Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Couples with joint checking accounts are happier

academic.oup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 205 posts

Re: Couples with joint checking accounts are happier

#191

Post by kedean »

scarface_74 wrote: post #83
civilized wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you under the impression that joint accounts require both partners to consent to a transaction?

It does just for logistics. If we have $1000 in our joint account and we both spend $600 without talking to the other, it’s going to overdraft. On the other hand, if we both have our “own” account even if they are really joint accounts, that’s not a problem. My wife doesn’t work now. I put money into “her” account every pay period based on what we agreed on - and to make her whole once I “retired” her. She has access…

If you both spend more than half your liquidity without consulting your committed life partner, there's bigger issues at hand.

Re: Couples with joint checking accounts are happier

#192

Post by em-bee »

jncfhnb wrote: post #187
em-bee wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they would have had to predict that communicating their financial concerns is not welcome. i am very open to talk about my feelings, but if a topic makes my wife angry, then i'll stop. the problem is not the ability of the sender but the reaction of the receiver. you can't control how your message is received, and therefore you can't blame the sender for failing to communicate in this case, much less suggest that the…

No, that’s bullshit. The wife can set her own boundaries on what she is willing to accept for finance but she can’t rule out talking about feelings about the issue. Not talking about it is not a solution. That’s baked into the premise. You have to talk to your partner about things that are important to you, hard stop.

yes, but when a topic upsets your partner, then you first have to figure out why, and work on resolving whatever is causing that reaction before you can get to the actual problem that is bothering you. depending on the problem, and the partners willingness to listen, this can take years.

and i am arguing against the claim that if they can't communicate about every important issue, then they should not have married. which is where i want to call bullshit. because such things are just not easy to know in advance. especially you simply have no way of knowing what kind of issues might come up if you didn't experience them in your parents, your own previous relationships or your friends or others. but you can't experience everything, and even for those issues you do have experience with, you can't predict if they are going to be a serious problem or not.

if that is wrong please tell me how to know in advance what issues me and my partner are going to fight about in the future.

Re: Couples with joint checking accounts are happier

#193

Post by prepend »

scarface_74 wrote: post #152
prepend wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s great to have a healthy relationship with trust. What if I told you that there was a strategy that had a 50% risk of what you think is trust is actually deceit. And that having separate finances helps immensely in the situation where this risk is realized. I have friends who were comfortable and thought all was well for years or even decades. Then it wasn’t. And having commingled finances was unpleasant…

Separate checking accounts mean absolutely nothing during a divorce. It’s all considered marital property and is split. That along with “your” retirement savings, physical property etc. If my wife and I got divorced, our joint checking accounts is the least of my complications. I’ve got retirement accounts and two properties (our former primary home that’s rented out and our vacation property) and since we agreed for…

> Separate checking accounts mean absolutely nothing during a divorce

This is not true. They mean a lot during the divorce. They mean little at resolution. But the first orders are for status quo and so using your own account and keeping it during the divorce means you have more control and visibility.

Yes, parties can file motions to access and compel payment. But divorce isn’t like on tv, family courts are slow.

With joint accounts it’s easy for one person to drain the cash and do something stupid like spend $75k on fake expenses that take two years to sort out.

With separate accounts, this is not possible.

The assets in accounts are split in community property states. But that’s at resolution and a lot of harm can happen during the course of drawn out disagreements.

Cash flow is important during a divorce (especially one that takes a few years) so feel free to consult with a divorce attorney or a prenup attorney. This is not an issue for illiquid assets and accounts like real estate and 401ks.

Re: Couples with joint checking accounts are happier

#194

Post by prepend »

em-bee wrote: post #170
meetingthrower wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

50% of marriages end in divorce. Note this varies wildly by income. So your "risk" goes down the richer you are.

sure, but i don't get how trust is actually deceit in those cases. people divorce for many reasons. deceit is not always the issue. and intuitively i'd think that deceit is more likely the richer you are.

Deceit is not always the reason, but it frequently is. It’s rather unpleasant to find out that years of seemingly trusting time together wasn’t.

Re: Couples with joint checking accounts are happier

#195

Post by scarface_74 »

kedean wrote: post #191
scarface_74 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does just for logistics. If we have $1000 in our joint account and we both spend $600 without talking to the other, it’s going to overdraft. On the other hand, if we both have our “own” account even if they are really joint accounts, that’s not a problem. My wife doesn’t work now. I put money into “her” account every pay period based on what we agreed on - and to make her whole once I “retired” her. She has access…

If you both spend more than half your liquidity without consulting your committed life partner, there's bigger issues at hand.

If your “liquidity” is in a checking account, there is an even bigger issue..

Re: Couples with joint checking accounts are happier

#196

Post by scarface_74 »

prepend wrote: post #193
scarface_74 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Separate checking accounts mean absolutely nothing during a divorce. It’s all considered marital property and is split. That along with “your” retirement savings, physical property etc. If my wife and I got divorced, our joint checking accounts is the least of my complications. I’ve got retirement accounts and two properties (our former primary home that’s rented out and our vacation property) and since we agreed for…

> Separate checking accounts mean absolutely nothing during a divorce This is not true. They mean a lot during the divorce. They mean little at resolution. But the first orders are for status quo and so using your own account and keeping it during the divorce means you have more control and visibility. Yes, parties can file motions to access and compel payment. But divorce isn’t like on tv, family courts are slow. Wi…

Is my experience so unique? I went from filing divorce to going to court and getting divorced in less than 4 months.

It was uncontested and no kids - well I had a step daughter - and we had only been married four years.

Re: Couples with joint checking accounts are happier

#197

Post by seoulbigchris »

vsskanth wrote: post #161
seoulbigchris wrote: post #157

In South Korea where I live, joint accounts are illegal. You can share cards and PIN numbers with your spouse, and that practice is at least informally accepted. But it’s not a true joint account and doesn’t have the benefit of survivorship.

Does the no survivorship benefit also apply to retirement and investment accounts ? What happens to the money when someone passes away then ?

The money / property passes through normal probate process. It’s not automatic like would be in a joint account.

Re: Couples with joint checking accounts are happier

#198

Post by seoulbigchris »

em-bee wrote: post #164
seoulbigchris wrote: post #157

In South Korea where I live, joint accounts are illegal. You can share cards and PIN numbers with your spouse, and that practice is at least informally accepted. But it’s not a true joint account and doesn’t have the benefit of survivorship.

you can have a bank account only in one persons name, but that doesn't mean you can't treat the account as a joint account.

Practically speaking, yes. I am not sure it’s completely legal. For example, my wife made such an account in her name and the reason she said was for our savings. A week later the bank shut down the account be side they said an account can’t be shared. It that’s just one anecdotal story.

Re: Couples with joint checking accounts are happier

#199

Post by em-bee »

prepend wrote: post #194
em-bee wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sure, but i don't get how trust is actually deceit in those cases. people divorce for many reasons. deceit is not always the issue. and intuitively i'd think that deceit is more likely the richer you are.

Deceit is not always the reason, but it frequently is. It’s rather unpleasant to find out that years of seemingly trusting time together wasn’t.

i was going to argue about statistics, but i think that's pointless. i am guessing that you or someone you know were deceived by their partner, which understandably reflects in how you think about it. you, or they, have my sympathy.

but please allow me to ask for one more clarification:

i would only call something deceit if it was the intention to marry someone in order to take advantage of them from the beginning. is that what you mean? or do you count a change much later as well?

Re: Couples with joint checking accounts are happier

#200

Post by jncfhnb »

em-bee wrote: post #192
jncfhnb wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that’s bullshit. The wife can set her own boundaries on what she is willing to accept for finance but she can’t rule out talking about feelings about the issue. Not talking about it is not a solution. That’s baked into the premise. You have to talk to your partner about things that are important to you, hard stop.

yes, but when a topic upsets your partner, then you first have to figure out why, and work on resolving whatever is causing that reaction before you can get to the actual problem that is bothering you. depending on the problem, and the partners willingness to listen, this can take years. and i am arguing against the claim that if they can't communicate about every important issue, then they should not have married. w…

> yes, but when a topic upsets your partner, then you first have to figure out why, and work on resolving whatever is causing that reaction before you can get to the actual problem that is bothering you. depending on the problem, and the partners willingness to listen, this can take years.

Aka communicating

I don’t care about your argument. You don’t need to know in advance what will be hard. You just need to be able to talk about things. It’s not ok to actively acknowledge you are not talking about something that is bothering you that will boil up into anger. That’s unhealthy and toxic for both parties.

If you say “hey I’m feeling anxiety because of this, can we talk about it sometime?” And they say “no”… they’re not a good partner.

Post reply on HN