mind your boyfriend living there rent-free until he finds a job, then there's nothing wrong with that arrangement. I think it would be a mistake to rely on his parents for his half. It's not their problem. 1
KatZee Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 I wouldn't resent it if he didn't come from an extremely wealthy family. But he does, so it makes me feel as if he should pay half regardless. But his family's wealth isn't his, although they would help without hesitation, so I don't know if I'm thinking the right way. It's really irrelevant whether or not he comes from a wealthy family or not. YOU'RE the one with 6 figures of debt. Moving in with him will feel cool for the first five minutes and yes you WILL start to resent him. It's hard having your own place (just got mine!) You may be better off than me since you're making 6 figures, but bills are bills. And they suck, and if you're doing it alone with ZERO contribution from him, just because he's too "prideful to ask for money" is a load of BS. He's too prideful to ask for money, but he's cool with letting a woman take care of him? Cool with being a mooch and living somewhere for free? Don't move in. Wait until he gets a job with a salary and THEN look into moving into a place. OR, get the place now, IT WILL BE YOURS... not both of yours. He can move in when he has a job. It's not your job to mommy him and provide for him. He's a grown adult. You have your own crap to worry about. If he can't pull his weight, it's not the right time. 2
pink_sugar Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) I agree with carhill. But that said, if you guys move into a rental property, and both your names are on the agreement, then he has to pay all bills - including rent - down the middle. Simple. If he doesn't have sufficient personal funds to enter a venture like that - then you shouldn't do this. *Remember Judge Judy!!* Yep! Also according to Judge Judy, there is "no law for living together" meaning since you're not married, neither of you have any protection. If you don't want to pay for his share, wait until he has found employment before moving out together. It seems pretty unfair he wants to move out with you, but doesn't want to put up his share. It's different if you're married, have been living together and suddenly he lost his job, but moving in together for the first time, it's imperitive he have employment. I know from first hand experience what it's like to move with with someone and neither of you have reliable jobs or if one of you is unemployed long term. Although we both were in college, I had a lot of resentment and stress for my husband being unemployed more than half the duration of living together. Notice I say husband though. I agree with some of the others. Sit down and outline the expenses, your income, his income/savings etc. After bills, if you have a lot of disposable income and don't mind helping him with his share until he gets on his feet, that's fine. If you don't want to do it, don't move in together or make sure he can come up with all his share. Edited September 8, 2012 by pink_sugar
TaurusTerp Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 Yes, you're being too hard on him. He should be commended for trying to not ride his parents coattails for his whole life. And it sounds like he doesn't want to ride off of your salary either. If only more people were like him....both men and women. 3
ja123 Posted September 9, 2012 Posted September 9, 2012 Check out Suze Orman's books, "The Courage to Be Rich," and "Women and Money." She addresses some of these issues and offers strategies.
Gypsie Posted September 9, 2012 Posted September 9, 2012 Don't do it! I have been where you are and you know what happened. Once the guy got himself set up and was actually able to pay for everything he still would not split everything down the middle. A few months after. We split up. No way I would ever do this again. Not unless I was married and I doubt I would ever be in this situation again because will only date guys who have stable jobs now. The first sign of leeching. I'm gone! Learnt the hard way.
Star Gazer Posted September 9, 2012 Posted September 9, 2012 You are in a relationship with HIM, not his family. Your finances need to be dealt with as you + him, not you + him + his family.
Star Gazer Posted September 9, 2012 Posted September 9, 2012 Yep! Also according to Judge Judy... Ah yes! The one judge who has no obligation to follow the rules of law or the rules of evidence. Rather, it all comes down to what SHE and she alone finds to be equitable.
TaraMaiden Posted September 9, 2012 Posted September 9, 2012 Yes, but actually, she seems to be usually right. But remember, this is car-crash TV... she has to be a little bit sensational. Hell, on a bad day, she's more sensational than I am, on a good day!
Recommended Posts