| User | Comment |
|---|
they    |
I think a mixture would be best.
With my last SO, we combined everything. With my current SO, it's separate... but we have combined interests.... like the car. I think things will mix more as we are together longer and longer.
My parents always shared everything, with both their names on things. |
Iseult  |
Most of the finances is kept in common (most of his that is). |
Melf  | | posted 1-Aug-2008 10:21am |
I don't know. |
bill   | | posted 1-Aug-2008 10:25am |
Objectively, all separate seems like the best thing. Though, personally, my wife and I have our money in common. Except some stuff like IRA/401k has to be separate. So, it's actually a mix.
From the point of view of a relationship, it's seems better to share the money as that implies trust, support, and commitment. I think that's why we do it that way. Though, combining can also lead to disaster for some couples. I suppose these issues may be interrelated. |
Matty  | | posted 1-Aug-2008 11:16am |
The only way this works for us is that both checks are deposited into one account, and we exist as one financial entity. Any other system seems tedious and having the potential to cause minor money squabbles. |
| Enheduanna | | posted 1-Aug-2008 12:21pm |
I think it depends on the people involved, where their money comes from, how they want to spend it, how they view their partnership. There is no one best system for everyone. The only thing that should be important for everyone, I would say, is to have a system that keeps them out of unmanageable debt. |
| Galomorro |
Kept separate. |
| LindaH |
A mixture. There's "family" finances, which are together, and it takes mutual decision making to make major purchases. And then there's individual accounts, that you plop your very own money into for whatever you want to buy. As long as there is money in yours, you can make whatever purchases you want from it with no input from anyone else. Woot! It's nice to have individual freedom to make my own major decisions. I wouldn't be in a relationship where I wasn't able to do that. |
| LJD |
I've been married 47 years, and never have we had separate accounts. What does it tell of the times, when married people can't trust each other? A married couple are supposed to be in their union together, through thick and thin. I'm not in love with my husband, but I'd never financially cheat him. My husband trusts me implicitly in the money department. To me it is a sign of selfishness, a me attitude, when healthy married people can't share. Too many variables, however. There are exceptions. |
gambler  |
A mixture of separate and combined finances. ............ But as it stands, we have a joint account that both our salaries go into............ The only thing my wife doesnt have access too is my Poker account |
| romkey |
I think that in a relationship it's important for both partners to have some space and privacy of their own... shared finances set up so that you both also have private finances seems like a good situation. It would certainly depend on the individuals, though. |
| ausfox |
My husband and I keep a mixture of separate and combined finances and I think it works very well. |
| JessicaWoman99 |
Finances kept separate |
| jettles |
i don't think there is any one best method. i think it all depends on that "marriage" or that relationships situation. we have a mixture of combined and separate but then we don't fall under the marital laws of the land if one of us dies so we are covered with other legal papers and wills etc...... all of which will go into probate if one of us dies. and if we separate, we will have to figure out where the line is drawn because we won't have a "legal" divorce so we will figure that all out as well.
it all should be what works best for the couple! |
| moviesnob |
I'm going to say a mixture of separate and combined finances. I've never been married, so I can't speak from experience. I'd say one checking account for combined, one savings account for combined, and each has their own checking or savings acct for their own stuff. |
| jindalmeenakshi9 |
i do'nt interfere with my spouse's Misc. spending nor do expect him to intrude into mine but the pool of Finance is one ( for BIG things in life ) !! |
| Gomezy3k | | posted 3-Aug-2008 11:56am |
She has her bank account, I have mine and we have a joint account that pays utilities and buys food and other things that both of us share... |
| Jody |
Depends completely on the couple. Each couple needs to decide for themselves. |
| docgbrown | | posted 13-Sep-2008 6:27pm |
In the past we all put most of our money in a combined pot and gave ourselves fixed 'allowances' for spending money. Above those allowances we would make joint decisions |
| LindaH | | (reply to LJD) posted 13-Sep-2008 11:13pm |
It's not always a trust thing. In our relationship, it's about independence. I firmly believe that we are individuals before anything else, even in a partnership. Independent people, capable of making our own decisions. Having individual accounts actually shows more trust than having a shared one, if you think about it. |
| LJD | | (reply to LindaH) posted 14-Sep-2008 9:02am |
A married couple are a unit. It is shared. My husband always gave me the paycheck, even his side jobs, he gave me the check. He was never selfish with money. He trusted me completely, as I was and am frugal. Likewise, when I worked outside the home, I always put my paycheck in the same pot, so to speak. I could never think any other way.
I believe the Women's Liberation movement did a number on women, on the family. It posed a problem on women, made things worse for women. Men and women are to complement one another, not a source of constant competition and struggle. |
| LindaH | | (reply to LJD) posted 14-Sep-2008 11:52am |
There's no competition, though. There doesn't have to be struggle. I just don't see anyone as "one" or a unit. I guess in some ways, some people have to temporarily think that way (work place, sports teams, etc) but when it's over, you are back to being one person, a self. I don't think relationships should be any different. You work as a team when you need to, but you are still a self. Having your own bank account and your own job is very healthy for individual identity. I'd hate to have to ask permission every time I wanted to buy something. I didn't have to as a teenager, why would I want to as an adult? |
| LJD | | (reply to LindaH) posted 14-Sep-2008 5:58pm |
This is called ego, self serving, selfish. Why have an individual identity when you're a couple? Whatever happened to loving interdependence? What happened to the family? It more or less went down the drain when Women's Lib stepped forward, created by some selfish men and women. Women have been duped. |
| LindaH | | (reply to LJD) posted 14-Sep-2008 6:19pm |
You have an individual identity because you are an individual, with your own wants, tastes, styles, hobbies, etc. Being a part of a couple shouldn't cause you to give things up that you like. Interdependence isn't for everyone. There's nothing wrong with 'self' serving as long as it doesn't trample anyone else. I don't owe my husband a reason when I want to buy something for myself. He owes me no reasons for what he wants to do either. If I want to hop in the car and drive to Wasilla, that's what I do. As long as he doesn't need the car, he's okay with that. I consider our relationship very loving, very healthy. Minor annoyances now and then, but nothing damaging. We are a nuclear, intact family. I'd never thrive in a relationship where I had to ask permission.
I don't see what women's lib or the breakdown of the family has to do with anything. |
| LJD | | (reply to LindaH) posted 14-Sep-2008 7:09pm |
Being a couple, doesn't mean you have to do everything together like glue. If each respects the other, there will be compromise. And as a family, what is the best for the family. The big key is marrying someone that has your best interests at hand, one that is not selfish. Someone that you have something in common, share some common interests. |
| LindaH | | (reply to LJD) posted 14-Sep-2008 7:16pm |
Yep, and if your interests are compatible with whats best for the family, they aren't selfish. You can still have your individual identity and interests without being selfish. |
| LJD | | (reply to LindaH) posted 14-Sep-2008 10:10pm |
I believe sometimes you may have to sacrifice for others with what's better for the family. Of course, you can have your interests, without being selfish, but may have to sacrifice, compromise. |
| LindaH | | (reply to LJD) posted 14-Sep-2008 10:12pm |
Sometimes, yes. But not as often as some people may think. You can sacrifice and compromise in all sorts of settings. Work, family... but that doesn't mean giving up your individuality. |
| LJD | | (reply to LindaH) posted 15-Sep-2008 12:32am |
What is your definition of individuality? Of course, we're all individual, we're separate people. |
| LindaH | | (reply to LJD) posted 15-Sep-2008 1:04am |
You get to keep your own preferences, personal rights, sense of sovereignty. You consider your desires as legitimate and important, and are aware that you don't have to defer to the partnership if you don't feel it is necessary or fair. You keep your own heart/mind/soul without surrendering yourself completely to anyone else. Co-operation is one thing, but you should still be aware of sacrifices and compromises that you shouldn't have to make. |
| LJD | | (reply to LindaH) posted 15-Sep-2008 11:42am |
It all goes back to choosing the right partner, one that believes in compromise, one that isn't selfish.
When there are the responsibility of children, sometimes I feel one has to "bend" their "individuality". I'm talking of what I think is right, not what is always reality. |
| LindaH | | (reply to LJD) posted 15-Sep-2008 11:46am |
It probably also depends on what their individuality entails. If it means going out after work and club-hopping, or spending a bunch of money on yourself, then yes, a person should curtail that, to be a responsible parent.
If someone is a home-body, not a party type or big spender, there isn't much about their self that they need to suppress when they become a parent. |
| LJD | | (reply to LindaH) posted 15-Sep-2008 12:06pm |
I believe each home has their own circumstances, everyone is individual.
But, men and women are inately different, and thank God for that. It is Biblical that women will take care of things with the kitchen, of course, it's okay for men to cook, in fact, many are better cooks than women.
Men have their responsibilities too, big ones, they are the headship, the primary breadwinners.
I'm not saying everyone is to measure each others duties, it's just there were certain roles that men and women have, and each can supplement each other as a working team.
You have Women's Liberation to fhank for all the confusion...they were duped. But, you always have some men that have dirtied the waters so to speak, by not following their duties, being respectful of their wives. |
| LindaH | | (reply to LJD) posted 15-Sep-2008 1:15pm |
Even without women's lib, you don't think by now, that women would decide themselves that they want to be more powerful and have more independence? You can't blame a huge movement. It stemmed from an innate desire that would still exist despite any sort of movement. Desire doesn't follow large outside influences. The movements stem from the desires. |
| LJD | | (reply to LindaH) posted 15-Sep-2008 2:02pm |
Linda, there are very well organized movements, with the intent on making a change. But, all change is not good. These political changes don't happen by mistake. Remember, in politics, nothing happens by accident. This one was to break down the family, and so it has...a bad thing.
In life, my thought is God first, then family, and friends. I'm not a real material type person. I do enjoy beautiful works, craftsmanship, but will not sacrifice my family to get them. I feel there has to be order. The world, the timing of the night and day, the seasons, all like clockwork. There has to be some kind of order, because without it, there is confusion...and confusion is the work of Satan.
Obviously, I don't think women are to be trampled upon, but I think women have to be smart on how they handle themselves and situations...for the best of the family unit. Men are to love their wives, as Christ loved the church, women are to love and respect their husbands. Marriage can be quite simple, if both parties would put their partners feelings before their own. |
| LindaH | | (reply to LJD) posted 16-Sep-2008 8:15pm |
Sure, there has to be a reasonable amount of order. It should be balanced by a healthy degree of disorder. |
| LJD | | (reply to LindaH) posted 17-Sep-2008 3:23am |
I'm for order, with a little spontaneity. |
rocky221  | | posted 13-Nov-2008 4:57pm |
1 common pot for bills, emergency fund, vacations and college for kids and each have seperate pots for individual investments and buying the stuff we like. |
