Earnings and relationship

[Got it]

The pretending comes if you buy it and people think he paid and you allow them to think he bought it with his own money.

 

Ask him if he will feel ok with knowing you bought yourself the ring and people think he bought it.

 

Yeah I am not quite understanding this either. Actually, in many bride magazines now the new trend are engagement rings for me and the increasing number of women who are proposing. And there are more instances now, as well, that the bride and groom pick out the ring together as well if a ring is given.

 

So I think it is more of a change of the times.

 

But why is it a problem if it is a joint cost? Traditionally the man paid for the ring and the bride/bride's family paid for the wedding. So the two off set each other. If the bride and groom are paying for the wedding together why is that so far off of both paying for the ring.

 

I have never had anyone ask me who bought my engagement ring.

[denise_xo]

My H had an issue with me making more money than him, but he got over it. I don't care who pays for what as long as we equally contribute toward the relationship (that doesn't have to be financial, but in terms of all the stuff that needs to get done in our daily lives - house work, grocery shopping, maintaining our social lives, managing bills, etc).

 

I also don't understand what the issue is with your engagement ring. Sounds normal to me. The whole 'the man has to get the engagement ring' set up is a bit outdated to me.

 

Personally, I like to keep separate accounts. We have a shared account for all bills, and then we each have a separate account - but we both have access to them.

[Els]

The savings account is for the wedding and the general savings we make until we buy a place. We'll not be pooling until either we're married or we've bought a property together, whichever is soonest, and there will be a pre-nup in place at that point.

 

I appreciate for some, 6 months is not long (and in other circumstances I would agree), but we're happy we know what we want, and we practically live together and have done since fairly early on so it's different to, say, a dating situation or an LDR, if you see what I mean.

 

Hey, it's your decision. The reason I am cautioning against it is that EVEN living together, you are still most likely in honeymoon phase at the 6-month mark. Most of the people that I have spoken to, mentioned that the toughest point of their relationships, the make or break it parts, happened 1-2 years into the relationship. Of course, there is the chance that you both really do know each other 100% at 6 months and nobody is on their best behaviour (or at least they intend to keep that best behaviour on for the rest of their lives ). But odds are worse at 6 months than, say, 2 years or more.

 

Regardless, I wish you all the best, and I agree that it's a good idea to at least wait til marriage before you pool your accounts. I also agree that it shouldn't really matter who pays for the engagement ring. It's just an effing ring.. it's the commitment that it signifies that matters.

[2sunny]

It just all depends on how he feels. Some men would have their ego hurt - it maybe best to ask him.

 

 

And cost of things doesn't determine who pays what percentage - the goal is toNOT create animosity between you two.

[MissBee]

It's a savings account for an engagement ring, and as of November we're going to live together and put the money saved in a joint account for house deposit.

 

We're getting a pre-nup also, although the final numbers won't be known until I sell my house.

 

Once we're living together I have no issue with having 100% joint finances. Despite being burned before I would prefer it that way.

 

Is there any special reason why? In terms of like what do you see are the benefits/pros of this?

[Silly_Girl]

It just all depends on how he feels. Some men would have their ego hurt - it maybe best to ask him.

 

As mentioned before, more than once , he's fine with it.

[MissBee]

Soyou are expected to pay for part of your ring?

 

And what happens if you find him spending a ton of money from the joint account? Have you set up guidelines which show respect and accountability on how much either person should/could spend without consulting the other person?

 

These are the kinds of things I feel antsy about, for myself that is, not SG lol. I feel like money can be such a prickly subject and it seems to me that it's so much easier to have separate monies. Part of it is probably what I observed growing up. Both my parents worked and how they did the bills was that the person making more, which happened to be my dad, would assume the cost of the most expensive bill, the mortgage, and my mom would pay the other ones...or they'd divide it in other ways as time went on and it needed adjustment. It seemed like a good system. They have access to each other's accounts with the advent of online banking, so if for some reasons monies need to be transferred and rearranged then they can do so easily, and while they argued about other stuff, money wasn't one.

 

The only purpose I see of a joint account is for saving or for pooling money for running our household, and this would be us putting predetermined amounts into it and the account being something used for those purposes and not just a debit card we swipe as we feel like it for random reasons. I think SG said though it's for engagement ring savings and house deposit, so it doesn't appear to just be a free for all account.

 

Any money to be spent on non-essentials, I'd rather it be separate. Me buying a pair of shoes or buying you a gift, IMO, should be from my own money and separate account. I would feel extremely uncomfortable if it was a case where my regular paycheck is direct deposited into a joint account and the joint account was what we both used for miscellaneous expenses.

Edited September 19, 2012 by MissBee

[2sunny]

Let's say - you place 1,000 in your savings fund each month and he places 100 of his money ---> are you ok with that?

[Silly_Girl]

Is there any special reason why? In terms of like what do you see are the benefits/pros of this?

 

I just don't care to keep my money separate. I'm very committed in a partnership, I'm all-in and I expect the same. I enjoy being part of a family and, to me, the question of separate finances is a barrier in the style of relationship I prefer. I think on holiday we only kept track of who'd spent what until about day 4, then it just got tiresome. It would annoy me to be putting in shares of our money to joint purchases, or to care at all whether one person is managing to spend less than the other.

 

And then there's the question of splitting it. If we pay half the bills I have a much larger disposable income. That doesn't seem fair. He does more cooking, and the food shopping, and gardening, and even running my son and his friends around because I'm unavailable, investing in my career. He works equally hard, it's a partnership. And when I've a big issue in the workplace he is my sounding board and I'm so grateful for his effort and support. So the salary I reap isn't really mine alone. My son, too... He deserves the rewards of my career too, if it weren't for him being so supportive, cooperative and practical over the years I could never have worked as I have, and it's important to me that we're a team.

 

My financial concerns are long-term, that we have the same goals, savings targets and retain the lifestyle we have. How that's funded (i.e. WHO funds it) isn't at all relevant to me. Does any of that make sense?

[Silly_Girl]

Let's say - you place 1,000 in your savings fund each month and he places 100 of his money ---> are you ok with that?

 

If that's what we each can reasonably spare, absolutely. No problem at all.

[2sunny]

Consider this - once you mingle any money or assets with his name after M - it's technically half his - in many states.

[KungFuJoe]

Consider this - once you mingle any money or assets with his name after M - it's technically half his - in many states.

 

Then don't get married if you're so concerned about that.

[Silly_Girl]

Consider this - once you mingle any money or assets with his name after M - it's technically half his - in many states.

 

We're having a pre-nup to take account of the cash/property values we hold at the start. that's my son's inheritance, I refuse to risk that. After that, upon divorce in the UK, the input of each is considered. The reason I lost out previously was because I had sense enough not to marry the dickhead but that severely disadvantaged me financially.

 

Anything we jointly amass during the relationship he's welcome to half of. I'm not going to put one foot in and be wondering how much money I might get to leave the relationship with. I honestly would find that repulsive. I genuinely can appreciate why many people would not choose to approach it in the same way as me, but that's fine. I don't regret taking that route previously and it's definitely what I want now, and fortunately my boyfriend is a million times the man my ex is.

[MissBee]

Yeah I am not quite understanding this either. Actually, in many bride magazines now the new trend are engagement rings for me and the increasing number of women who are proposing. And there are more instances now, as well, that the bride and groom pick out the ring together as well if a ring is given.

 

So I think it is more of a change of the times.

 

But why is it a problem if it is a joint cost? Traditionally the man paid for the ring and the bride/bride's family paid for the wedding. So the two off set each other. If the bride and groom are paying for the wedding together why is that so far off of both paying for the ring.

I have never had anyone ask me who bought my engagement ring.

 

If you live in America I think no one asks because the assumption is that your fiance bought it. I'm just saying that that's probably the simple reason why no one asks .

[Silly_Girl]

If you live in America I think no one asks because the assumption is that your fiance bought it. I'm just saying that that's probably the simple reason why no one asks .

 

Do they also assume the bride's parents paid for the wedding?

[carhill]

In the UK, money earned after M is generally considered to be a marital asset. Additionally, pre-marital money co-mingled with marital money could be considered to be a marital asset for purposes of property division. I could see one potential strategy if one party was bringing a large sum of pre-marital cash and that would be to address it in the pre-nuptial agreement, which apparently the OP is obtaining. The parties could agree in advance as to the allocation/disposition of pre-marital and marital funds existing in the accounts.

 

As an example, if one partner contributed 9000 and the other 1000 of pre-marital money, they could agree that each would receive that amount back, plus 50% of any excess at time of distribution. Should the account be smaller than the original contributions, they could agree to a percentage split, e.g. 90/10, reflective of the partner's contributions.

 

With a joint account, there's always a risk, but marriage is a risk in general.

 

If I were to run across a 90% woman, I'd have no problem negotiating a mutually beneficial pre-nup which protected us both, regardless of income disparity. At my age, I think more about preserving my life's work, meaning assets and investments, as years of productive earning are fewer and fewer. A person in different circumstances would necessarily have different priorities. As long as the partners can find a synergistic middle ground, nearly any combination can work, IMO.

[MissBee]

I just don't care to keep my money separate. I'm very committed in a partnership, I'm all-in and I expect the same. I enjoy being part of a family and, to me, the question of separate finances is a barrier in the style of relationship I prefer. I think on holiday we only kept track of who'd spent what until about day 4, then it just got tiresome. It would annoy me to be putting in shares of our money to joint purchases, or to care at all whether one person is managing to spend less than the other.

 

And then there's the question of splitting it. If we pay half the bills I have a much larger disposable income. That doesn't seem fair. He does more cooking, and the food shopping, and gardening, and even running my son and his friends around because I'm unavailable, investing in my career. He works equally hard, it's a partnership. And when I've a big issue in the workplace he is my sounding board and I'm so grateful for his effort and support. So the salary I reap isn't really mine alone. My son, too... He deserves the rewards of my career too, if it weren't for him being so supportive, cooperative and practical over the years I could never have worked as I have, and it's important to me that we're a team.

 

My financial concerns are long-term, that we have the same goals, savings targets and retain the lifestyle we have. How that's funded (i.e. WHO funds it) isn't at all relevant to me. Does any of that make sense?

 

I understand it in terms of the barrier to the lifestyle you prefer. Which is what matters essentially, that the arrangement works for you

 

I'm just trying to understand and be open about this and hear different perspective, because as I said initially, I know for me this may be an area of concern and I have strong opinions about it. My way may not be bad or good, but simply what works for me but I know everytime finances and relationships come up I'm less "romantic" and less willing to come together as one about it . I've noted this about myself and have decided to figure out if I'm just operating from a rational place like this doesn't seem like a constructive plan for me or if it's more of a fearful place.

 

For me for example, what you said about holidays and how it got tiresome keeping track of who spent what, in my mind I'm like I never care who spends what because I'm spending my own money and he his, so it makes no difference, whereas I imagine if it's a joint thing, then like with any joint thing, it becomes more of an issue of debate as now 2 people have to have a say. I remember my current roommate saying we should pool monies for common household goods, I felt quite annoyed about that, I told her I much preferred that we alternate purchasing items. So maybe that is just my "money style" with anyone, where I much prefer "independence". Then the idea of caring about who is spending less etc...same thing, for you the joining seems to relieve those annoyances, for me the joining would increase them, as if he's spending his money and me mine, then there is nothing to argue about in terms of who is spending more or less, as it's his to spend more or less of. I think I'm operating from a latent belief that joining finances can lead to more issues than not, so to avoid that area straining my relationship, let's not join.

 

But yea I don't think bills need to be split into half. I think in a relationship different resources are brought to the table and you divvy them up based on what's convenient. If he makes less a looot less and depending on your expenses, then yes it would be insane to expect half. As long as your financial styles are compatible and everyone is being honest about how they really feel, then that's what matters. I'm definitely fully invested when I'm in a relationship but I also know I'm someone who requires more space than perhaps some, so all issues of "joining", whether finances or living together, are things that I'm more cautious about and not being intertwined in that way doesn't bother me. I also realize I'm a bit commitment phobic LOL , so it's a process for me and I'm working on what things I see as "mere preferences" are simply innocent and just that versus it being a preference born out of a defense mechanism/fears.

Edited September 19, 2012 by MissBee

[Silly_Girl]

I understand it in terms of the barrier to the lifestyle you prefer. Which is what matters essentially, that the arrangement works for you

 

I'm just trying to understand and be open about this and hear different perspective, because as I said initially, I know for me this may be an area of concern and I have strong opinions about it. My way may not be bad or good, but simply what works for me but I know everytime finances and relationships come up I'm less "romantic" and less willing to come together as one about it . I've noted this about myself and have decided to figure out if I'm just operating from a rational place like this doesn't seem like a constructive plan for me or if it's more of a fearful place.

 

For me for example, what you said about holidays and how it got tiresome keeping track of who spent what, in my mind I'm like I never care who spends what because I'm spending my own money and he his, so it makes no difference, whereas I imagine if it's a joint thing, then like with any joint thing, it becomes more of an issue of debate as now 2 people have to have a say.

 

But we had meals out, taxi fares, things where naturally one person would just 'see to the bill'. And if one person sees to it a lot more than the other it could be an issue for one/both.

 

I remember my current roommate saying we should pool monies for common household goods, I felt quite annoyed about that, I told her I much preferred that we alternate purchasing items. So maybe that is just my "money style" with anyone, where I much prefer "independence". Then the idea of caring about who is spending less etc...same thing, for you the joining seems to relieve those annoyances, for me the joining would increase them, as if he's spending his money and me mine, then there is nothing to argue about in terms of who is spending more or less, as it's his to spend more or less of.

 

Exactly. Joining WOULD annoy you but splitting, for me, would set my teeth on edge

 

But yea I don't think bills need to be split into half. I think in a relationship different resources are brought to the table and you divvy them up based on what's convenient. If he makes less a looot less and depending on your expenses, then yes it would be insane to expect half. As long as your financial styles are compatible and everyone is being honest about how they really feel, then that's what matters. I'm definitely fully invested when I'm in a relationship but I also know I'm someone who requires more space than perhaps some, so all issues of "joining", whether finances or living together, are things that I'm more cautious about and not being intertwined in that way doesn't bother me. I also realize I'm a bit commitment phobic LOL , so it's a process for me and I'm working on what things I see as "mere preferences" are simply innocent and just that versus it being a preference born out of a defense mechanism/fears.

 

That last bit made me laugh. When someone's preference is so much at odds to your own it's hard not to notice and focus on it and naturally see much more than there is. Of course, I'd never do such a thing :laugh:

[MissBee]

Do they also assume the bride's parents paid for the wedding?

 

Some people probably assume that. I think for some people that's what happens, so it wouldn't be a crazy assumption.

 

It's not about what ought to or ought not to be done mind you, I'm just saying that every culture has its norms and people assume things and consider some things a given based on that, hence they wouldn't ask you otherwise because they're operating from that assumption. I think it's a pretty standard cultural norm in America that men purchase engagement rings and men don't wear them, so it doesn't really cross most people's minds to ask about who bought it.

 

I can say that for me, that's my assumption, if told otherwise I would be surprised but I don't see an engagement ring and assume the woman bought it for herself or even think to ask who bought it.

[cocorico]

Any man I've been involved with says he doesn't mind if the woman earns more. My boyfriend earns a decent wage in the civil service, but I now earn approx.3 times his salary. I don't want a sole account, we're opening a joint account at the weekend, I have no problem putting 100% of my wage in to the pot. But, regardless, do other people (man or woman), in this day and age, have a genuine issue if their partner's earning significantly outweighs their own?

 

If the answer is a Yes, I'd love to understand the reasons why. TIA.

 

Currently, my partner significantly out earns me. I have no problem with that and neither does he. He knows my earning potential, as I was in a very senior job when we met but when we movd in together we both had to compromise - I had to give up my job and he had to accept that I would not be pulling in that kind of money anymore. We would live very comfortably even without my current income, though we run two households in two different places. In theory I pay for mine and he pays for his but in practice those lines get very blurred and we regard both as "our" homes.

[cocorico]

In the UK, money earned after M is generally considered to be a marital asset. Additionally, pre-marital money co-mingled with marital money could be considered to be a marital asset for purposes of property division. I could see one potential strategy if one party was bringing a large sum of pre-marital cash and that would be to address it in the pre-nuptial agreement, which apparently the OP is obtaining. The parties could agree in advance as to the allocation/disposition of pre-marital and marital funds existing in the accounts.

 

As an example, if one partner contributed 9000 and the other 1000 of pre-marital money, they could agree that each would receive that amount back, plus 50% of any excess at time of distribution. Should the account be smaller than the original contributions, they could agree to a percentage split, e.g. 90/10, reflective of the partner's contributions.

 

 

Prenups don't hold a lot of weight in the UK but that is slowly changing.

 

As for the "marital assets" thing - it's not always the case. My partner and his xW had separate finances during the M and that was respected in the financial settlement on D - although she did try to claim half of his inheritance from his father who died during the D. Luckily her own lawyer put her straight on that.

[pinton]

no way opening a joint account with just a "boyfriend" especially if you earn 3 times his salary, my god woman, what are you thinking ????

[Silly_Girl]

no way opening a joint account with just a "boyfriend" especially if you earn 3 times his salary, my god woman, what are you thinking ????

 

I cannot tell you how at peace I am with that choice. I have given it a tremendous amount of thought and I am very happy.

 

He is just 'boyfriend' yes, but that will change when we have the account open and the money is in there for a ring.

 

We finalise the pre-marital agreement Monday and have a meeting about our wills directly after. I feel no need to keep my money separate and never have. We will jointly achieve everything we both want financially, and more. If I had an issue with the finances I would never co-habit and I certainly wouldn't get married or have children, then I could sit at home and count my pennies as much as I liked