Live data from Hacker News

Combining finances

blog.mitchjlee.com

101–109 of 109 posts

Re: Combining finances

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of 'fun money' is that it isn't money that goes into savings. There's money allocated into savings before any 'fun money' allocations. Anything you have in your 'fun money' account isn't part of your savings, and can (and should) be spent guilt free. This works as an individual as well, and is the mechanism I used to get myself out of debt. The vast majority of my remaining income after essentials went into…

> The point of 'fun money' is that it isn't money that goes into savings. This is wrong since they specifically talked about saving their fun money.

You are wrong because fun money is to be used however you want, whenever you want by the one person. Savings here referring to the couples savings.

Re: Combining finances

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point of 'fun money' is that it isn't money that goes into savings. This is wrong since they specifically talked about saving their fun money.

> > > > And I do still spend my fun money, I just spend it in larger chunks. She's more likely to spend regularly on things like lunch and events with friends, I'm more likely to save up for a while then buy a new power tool, or rent a cabin for a weekend ski trip. > > It never went into my savings, and eventually got spent (usually after several months of 'saving' in the 'fun money' account, in order to buy a new ph…

>That's not what the article (nor myself, nor I suspect the GGGGP) was talking about.

It was exactly what I was talking about actually. I'm not going to blow money period, so I'd end up saving the >12 months of 'fun money' not for a purchase at all.

Re: Combining finances

#103
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's particularly fair; I think you just have to scale it to your own situation to see how you feel about it. For you, jointly spending $4600 a year on fun stuff sounds ridiculous. That's totally fine, but it's missing the point. (The parent might be ok with $4k a year but not $8k a year. Everyone has limits, and it could be a source of conflict if his spouse wants to expand her spending.) $4000/$600…

No, my whole argument is that that factor (your 4x, 3x, 2x) example becomes irrelevant once you're wealthy enough. Other stuff starts to matter more. My theory is that the GGP is in this position. But when her buying 2000 euros worth of shoes means I can't get a new pair of jeans anymore then we have a problem.

I'm sorry if my intention wasn't clear enough!

You're absolutely right that right now, we are wealthy enough to be able to spend 4600$ on various "things" without either of us really batting an eye. That isn't really the important bit; when we first got started, I was making 42k USD in total comp, and she was making 26k in total comp. Our first house was 54,000 USD and our mortgage was 456$ per month.

We were not wealthy, but we were _okay_. And at that point in our lives, we still had a joint account as our only account. We didn't buy fun stuff or convenience stuff without a discussion first, and we had to discuss these things pretty much every week. That worked for us, because we still communicated, and the important thing - the thing most vital to my previous comment even working - is that we put our family first and ourselves second.

Now that my new home cost me 12 times what my previous cost me, and now that I'm bringing in about a quarter million USD a year, you're absolutely right that we are wealthy and the 4600$ isn't a major problem to us. But if for some reason it ever did happen - say, I lost my job and we relied only on my spouse's income, neither of us would be spending any money at all that wasn't absolutely required.

What I was trying to drive home with #4 is that if you and your spouse are always on the same page about what comes first; your personal desires - or your family's needs, goals, and then desires (in that order), then it works really well.

I know plenty of couples where one or more of the spouses is an incredibly selfish person by nature. Perhaps one of the other bullets in this article would accommodate that well enough, and I doubt #4 would even remotely work for them.

But for my family unit, a single joint account with both incomes going into it still works for us, even if we have very different spending habits between us - and it works for both of us really well. From our early days straight out of college making relatively low income until now where we make entirely too much, this way has worked solely since both of us are able to modulate and restrain our spending when times require it, especially since we put our family before ourselves. #4, as in the article, didn't allow for any wiggle room like that. That's okay, though, since it was hardly purporting to be an exhaustive listing and description of income:spending strategies! I just wanted to share that #4 can absolutely work even for couples without the same spending patterns, as long as they're willing to put family over self.

Re: Combining finances

#104
post #61

#4 misses some other cases. My spouse and I are firmly in this category, but we also have different spending habits for sure! They buy a lot of little stuff that I don't see as particularly useful, while I don't buy anything at all for months on end, until I spend a whole hell of a lot all at once. Should be a recipe for disaster, right? Except it isn't. We just accept that this is who we are, and we're comfortable w…

Pretty much every sentence of your comment is true for my wife and I. What's "fair" is whatever everyone is happy with. I can't imagine being upset because my wife spent more money than me in the abstract.

Personally, I feel like trying to keep track of every last expenditure would just cause more and more strife between us.

As long as all our long term financial goals are being met, I'm content with what we're doing. And since they are, I am very much so content.

Re: Combining finances

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, my whole argument is that that factor (your 4x, 3x, 2x) example becomes irrelevant once you're wealthy enough. Other stuff starts to matter more. My theory is that the GGP is in this position. But when her buying 2000 euros worth of shoes means I can't get a new pair of jeans anymore then we have a problem.

I'm sorry if my intention wasn't clear enough! You're absolutely right that right now, we are wealthy enough to be able to spend 4600$ on various "things" without either of us really batting an eye. That isn't really the important bit; when we first got started, I was making 42k USD in total comp, and she was making 26k in total comp. Our first house was 54,000 USD and our mortgage was 456$ per month. We were not wea…

Maybe another way to put it: #4 works as long as neither party is overly selfish. That doesn't mean that both will spend the same, though. Equality of expenditure isn't as important as equality of happiness/contentedness. Prizing the latter more than the former is the real goal, so really - however you get there? As long as it works for you and your family, go with it!

Re: Combining finances

#106
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > > > And I do still spend my fun money, I just spend it in larger chunks. She's more likely to spend regularly on things like lunch and events with friends, I'm more likely to save up for a while then buy a new power tool, or rent a cabin for a weekend ski trip. > > It never went into my savings, and eventually got spent (usually after several months of 'saving' in the 'fun money' account, in order to buy a new ph…

>That's not what the article (nor myself, nor I suspect the GGGGP) was talking about. It was exactly what I was talking about actually. I'm not going to blow money period, so I'd end up saving the >12 months of 'fun money' not for a purchase at all.

Actually, I suspect oarsinsync was referring to this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ianferrel

Although I could be wrong. GGGGP would point to your comment, while the statement makes more sense applied to the other.

And you are going to be spending the money on a purchase, just not right now.

Re: Combining finances

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the beauty of the system...each one should not care what the other does with their 'allowance'. If one wants to save, or invest, or what have you, while the other one buys gifts for your neighbor's aunt because they like giving gifts to everyone...well, so be it. It is not from the centrally held account so it is perfectly fine. Meanwhile, that central account and the rules of expenditure are rock solid and it…

> each one should not care what the other does with their 'allowance'. This is impossible in any legal system where all money saved are seen as a joint asset. This means that if one person saves their allowance and the other spends it, then in the case of a divorce all of that money will be split.

Simple. Don't divorce.

Choose someone to commit to for life and stick to them.

All this ugly divorce talk while still married is ridiculous! Poison

Re: Combining finances

#108
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's not what the article (nor myself, nor I suspect the GGGGP) was talking about. It was exactly what I was talking about actually. I'm not going to blow money period, so I'd end up saving the >12 months of 'fun money' not for a purchase at all.

Actually, I suspect oarsinsync was referring to this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ianferrel Although I could be wrong. GGGGP would point to your comment, while the statement makes more sense applied to the other. And you are going to be spending the money on a purchase, just not right now.

>And you are going to be spending the money on a purchase, just not right now.

How do you figure?

Re: Combining finances

#109
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I suspect oarsinsync was referring to this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ianferrel Although I could be wrong. GGGGP would point to your comment, while the statement makes more sense applied to the other. And you are going to be spending the money on a purchase, just not right now.

>And you are going to be spending the money on a purchase, just not right now. How do you figure?

Why would anyone save money, if not to eventually spend it as the need arises?
Post reply on HN