50/50 Finances

jellie

Meathlass wrote: »

I've just read Sar84 and disagree with the comment that all salaries should be considered joint. What do married people or those living together think? Surely the easiest way is to have a joint account where you put in half the mortage, half the esb, sky etc every month and then what's left over is yours to spend on what you wish, be it paying off loans, clothes, nights out or gadgets!

I didnt mean from day 1, i meant more at a stage of being married with a mortgage & kids. id feel weird keeping money for myself like its MY money only for ME. & i didnt say all salaries SHOULD be considered joint, just that its the way i would see my life going as i have no problem sharing my money with my bf & hes the same with me.

Generally we split costs unless one of is particularly low on money, then the other will pay a bit more.

Black Swan

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

So here's my question - given that you're likely to earn less than your man while you are working, you're less likely to advance as far as he will throughout the path of your career, your lifetime wages will be far less than your male counterpart's and if you choose to be a mother your earnings will disappear down the swanny for at least six months if not longer, why do women generally feel such a compulsion, a responsibilty, even a duty to represent themselves financially on a 50/50 footing with their man?

Fair enough, I think I see the point you are attempting to make, but let's put the shoe on the other foot?

Before going back to being a starving uni student on scholarship, in the last serious relationship that I had, I made many times more income than my male counterpart (and that was when he was employed and not unemployed). Although this lad seemed to handle it OK (well, most of the time), why do so many males feel cowed by a female that brings more bread home than he does? In other words, are these feelings by females attempting to measure up, achieve equality, contribute their share (or whatever), just female feelings about the very real structural inequality in our employment systems, or are there male feelings that contribute to the way females feel? For example, why are women perceived as the primary childcare giver and required to stay at home for years, when the male could equally take (or share) that role after nursing has been satisfied? (Mr Mom?)

You made some very good factual arguments for women to buy into their Durkheimian division of labor scheme, to where their lesser lifetime earnings potential should justify contributing less than 50/50. But that does not preclude the unfair (material world) social perception in our capitalistic societies that women are worth less, because they bring in less income than their male counterparts? "HE who makes the gold rules?" These factual arguments also ignore structural change, which is occurring as we speak, to where women are entering the monied professions in increasing numbers and may someday come closer to earning equality with their male counterparts, or even surpass them as I did for one moment in time?

Structural change, although gradual, is occurring in the USA. According to an issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education (some months ago), there are now more women in the USA enrolled in universities than males. Further, they also reported that women have passed men as declared business majors and are now the majority of students in college and university business schools. There still is a long ways to go, but "times are changing!"

Reku

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

For example, why are women perceived as the primary childcare giver and required to stay at home for years, when the male could equally take (or share) that role after nursing has been satisfied? (Mr Mom?)

In general, women tend to be far better at relating to people then men are, men tend to relate better to things (hence why such a big contrast in the numbers of male and female students in Engineering and, in the opposite way, in Nursing). There's also the generally held belief that women want babies more than men do, that men don't get broody whereas once the biological clock starts ticking women do. As such to try take motherhood away from the woman like this would be a unforgiveable sin in the eyes of some women I've known (they've said as much WRT if the man tried to stay home). As such both genders need to move with the times on this issue, it's good that some employers are now allowing fathers to negotiate extra days off on a regular basis, so that they can have more quality days with their kids.

Sleepy

LouOB wrote: »

This is where the inequality comes into play. Why should I have to pay more just to have more quality ie new towels and soft sheets? While he gets them for free!

What's unequal about it?

You're spending your discretionary income on these items. If he wanted them, I'm sure he'd fork out for them too.

ali.c

Sleepy wrote: »

What's unequal about it?

You're spending your discretionary income on these items. If he wanted them, I'm sure he'd fork out for them too.

Ah now its bloody towels and bed clothes her OH is clearly getting the benifit out of her buying. If it was shoes or something you'd have a point but normally household expenses are a joint expense.

Macha

farohar wrote: »

In general, women tend to be far better at relating to people then men are, men tend to relate better to things (hence why such a big contrast in the numbers of male and female students in Engineering and, in the opposite way, in Nursing). There's also the generally held belief that women want babies more than men do, that men don't get broody whereas once the biological clock starts ticking women do. As such to try take motherhood away from the woman like this would be a unforgiveable sin in the eyes of some women I've known (they've said as much WRT if the man tried to stay home). As such both genders need to move with the times on this issue, it's good that some employers are now allowing fathers to negotiate extra days off on a regular basis, so that they can have more quality days with their kids.

Sorry I have to take you up on the gender stereotyping in this. Why, why, why can't we drop the whole 'women are generally better at X, men are generally better at Y' thing?

Why do we have to continually analyse the similarities/differences between men and women? I really, really find this dividing of society down the middle and attributing certain characteristics generally to both halves extremely pointless and unhelpful.

As an individual and I may be crap at parking but I have a very analytical and numeric mind and am physically very strong but I love cooking. My point? Generalisations over entire swathes of people are useless because when you come down to the level of the individual, no one fits neatly into one side or another. I just want to be treated as an individual not as a 'woman'.

(Also, I find it sad that boards needs a special forum devoted to women because some female posters don't feel comfortable in other forums. )

Sorry - totally off topic.

OP - 50/50 all the way. And if I give up work to look after the kids, 50% of my partner's money is mine (and vice versa )

Dragan

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry I have to take you up on the gender stereotyping in this. Why, why, why can't we drop the whole 'women are generally better at X, men are generally better at Y' thing?

Sadly generalisations will always be the way that a lot of people will operate. And worse still is the more people you get in a group, the more the generalisations will flow.

At the end of the day........for a massive, massive tract of human history the simple fact is that women WERE the primary child carer. Now before anyone starts jumping on me and saying "we were forced into it, men controlled everything" you are, by and large, spot on.

But it is pointless in pointing the finger and saying "men did this and that", men did what they male part of the majority of species on the planet did. Dominated through the attritutes that.....for a few million years.....helped us all to survive.

In general.......bigger, faster, stronger, more cruel and more cunning.....by and large. And in the grand scale of things it is really not that long since i would have been able to tell you to cook my dinner or that you couldn't vote!

Believe me, it is a fantastic thing that we are finally starting to move towards equality and such but jesus we have a fine history of doing the wrong thing ( for now, but was it the wrong thing at the time? ) for a long while and it's going to take some time to get over that.

There really is no use in being suprised when people still consider the mother to be the primary care giver and child carer......it's the way it's always been and nothing is ever harder to change than that.

Reku

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry I have to take you up on the gender stereotyping in this. Why, why, why can't we drop the whole 'women are generally better at X, men are generally better at Y' thing?

Why do we have to continually analyse the similarities/differences between men and women? I really, really find this dividing of society down the middle and attributing certain characteristics generally to both halves extremely pointless and unhelpful.

As an individual and I may be crap at parking but I have a very analytical and numeric mind and am physically very strong but I love cooking. My point? Generalisations over entire swathes of people are useless because when you come down to the level of the individual, no one fits neatly into one side or another. I just want to be treated as an individual not as a 'woman'.

(Also, I find it sad that boards needs a special forum devoted to women because some female posters don't feel comfortable in other forums. )

Hence why I said "in general", generalisations are a fundamental part of how the human brain operates, we need to put things into catagories and so learning patterns of these things tend to fall under this catagory is a basic operation of the brain as it simplifies future encounters with similar objects. If we didn't do this we'd need to learn how to pick up a pen and write a letter completely from scratch for each letter, the generalisation of "right, I'll need to be holding my pen to write a letter" would not exist. Worse still what about the generalisation of that the same process for writing applies regardless of location?
Objecting to people not understanding that they are generalisations is smart, objecting to the fact that generalisations is just stupid.

As I've said in another thread, the desire that we all be viewed as identical cannot work, the idea that we are all equally deserving of repect and the same rights while accepting and embracing the differences can. Or would you rather that males treat females exactly like they do males and walk up, deliver a punch to the upper arm and ask "How's it hanging?", then respond with absolute horror and disgust if the female makes any attempt at a PDA beyond a drunken hug or post team-score hug? We'll be a rather short lived species if that's what you want.:rolleyes:

Dragan wrote: »

But it is pointless in pointing the finger and saying "men did this and that", men did what they male part of the majority of species on the planet did. Dominated through the attritutes that.....for a few million years.....helped us all to survive.

Problem with the logic of "it was all the male's doing" is that women's bodies are rather more adapted to childcare than men, or did people think the breasts were just there for aesthetic effect?
That aspect is now moot since few kids are breastfed for even a week these days, instead baby formula is abundant and as such men can equally take care of a baby as women can, it's just about having the right mental state and not some BS macho-stand-offishness with regards the child just because he is a man.

watna

ali.c wrote: »

Ah now its bloody towels and bed clothes her OH is clearly getting the benifit out of her buying. If it was shoes or something you'd have a point but normally household expenses are a joint expense.

I don't know about this one. I've recently got in to household/kitchen things (a sign of my maturity!). My bf wouldn't be nearly as interested although if we need something for the house he will comment on it/agree and we'll buy it together. If it's just me wanting nicer towels when we already have towels that function perfectly well I'm happy to pay for it. It's a want, not a need and our household budget is too tight to buy that kind of things with it. It's for groceries.

ali.c

watna wrote: »

If it's just me wanting nicer towels when we already have towels that function perfectly well I'm happy to pay for it. It's a want, not a need and our household budget is too tight to buy that kind of things with it. It's for groceries.

True but LouOB also said that she spent more on food and stuff too, i figured that sheets and towels and the like are once off purchases rather than a weekly thing. Presumably that wasnt what she meant though i am assuming. I am sure you know yourself that the weeks you buy detergents and cleaners and maybe restock the freezer are more expensive than the weeks you dont. That to me was what i took from the post and i was purely responding to sleepy on his point.

Macha

Dragan wrote: »

Sadly generalisations will always be the way that a lot of people will operate. And worse still is the more people you get in a group, the more the generalisations will flow.

At the end of the day........for a massive, massive tract of human history the simple fact is that women WERE the primary child carer. Now before anyone starts jumping on me and saying "we were forced into it, men controlled everything" you are, by and large, spot on.

But it is pointless in pointing the finger and saying "men did this and that", men did what they male part of the majority of species on the planet did. Dominated through the attritutes that.....for a few million years.....helped us all to survive.

In general.......bigger, faster, stronger, more cruel and more cunning.....by and large. And in the grand scale of things it is really not that long since i would have been able to tell you to cook my dinner or that you couldn't vote!

Believe me, it is a fantastic thing that we are finally starting to move towards equality and such but jesus we have a fine history of doing the wrong thing ( for now, but was it the wrong thing at the time? ) for a long while and it's going to take some time to get over that.

There really is no use in being suprised when people still consider the mother to be the primary care giver and child carer......it's the way it's always been and nothing is ever harder to change than that.

*sigh* you're right. It just reminds me too much of the social stratification of the 1800s (blacks tend to be stupider and stronger, yellows are more sneaky, cunning). You might as well take a stab at assigning attributes according to eye colour. I really think generalisations of any kind are pointless in this fragmented, post-modern world (yuk - never thought I'd use that word).

Sleepy

My point was watna's. In general, women are more fussy about the tea-towels, cushions, napkins etc than their partners. If it's detergents and the like surely that's just part of the grocery shopping?

ali.c

Sleepy wrote: »

My point was watna's. In general, women are more fussy about the tea-towels, cushions, napkins etc than their partners. If it's detergents and the like surely that's just part of the grocery shopping?

True but she did comment that when her partner went food shopping he only both food that he liked (which i took to mean pretty much that he wasnt doing a proper shope) esp since its an ongoing issue i mean she i hardly buying sheets every week??

LouOB

True - woment are fussier. But... why should the person who wants more quality end up spending more, then the OH benefits. You cannot ask OH or BF for say 7.50 because you bought a towel worth 15, whether it needed or not. It just starts sounding petty. My point is that all the 7.50 or 15 add up over the month, be it in groceries or additional household items.
The 'inequality' is the fact OH benefits from extra luxuries I would purchase - be it even cake that he would not buy or the egyptian cotton towel. Its the little things that add up without you knowing it.
You cannot honestly budget for the fact that you like a certain duvet cover, reduced in sale etc etc

Meathlass

Just becuase it's on sale doesn't mean it's a bargain If my OH was buying stuff for the house, gadgets, etc I would go mad if we were on a budget and couldn't really afford them whether they were on sale or not. No one needs to buy new towels, duvets every month. Sounds like you need a budget for discretionary household items. I love buying candles but pay for them myself, wouldn't expect himself to contribute as doubt he even notices them. Of course all household products like degergent, polish etc should be counted as normal grocery shopping and split equally. Similarily if you liked to buy lots of cosmetics in weekly shop I wouldn't expect him to pay for them or you to pay for his razors. I suppose that all evens out though.

watna

Yeah, I agree with meathlass. If he was buying loads of gadgets and things with the household budget I wouldn't be impressed, unless we actually needed it because something had broken etc. The same goes for linens and the things he doesn't notice. If we had not towels to dry ourselves or they were all falling apart then it comes out of the joint account, if I see a nice towel set in Arnotts that I think would look nice in the bathroom then I pay for it.

With cosmetics/cleaning products etc. If we buy them in the supermarket, it comes out of the joint account, regardless. Small things like that aren't important in the long run really. It all evens out. Although he's always giving out about me buying cleaning stuff. He doesn't see the point of half of it and keeps reminding me that we have a cupboard full of cleaning stuff at home.. I don't listen!

justsomebloke

I have to say my gf would earn more then me and chances are that she will always will, yet we will pay for everything 50/50. How we do it though is that we put equal money into a joint account each month and we use that to pay all the bills or if we are going out for dinner together or shopping.
However as we still have our own separate accounts to this we can use that for our own personnel expenditure.
I think if you are doing the 50/50 option the only way to avoid situations like Lou's is to use a joint account other then that it will can easily lead to resentment if both pay equally if using separate fuinds

watna

jsb wrote: »

I have to say my gf would earn more then me and chances are that she will always will, yet we will pay for everything 50/50. How we do it though is that we put equal money into a joint account each month and we use that to pay all the bills or if we are going out for dinner together or shopping.
However as we still have our own separate accounts to this we can use that for our own personnel expenditure.
I think if you are doing the 50/50 option the only way to avoid situations like Lou's is to use a joint account other then that it will can easily lead to resentment if both pay equally if using separate fuinds

+1. I meant to say this to you in my post above but got distracted. Get a joint account and pay an equal amount in each month. Any groceries/cleaning stuff etc then comes out of it. Tis very handy!

LouOB

ahh cosmetics are diff as OH is bald. Not going into Arnotts every mth like but issue is all additional extras -NEEDED (thread bare towels, t-towels) add up.
Also the fact that the BIG shops for cleaning stuff, bulk food shopping etc is all done by me. He would just buy for himself with the odd pint of milk. But the fridge and cabinets are always full because I buy - if not he would just live on dried soup - no messing here. Where my weekly spend on food is 50 his would be 20 as he only gets what he wants, but use all mine. Like for instance would buy chicken breasts and freeze for week - say 5 pack. But when I went to get a chicken only one left - Mad. Food is most expensive stuff in house.

watna

LouOB wrote: »

ahh cosmetics are diff as OH is bald. Not going into Arnotts every mth like but issue is all additional extras -NEEDED (thread bare towels, t-towels) add up.
Also the fact that the BIG shops for cleaning stuff, bulk food shopping etc is all done by me. He would just buy for himself with the odd pint of milk. But the fridge and cabinets are always full because I buy - if not he would just live on dried soup - no messing here. Where my weekly spend on food is 50 his would be 20 as he only gets what he wants, but use all mine. Like for instance would buy chicken breasts and freeze for week - say 5 pack. But when I went to get a chicken only one left - Mad. Food is most expensive stuff in house.

Hmm, I wouldn't be happy with that at all. If me and my OH do a shop with our own money (e.g. at the end of the month when the joint account is occasionally empty) we get half the money from the other person. Maybe you should do this. If you spend €50 on household food ask him for half. Or again, get a joint account or even a kitty and both of you buy food from there. I don't think it's fair you pay more for food you both eat.

Meathlass

Sounds like he's having a great life. It must be like living at home with constantly stocked cupboards. next time you're going shopping, bring him with you and show him the bill at the end, he'll soon realise how expensive it is to buy fresh meat every week. Otherwise you may have to start labelling your food I lived with someone (not a boyfriend but not quite a 'friend' only either) for a while and as he was unemployed for a few months I bought everything (I was on a very limited wage, was paying rent for the whole apt. too) but he saw nothing wrong with throwing expensive ice cream, wine and treats into the trolley. Before I copped on I spent several weeks completely broke and stressed out.

LouOB

It must of drove you mad - meathlass. Its just annoying to open wallet - nothing. But oh - open presses and then see all your money.

Meathlass

Have you tried talking to him about this? He probably doesn't even realise there is a problem. Let him know he can't just take your food unless he contributes to the kitty. Otherwise it's time to get the black marker and labels.

LouOB

We have seperate drawerS in freezer but doesnt work. I just emailed him re 'kitty' for month. Might give this a try for food - will see. It only gets my goat at end of mth when all out of funds

Meathlass

Definately try it, you can't be feeding him out of your wages, it's not on. I know if I need extra money any week the easiest way to get it is to cut down on my food budget and live on toast and beans and fruit for the week.

echosound

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Maybe me and my other half are different to other couples, but we have always pooled our money and then worked from there. We have joint accounts and have never even really thought about it. I can't imagine being in a situation where I have to pay half of the phone bill and he pays the other. We pay the phone bill with money from our joint account, which we both contribute to. At times I've earned more, right now he does. Surely sharing life means sharing finances. Anything else doesn't make sense to me.

Agreed. From day one, since we pretty much knew from day one this was the relationship that was the "one" for both of us, we pooled all money earned, and paid everything from our joint account.

There's been times when I've been the sole earner, and times where he has been, and of course times where one of us has earned more than the other, but it's never been a case of "this is mine, that's yours, make do with what you have". Everything has been pooled as it's "our" money, it runs our household, and everything we have is for both of us as a family. Currently DH has gone back to college, so he's not in a position to earn a fulltime wage, so I'm the main earner but it doesn't even enter the equation to think of money in terms of mine or his. It's ours.

There's never been a row over spending habits either - if I need something, I go and buy it, same with DH, it's only if it's a larger purchase we'll run it by each other first to make sure we're both ok with spending a large sum on something. We both can check how much is in our joint account whenever we like, and we both have a fairly good handle on how we're fairing, and adjust spend accordingly (if there's a big bill due we pull back a bit on unneccessary frivolous spending).

I just don't get the effort that goes into splitting everything up and keeping tabs on contributions, but I can see how, for eg, if one person owns their own house and the other moves in with them, it could mean "rules" need to be drawn up as to who pays what regarding the house, and who is on the deeds etc if it's a new relationship and you're not sure of where it may lead. However if you've committed for life, I see that as committing everything you have to the relationship, in every respect.

Crumble Froo

any word from minesajackdaniels on this one?

nmk

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

As of July 2007, women across the EU were generally accepted to earn 15% less than their male counterparts. While the instance of men and women in similar positions in the same company getting paid different salaries may have lessened, the concept of gender inequality remains. Jobs that are dominated by women, but could be said to have similar skillset challenges to jobs dominated by men, are lower-paid positions - nurses get paid less than police, supermarket cashiers are paid less than assembly line workers etc.

Guards don't have to go to college for four years and get a degree to enter the force like nurses do to join the profession. *Gets down off soapbox*

To answer majd question of why do we tend to go 50/50 I would say it's especially important in casual relationships as, like other posters have mentioned, we have to be secure in a lifestyle which is within our means. If I was going out with someone earning way more or less than me, I'd have tried to meet in the middle with expenditures on dates/holidays etc, if one party wanted to subsidise the other to have a great holiday/night out, fine, but I wouldn't have been comfortable with that on a regular basis. If you are committing to someone long-term then it makes sense to pool finances and go for leases/mortgages for a nicer place. Just because one partner earns more doesn't give them total autonomy over how money gets spent (but darling, those shoes/quad bike is an investment:rolleyes:).

LouOB, I'd keep receipts of everything for a month and ask your hubby to do the same, you don't realise how much it costs to keep a house running until you see it in black and white. If he doesn't see a need to contribute more then give him the same amount that he spends and let him take over keeping the house stocked up We'd have a similar enough arrangements about money to echosounds but it can take a while to settle into a routine about money and manage it well with partners.

thedizzler

I can definitely see both sides of this. On one hand, I'm an independent and very into being self-sufficient. On the other, my bf recently moved away for his job. It's for less than a year, but still, I'm thinking about going to spend the summer with him. In this case I would move into his house(that he's already paying rent on.) I'd like to say I'd chip in too, but realisitically, I'd be teaching English as a foreign language on a part-time basis for very little money, whereas he has a well-paid full-time job. I could afford to buy some food and that, but honestly, I just couldn't stretch to half the rent without starving. When there's a big divide like this I can see the flaw in the 50/50 plan.

helimachoptor

My wages go into my account then i transfer most of them into our joint account to pay bills. I keep some of it to myself.
When my gf gets paid we save some of that and then split the rest 50/50.