But a car is not a major "household" expense when you BOTH have a car.
It's different if you manage with only one car.
But most couples need a car each because they both have to get to work at the same time and travel in opposite directions. I pay for my car and related expenses, my partner pays for her car and related expenses. Simple.
Not to mention the fact that putting her on my insurance makes my insurance more expensive (since I am the more experienced driver). That is just an unnecessary extra expense when she's got her own car and doesn't need to drive mine.
Need use of a car each! - that doen't mean that they own the car themselves
But my question still stands for the "we own absolutely everything equally" brigade. How do they buy each other presents?
When my husband and I got married, we both worked full-time, in very similarly paid jobs (not that it would have made a jot of difference). We have always both been of the opinion that everything should be shared. We set our banking up so that we have a joint account, which all our wages are paid into. All household expenditure (including for cars) comes out of this. We then each have a separate bank account of our own. Each month we have our 'pocket money' transferred out of the joint account into our personal accounts. That money is for our personal use, so we buy each other presents, or buy ourselves clothes or other personal things from that money. If we've anything left over that we want to save for then that's our own saving money. All other savings are funded from our joint account.
Our circumstances have changed over the years, we have children now, so I went part-time, then a few months back lost my job, so my 'contribution' is considerably less these days, but we still operate our finances in exactly the same way - we just have less pocket money each month now.
If I owned my house outright and a woman suggested that we get married and the house become owned equally, I would ask wishfulthinking's question - what planet are you on?!!
With how quickly people split up or get divorced these days, it is foolhardy to throw everything you have into a relationship on the grounds that everything is jointly owned. Get taken to the cleaners a few times and you'll realise this.
While I can appreciate that coming into a relationship there could a difference in material wealth, is not the part of the point in the relationship that you don't treat stuff as his or hers ? Once you have that attitude just sounds to me like you are setting yourself up for failure.
Funny how it's always the lower earner that is the advocate of "joint finances" ....
Hmmm, not so in my case.
And also, my other half moved into my house (yes, not owned, have a mortgage, as I have done for quite a few years now). If the worst should happen then he is entitled to "take me" for half of the house. I'm sure it means you think I'm stupid, I have been burnt, but quite frankly, if I didn't trust the guy I'm with, I wouldn't be with him.
Also, we have no children, so the amount being paid in has always been equal.
Anyway, this isn't about how we chose to live, I want to know if the husband spoke to his wife about the car?
While I can appreciate that coming into a relationship there could a difference in material wealth, is not the part of the point in the relationship that you don't treat stuff as his or hers ? Once you have that attitude just sounds to me like you are setting yourself up for failure.
I don't see it that way. We don't have to "share" everything. We don't have to own everything equally to somehow "prove" the relationship. Just in the same way that we don't have to always do everything together and go everywhere together.
I fully agree that material things are irrelevant to a relationship. But that's why we believe that it doesn't matter that what's mine is mine, and what's hers is hers. It's irrelevant to the relationship. Why does everything have to be combined and "owned equally" in order for some people to feel that they are in a real relationship?
Just because my car belongs to me and her car belongs to her doesn't make the relationship any less solid, in the same way that considering the cars to be jointly owned wouldn't give the relationship any greater chance of lasting.
I do find it interesting that people on here who consider "things" and "finances" to be irrelevant also hold such a strong opinion that those same things must be "joined" for a relationship to be real.
I don't see it that way. We don't have to "share" everything. We don't have to own everything equally to somehow "prove" the relationship. Just in the same way that we don't have to always do everything together and go everywhere together.
I fully agree that material things are irrelevant to a relationship. But that's why we believe that it doesn't matter that what's mine is mine, and what's hers is hers. It's irrelevant to the relationship. Why does everything have to be combined and "owned equally" in order for some people to feel that they are in a real relationship?
Just because my car belongs to me and her car belongs to her doesn't make the relationship any less solid, in the same way that considering the cars to be jointly owned wouldn't give the relationship any greater chance of lasting.
I do find it interesting that people on here who consider "things" and "finances" to be irrelevant also hold such a strong opinion that those same things must be "joined" for a relationship to be real.
The point of this thread though is that the OP "shares" his house, his food, his heating, his lighting, his SALARY. The wife shares nothing!
The point of this thread though is that the OP "shares" his house, his food, his heating, his lighting, his SALARY. The wife shares nothing!
Exactly!
Has he got mug written on his forehead?
I mean signing her onto the deeds of the house when she hasn't contributed anything to the deposit or mortgage payments?!?:eek:
It's his choice though. She isn't obliged to share her car that she has paid for from her own income. If he wants to share stuff he has bought with his income that's up to him.
If he is no longer happy with this arrangement then he needs to talk to his wife about it, a point which so far we have all been in agreement.
I do find it interesting that people on here who consider "things" and "finances" to be irrelevant also hold such a strong opinion that those same things must be "joined" for a relationship to be real.
I am not saying that 'need' to share, I am asking why would you not share ?
I am not saying that 'need' to share, I am asking why would you not share ?
Because unlike some people I don't view life through rose tinted glasses and believe that every relationship is going to end happily ever after.
I also don't believe that protecting your own assets before entering a relationship is "setting yourself up to fail", any more than I would believe wearing a seatbelt means I'm setting out to have an accident.
Because unlike some people I don't view life through rose tinted glasses and believe that every relationship is going to end happily ever after.
I also don't believe that protecting your own assets before entering a relationship is "setting yourself up to fail", any more than I would believe wearing a seatbelt means I'm setting out to have an accident.
I can see your point. Me and the OH share everything, but we met when we were youngers and earned everything we have together. Things are a little different now that we have a child I only have a part time wage coming in. We started out on an even keel though!
I can see your point. Me and the OH share everything, but we met when we were youngers and earned everything we have together. Things are a little different now that we have a child I only have a part time wage coming in. We started out on an even keel though!
You share everything?! Does that extend to clothes.... kinky.
I can see your point. Me and the OH share everything, but we met when we were youngers and earned everything we have together. Things are a little different now that we have a child I only have a part time wage coming in. We started out on an even keel though!
That's totally understandable and sounds absolutely fair.
I think this is where the "joint account and share everything" ideal comes from. Back in the days when people met in their teens when neither of them had anything, got married in their early 20s and built their lives together, this financial system works absolutely fine.
But that simply doesn't happen very often these days. I would say not many people of the current generation, including myself, are going to see their 40th or 50th wedding/relationship anniversary. Either because marriage is put off until later in life, or because people give up on their relationships and move on too easily.
It used to be the norm that you met with nothing and built a life together. Now it's far more common for there to be a significant financial mismatch between people because new relationships are started much later in life. The "share everything" ideal simply doesn't work then unless you're happy to potentially get burned and start paying for your home and building your life all over again.
A lot of people here seem to be very happy to immediately jump in and sign over half their life and assets to their new buddy!
So if you want your own "things" when you are married you are "extremely selfish" ? This thread has put me right off ever getting married!
You can know that something belongs to you without getting all stressy about having to share. I have my own laptop - it belongs to me, I bought it - but if anyone in my family wanted to use it I'd be more than happy. Same goes for mobile phone, car, iPod, etc etc.
Fine until the day it all goes pear shaped and you've got to work out who owns what and how the bank account will be split.
I'm very happy for you
But too many people in my life have got divorced or even not got as far as getting married after getting engaged.
That's not a risk that I, personally, would be prepared to take.
I've been divorced - I ended up with about half of what we had and I wouldn't have accepted less. I don't see the point of getting married if the starting point is protecting what you've got in case it ends. In both marriages I believed and behaved as though it were a permanent partnership. It's called trusting yourself to deal with whatever happens. I'd never marry someone who wanted a prenup or wasn't prepared to share everything.
I've been divorced - I ended up with about half of what we had and I wouldn't have accepted less.
But how much did you put in?
I very nearly own my house outright. No one has contributed anything for it except me. Are you really suggesting that I should be prepared to lose half of that to someone that hasn't paid a penny towards it? Everyone hopes the marriage is permanent but no one knows the future.
I don't see the point of getting married if the starting point is protecting what you've got in case it ends. In both marriages I believed and behaved as though it were a permanent partnership. It's called trusting yourself to deal with whatever happens. I'd never marry someone who wanted a prenup or wasn't prepared to share everything.
I don't see it like that.
Wearing a seatbelt doesn't mean you're intending to have an accident.
Taking out home insurance doesn't mean I'm intending for my house to fall down.
Not giving away half my assets doesn't meant I'm intending for a relationship to fail.
Protecting my assets doesn't mean a relationship is not committed, in the same way signing over half the house is no guarantee that it will last forever.
I don't understand why so many people see joint finances as an indicator of how committed someone is to a person.
Hooloovoo, just wanted to make a couple of points.
Firstly, I think some people on here perhaps come across as sounding "this is how it should be done, everything should be shared!". Clearly, that's not true. What works for one partnership won't work for another. I am firmly in the "It's only money, I don't mind if it's shared" camp (but having said that, I have told my OH that I intend to sign a BFA when we get hitched, for his peace of mind) and it sounds as though you are far more guarded with money in relationships. I am not wrong, nor are you. As long as it works for both of you, then that's that. In the OP's case however, it doesn't work for both of them, he's feeling a bit stung. Which I can understand and why discussions need to take place between him and his wife.
Secondly, I'm sure you didn't mean that housewives are contributing nothing because they don't financially contribute, but once I'm married my OH (who makes a fair whack of money) has insisted that we have joint bank accounts, which I'm not fussed on but I'll have no earning power for a while. And that SUCKS, you have no idea. I've worked my butt off for over 3 years and when I graduate it will be at the bottom of the rung, where I'll have paid alot for my degree to earn a small amount per year just so I have experience to apply for the meaty jobs I really desire. But in reality, I'll be able to work for only a year, two years at most, before I'm stuck home being a housebound mum and not making advances in my career.
But I've agreed to it because it's objectively the best option we have as far as children go, and sometimes in relationships you have to compromise a hell of a lot. So I get access to his money, and I give up a few years of my career goals to provide for our children. I know which end of the deal I'd rather have, but we can afford to live on his wage and we couldn't on mine. And hopefully, I'll either be able to do honours part time so when I'm ready to rejoin the workforce, I'll still have made some contribution toward my career while I was off being a mum.
Whoa, sorry that was long winded and sounded a little defensive probably. It's just only lately I've truly been able to appreciate what some women sacrifice in order to raise children!! But given the option, I'd stay in the work force and earn a 'proper' wage if I could.
Firstly, I think some people on here perhaps come across as sounding "this is how it should be done, everything should be shared!". Clearly, that's not true. What works for one partnership won't work for another.
Exactly. Many people on here seem to believe you can't possibly be in a committed relationship if you don't have combined finances.
Secondly, I'm sure you didn't mean that housewives are contributing nothing because they don't financially contribute,
Not when there are children involved, no. While looking after a child has no monetary value (unless you consider the cost of childcare), clearly that's not the same as not contributing.
However, if there were no children and the "houseperson" was just sitting at home all day I'd call them a bit of a slacker, yes! Even if they do the washing and keep the place tidy, I'd say that wasn't enough of a contribution given that someone living alone has to do all that AND a full time job.
Comments
Cheeky I know but.....what planet are you on?
A car is most certainly a major household expense for normal people, the only bigger thing is the house itself!
When my husband and I got married, we both worked full-time, in very similarly paid jobs (not that it would have made a jot of difference). We have always both been of the opinion that everything should be shared. We set our banking up so that we have a joint account, which all our wages are paid into. All household expenditure (including for cars) comes out of this. We then each have a separate bank account of our own. Each month we have our 'pocket money' transferred out of the joint account into our personal accounts. That money is for our personal use, so we buy each other presents, or buy ourselves clothes or other personal things from that money. If we've anything left over that we want to save for then that's our own saving money. All other savings are funded from our joint account.
Our circumstances have changed over the years, we have children now, so I went part-time, then a few months back lost my job, so my 'contribution' is considerably less these days, but we still operate our finances in exactly the same way - we just have less pocket money each month now.
So, if I were to own my house outright, with no mortgage, my fiance owned nothing, when we got married I would have to just "give" him half my house? Why do you think so many people now create pre-nuptual agreements?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/oct/20/prenuptial-agreement-enforced-uk-law
A financially secure one, thanks very much!
No, it's a major PERSONAL expense. Not a household one. Household expenses are the gas bill, the water bill, the insurance, food etc.
Precisely!!
If I owned my house outright and a woman suggested that we get married and the house become owned equally, I would ask wishfulthinking's question - what planet are you on?!!
While I can appreciate that coming into a relationship there could a difference in material wealth, is not the part of the point in the relationship that you don't treat stuff as his or hers ? Once you have that attitude just sounds to me like you are setting yourself up for failure.
Hmmm, not so in my case.
And also, my other half moved into my house (yes, not owned, have a mortgage, as I have done for quite a few years now). If the worst should happen then he is entitled to "take me" for half of the house. I'm sure it means you think I'm stupid, I have been burnt, but quite frankly, if I didn't trust the guy I'm with, I wouldn't be with him.
Also, we have no children, so the amount being paid in has always been equal.
Anyway, this isn't about how we chose to live, I want to know if the husband spoke to his wife about the car?
I don't see it that way. We don't have to "share" everything. We don't have to own everything equally to somehow "prove" the relationship. Just in the same way that we don't have to always do everything together and go everywhere together.
I fully agree that material things are irrelevant to a relationship. But that's why we believe that it doesn't matter that what's mine is mine, and what's hers is hers. It's irrelevant to the relationship. Why does everything have to be combined and "owned equally" in order for some people to feel that they are in a real relationship?
Just because my car belongs to me and her car belongs to her doesn't make the relationship any less solid, in the same way that considering the cars to be jointly owned wouldn't give the relationship any greater chance of lasting.
I do find it interesting that people on here who consider "things" and "finances" to be irrelevant also hold such a strong opinion that those same things must be "joined" for a relationship to be real.
The point of this thread though is that the OP "shares" his house, his food, his heating, his lighting, his SALARY. The wife shares nothing!
Exactly!
Has he got mug written on his forehead?
I mean signing her onto the deeds of the house when she hasn't contributed anything to the deposit or mortgage payments?!?:eek:
It's his choice though. She isn't obliged to share her car that she has paid for from her own income. If he wants to share stuff he has bought with his income that's up to him.
If he is no longer happy with this arrangement then he needs to talk to his wife about it, a point which so far we have all been in agreement.
So come on OP, what did she say??
I am not saying that 'need' to share, I am asking why would you not share ?
Because unlike some people I don't view life through rose tinted glasses and believe that every relationship is going to end happily ever after.
I also don't believe that protecting your own assets before entering a relationship is "setting yourself up to fail", any more than I would believe wearing a seatbelt means I'm setting out to have an accident.
I can see your point. Me and the OH share everything, but we met when we were youngers and earned everything we have together. Things are a little different now that we have a child I only have a part time wage coming in. We started out on an even keel though!
You share everything?! Does that extend to clothes.... kinky.
That's totally understandable and sounds absolutely fair.
I think this is where the "joint account and share everything" ideal comes from. Back in the days when people met in their teens when neither of them had anything, got married in their early 20s and built their lives together, this financial system works absolutely fine.
But that simply doesn't happen very often these days. I would say not many people of the current generation, including myself, are going to see their 40th or 50th wedding/relationship anniversary. Either because marriage is put off until later in life, or because people give up on their relationships and move on too easily.
It used to be the norm that you met with nothing and built a life together. Now it's far more common for there to be a significant financial mismatch between people because new relationships are started much later in life. The "share everything" ideal simply doesn't work then unless you're happy to potentially get burned and start paying for your home and building your life all over again.
A lot of people here seem to be very happy to immediately jump in and sign over half their life and assets to their new buddy!
I'm the higher earner - I am an advocate of joint finances. Some people just don't care about who owns what and are happy to share.
You can know that something belongs to you without getting all stressy about having to share. I have my own laptop - it belongs to me, I bought it - but if anyone in my family wanted to use it I'd be more than happy. Same goes for mobile phone, car, iPod, etc etc.
I signed half my house over to my hubby as soon as we got engaged. It wasn't a gift - it was a recognition that we were partners.
Fine until the day it all goes pear shaped and you've got to work out who owns what and how the bank account will be split.
I'm very happy for you
But too many people in my life have got divorced or even not got as far as getting married after getting engaged.
That's not a risk that I, personally, would be prepared to take.
I've been divorced - I ended up with about half of what we had and I wouldn't have accepted less. I don't see the point of getting married if the starting point is protecting what you've got in case it ends. In both marriages I believed and behaved as though it were a permanent partnership. It's called trusting yourself to deal with whatever happens. I'd never marry someone who wanted a prenup or wasn't prepared to share everything.
But how much did you put in?
I very nearly own my house outright. No one has contributed anything for it except me. Are you really suggesting that I should be prepared to lose half of that to someone that hasn't paid a penny towards it? Everyone hopes the marriage is permanent but no one knows the future.
I don't see it like that.
Wearing a seatbelt doesn't mean you're intending to have an accident.
Taking out home insurance doesn't mean I'm intending for my house to fall down.
Not giving away half my assets doesn't meant I'm intending for a relationship to fail.
Protecting my assets doesn't mean a relationship is not committed, in the same way signing over half the house is no guarantee that it will last forever.
I don't understand why so many people see joint finances as an indicator of how committed someone is to a person.
Firstly, I think some people on here perhaps come across as sounding "this is how it should be done, everything should be shared!". Clearly, that's not true. What works for one partnership won't work for another. I am firmly in the "It's only money, I don't mind if it's shared" camp (but having said that, I have told my OH that I intend to sign a BFA when we get hitched, for his peace of mind) and it sounds as though you are far more guarded with money in relationships. I am not wrong, nor are you. As long as it works for both of you, then that's that. In the OP's case however, it doesn't work for both of them, he's feeling a bit stung. Which I can understand and why discussions need to take place between him and his wife.
Secondly, I'm sure you didn't mean that housewives are contributing nothing because they don't financially contribute, but once I'm married my OH (who makes a fair whack of money) has insisted that we have joint bank accounts, which I'm not fussed on but I'll have no earning power for a while. And that SUCKS, you have no idea. I've worked my butt off for over 3 years and when I graduate it will be at the bottom of the rung, where I'll have paid alot for my degree to earn a small amount per year just so I have experience to apply for the meaty jobs I really desire. But in reality, I'll be able to work for only a year, two years at most, before I'm stuck home being a housebound mum and not making advances in my career.
But I've agreed to it because it's objectively the best option we have as far as children go, and sometimes in relationships you have to compromise a hell of a lot. So I get access to his money, and I give up a few years of my career goals to provide for our children. I know which end of the deal I'd rather have, but we can afford to live on his wage and we couldn't on mine. And hopefully, I'll either be able to do honours part time so when I'm ready to rejoin the workforce, I'll still have made some contribution toward my career while I was off being a mum.
Whoa, sorry that was long winded and sounded a little defensive probably. It's just only lately I've truly been able to appreciate what some women sacrifice in order to raise children!! But given the option, I'd stay in the work force and earn a 'proper' wage if I could.
Exactly. Many people on here seem to believe you can't possibly be in a committed relationship if you don't have combined finances.
Not when there are children involved, no. While looking after a child has no monetary value (unless you consider the cost of childcare), clearly that's not the same as not contributing.
However, if there were no children and the "houseperson" was just sitting at home all day I'd call them a bit of a slacker, yes! Even if they do the washing and keep the place tidy, I'd say that wasn't enough of a contribution given that someone living alone has to do all that AND a full time job.
Sounds very much like a male assumption that the male pays the mortgage! No doubt - they both pay the mortgage! :rolleyes: