Live data from Hacker News

Combining finances

blog.mitchjlee.com

91–100 of 109 posts

Re: Combining finances

#91
My biggest challenge, not discussed here at all, is how to force my wife into taking financial decisions. Numerous times I’ve tried to walk her through our finances, trying to make our life choices and trade offs more explicit. Yes we could move to a nicer place but we’ll have to cut down on kids activities. I feel I’m taking all the decisions myself.

Re: Combining finances

#92
post #91

My biggest challenge, not discussed here at all, is how to force my wife into taking financial decisions. Numerous times I’ve tried to walk her through our finances, trying to make our life choices and trade offs more explicit. Yes we could move to a nicer place but we’ll have to cut down on kids activities. I feel I’m taking all the decisions myself.

Can't really force anyone to do anything. For awhile my spouse and I did a monthly "money talk" where we walked through the monthly income and expenses and talked about things coming up. Eventually they decided they'd rather just not pay attention.

Re: Combining finances

#93
My wife and I had split finances while we were dating and for a few years after we got married. The thing that tipped us into "everything shared" was when we were expecting our first kid and my wife left her job. At that point split finances just didn't make any sense. Now we have a system basically identical to the OP's system and everybody is happy with it.

Re: Combining finances

#94
Our system: I make more, and I pay for the biggest expenses (mortgage, and previously cars and student loans before we paid those off) and have healthcare and whatnot taken from my paycheck.

She makes less but still a decent amount and pay for the smaller bills.

Every once in a while, she'll pay for a big-ticket item (like a vacation or a large house repair) out of her savings, which accumulate faster than mine, to catch up.

It works because we started together with next to nothing, so we're both big savers: Our combined income our first year together after college a little over ten years ago was probably a quarter of what we'll make this year. We both max out (or come very close to maxing out) retirement now. She has more cash on hand because I'm paid proportionately more in various types of stock incentives, so when my incentives vest I tend to sell the company stock to diversify but keep the money in investments).

We live in a small house, no kids, reasonably cheap cars, vacations are often tacked on to work trips to save money, no expensive hobbies.

I doubt I'll "retire" early but our savings mean if I decide to leave tech in a decade and become a woodworker or park ranger, I can with no monetary consequences.

Re: Combining finances

#95
post #67
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you've been downvoted. This is how it works in my country and I think this makes sense.

Because the topic is not "what's the default legal situation".

But if you don't discuss beforehand and come to an agreement, the default legal situation applies.

Re: Combining finances

#96
This is interesting. I looked around a bit for decent surveys or studies that break down statistics about couples who share finances this way versus using some other system, but I'm having a hard time finding any.

There are some surveys on why couples with joint accounts also maintain individual accounts, one of which seems to indicate independence is the biggest factor (38% of respondents). Only 16% said they did it for ease of budgeting, which to me seems to indicate that the system recommended by the article is relatively uncommon. [0]

For us, we keep it relatively simple. We have some savings from before the marriage in separate accounts that we use for stuff like surprise gifts or security when we need to pay something that requires a direct transfer online. Everything else comes from the joint account or goes through a joint credit card that we pay off every month.

Although our opinions still differ slightly on some long term goals that we won't have to decide on for a while, generally if there's a disagreement we just talk it out. We consult each other on expensive purchases, generally non-necessities over a certain amount. We've both supported each other through periods of temporary unemployment or income differences. Admittedly, having similar values and living in a low cost of living area helps a lot with this.

I'm not sure the system in the article would help too much for resolving expensive decisions unrelated to individual hobbies. For example, if one person wants to spend a larger portion of income on housing that requires more joint contribution, there's still a possible conflict. It does make those kind of decisions have a discussion built in by default though, which is definitely a good thing.

Overall it seems to me that the key thing is that people are having healthy discussions and making decisions together - including decisions around what to leave totally up to the other person, like the article's system does. Some conflict might be totally avoidable, but I think there's no way around just learning how to resolve disagreements respectfully.

[0] https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/td-bank-survey-find...

Re: Combining finances

#97
post #14
post #8

What if one spouse makes seven figures and the other is unemployed and takes care of the household? The income disparity then is too high for this, it seems to me, but maybe it's just me.

My spouse and I have a simple plan. I make the money, and my spouse spends it. :) When money was tighter, we would coordinate more closely and more frequently about expenses and timing. Now I just maintain a certain balance in checking and we coordinate over large payments to make sure they don't hit checking all at once. If you or your spouse is making seven figures, you shouldn't have actual money problems -- even…

Yeah, I guess you're right. I was thinking of a situation where one spouse has a high income and the other one is very spendy, but that's a pathological case, and not what's happening with me personally, so what you say makes sense, thank you.

Re: Combining finances

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mostly. I don't actually know how much she has in her personal account because I don't care If you divorce you will, since she will be taking half of yours if she didn't save anything.

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.

Re: Combining finances

#99

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.

> > > > 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 phone / other gadget)

> This is wrong since they specifically talked about saving their fun money.

Saving multiple months of fun money to blow on something frivolous should probably not be the same as a savings account. That's not what the article (nor myself, nor I suspect the GGGGP) was talking about. Savings are for long term planning, for long term investments, for large scale purchases. If you need to save >12 months of 'fun money' for a purchase, then this might not be the correct approach for you, as you're right, and that's effectively a savings account at that point.

Re: Combining finances

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife and I do this, and while we're both savers by nature, I'm more of a saver, so I end up piling up the fun money while she tends to spend hers (I think. Mostly. I don't actually know how much she has in her personal account because I don't care) There's no resentment because we already agreed that fun money isn't part of savings or long-term planning. And the fun money is a small enough part of our overall budg…

> Mostly. I don't actually know how much she has in her personal account because I don't care If you divorce you will, since she will be taking half of yours if she didn't save anything.

If you taint everything in your relationship with "if we divorce", that is not a good sign, nor is it a healthy thing for a marriage.
Post reply on HN