She Make$ More

Like Tree71Likes

If you and your SO are sharing a household, then you equally share the benefits of all work performed by either of you, whether the labor was paid or unpaid.
Nej and nynaeve77 like this.
IDK. I disagree with the notion that it should be "our" money. I worked hard for my money and if the bills are paid I should be able to buy myself a pair of shoes without hearing complaints.
I guess I don't see why you think the two are mutually exclusive.
I'm never going to be the one making the larger sum of money (and oh yeah, I work very hard), but if I were, and I were married, I would absolutely want the money to belong to both of us. So long as it weren't spent irresponsibly (as in, something extravagant that we couldn't afford), it wouldn't bother me that my lower wage-earning husband bought himself something nice. I wouldn't be keeping tabs on how much my hypothetical husband spent.
I do think having separate accounts is a good thing for whatever might come up and for indulgences, but I would still want the bulk of the money to be shared.
Originally Posted by Saria
I'm not saying the person who works the hardest makes the most money. I'm just saying I work too hard for my money to not belong to me. As long as the bills are paid, IDC how his money is spend. He could buy a giant moose head for all I care. Quite frankly, I think it's no one's business how someone decides to spend their money. If he makes enough money to go and afford a new car and it doesn't interfere with current bills then go ahead. If he wants a boat? Go ahead. I don't want to be someone's mother. And I disagree with the bulk of money being shared. That's not how I want to live my life, wondering what my husband spent "our" money on. If the bills are paid and he is taking the money out of his own account, then I really don't care what he does with the money.

It would be a different story if either one of us is buying things that are out of our price range since it will make us short for our bills. I don't want a man looking over my shoulder asking me why I bought a new bag and I don't wanna do the same for my husband either. Financial independence and having my own money is very important to me.
Originally Posted by sleepymeko
But isn't that more an issue of the type of person you marry, and not whether you choose to pool your incomes? I gave up my career 18 years ago when we began having children. Never once have I had to justify buying a purse, shoes, or makeup. Even with some big-ticket items, he never raised an eyebrow. He just doesn't approach things that way. I don't want or need him to justify his purchases either - big or small. I know and trust that if he buys something, we can afford it and we won't go into debt or fall back on paying bills.

I think the larger issue is to have these types of discussions with a potential mate BEFORE getting married. As long as you're both in agreement, you can manage your finances any way you want.
Formerly misspam.
Joined: Feb. 2008

Reminds me of my safari in Africa. Somebody forgot the corkscrew and for several days we had to live on nothing but food and water. - W. C. Fields
If you are married your finances are combined, no matter where you keep your money. When you are getting ready to buy a house or a car or planning children it's based on the total household income - no matter who's making what. Yes you can have your own bank account and your own spending money, but at the end of the day it's all part of the household income.

Also there is a big difference between asking permission to buy something and consulting with your spouse. It all depends on how much discretionary income you have. If you've plenty left over after bills are paid then sure, go hog wild buying stuff you want. But if money is tight, or your saving for bigger things like re-doing the bathroom or new floors then your spending effects the household and you probably should check in with your spouse before buying something you want. I'm talking about significant purchases here, whatever significant means in your household. For some it is shopping at Saks, for some it's shopping at Old Navy. It's not just about you when you're married.
If you got nothing to bring to the table - don't even bother sitting down.
IDK. I disagree with the notion that it should be "our" money. I worked hard for my money and if the bills are paid I should be able to buy myself a pair of shoes without hearing complaints.
I guess I don't see why you think the two are mutually exclusive.
I'm never going to be the one making the larger sum of money (and oh yeah, I work very hard), but if I were, and I were married, I would absolutely want the money to belong to both of us. So long as it weren't spent irresponsibly (as in, something extravagant that we couldn't afford), it wouldn't bother me that my lower wage-earning husband bought himself something nice. I wouldn't be keeping tabs on how much my hypothetical husband spent.
I do think having separate accounts is a good thing for whatever might come up and for indulgences, but I would still want the bulk of the money to be shared.
Originally Posted by Saria
I'm not saying the person who works the hardest makes the most money. I'm just saying I work too hard for my money to not belong to me. As long as the bills are paid, IDC how his money is spend. He could buy a giant moose head for all I care. Quite frankly, I think it's no one's business how someone decides to spend their money. If he makes enough money to go and afford a new car and it doesn't interfere with current bills then go ahead. If he wants a boat? Go ahead. I don't want to be someone's mother. And I disagree with the bulk of money being shared. That's not how I want to live my life, wondering what my husband spent "our" money on. If the bills are paid and he is taking the money out of his own account, then I really don't care what he does with the money.

It would be a different story if either one of us is buying things that are out of our price range since it will make us short for our bills. I don't want a man looking over my shoulder asking me why I bought a new bag and I don't wanna do the same for my husband either. Financial independence and having my own money is very important to me.
Originally Posted by sleepymeko
Ha, I think that just shows the difference in how much you make vs. what I make. Bulk of money = bills. So yes, I think the bulk of the money, which goes toward paying bills and buying necessities, should be shared. Of course there's always extra, and again, so long as purchases didn't interfere with those bills getting paid, then there's no reason it couldn't be used to buy a treat or two.

And again I'm not seeing why you're assuming that someone would be looking over your shoulder if you share money. I think that reflects more on you since you also say you don't want to be wondering how your husband spent your shared money. Why wonder? Right, because that would be partly money you earned and you simply aren't willing to have it fund treats that aren't for you. And I don't say that as any sort of judgment, just what I'm reading from you.
I agree so much with misspam and JennyC. I would make sure that I picked a man who wouldn't try to control me BEFORE marrying him.
And yeah, it's not just about one person if you do decide to get married.
curlyarca and SilverCurls like this.
I don't think roles should change based on who makes more. But if one person doesn't work or only works parttime, then that person should do more of the household chores/childcare.

I also feel like when a person works (a paying job), there are certain things that person deserves to have that a non-income producing person doesn't...such as better clothes, a better car, more money to spend eating out at restaurants, more professional services, etc. That is, if there aren't sufficient resources for both to indulge equally. Whe money is an issue, the wage earner should have the edge bc there are certain expectations and needs that go along with having to go to work every day that a person who stays home usually doesn't encounter (e.g., if you stay home, you have more time to cook your own lunch, if you stay home you have less need for expensive new clothes.)

Other than that, I think the personalities of each person and their goals as a family should dictate who does what and where they live, etc.)

Not sure what you mean by:
constantly reminds my husband how he took her money
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
It took me a couple days to put my finger on why exactly that rubbed me the wrong way, and I finally can express it. It makes being the stay-at-home person seem like they should be an indentured servant instead of an equal partner in the relationship. A stay-at-home spouse isn't the hired help; they are (or should be) treated as an equal in the marriage. Just because you stay home or work from home doesn't mean that you aren't as valuable to the marriage as the person who earns more money. In many ways, the person who stays home is more so because very often what they do in keeping a home, raising the kids, etc. saves the family money that they would have to pay to others to fulfill the same functions. I don't think I could be married to someone who thought they were entitled to designer clothes, the latest gadgets, and an awesome car while I was dressed in Walmart clothes and drove a beater. I'd feel undervalued, to put it mildly. A family is a unit and everyone in it should share resources comparably.
Originally Posted by nynaeve77
You are projecting A LOT into what I said!!

Indentured servent? Hired help? Walmart clothes? Come on, stop w/ the hyperbole.

People can justify their choice to stay home however they want. I have no problem with women staying home. But it is disingenuous to say that, from a financial POV, a person staying home is more valuable than a person who has a job. (And that's what this thread is about -- the person who earns all of the money or more of the money).

Does the SAH person save the family money? Sure. Perform other very worthwile tasks? Sure. But objectively adding more value to the net household income? No, of course not.

The term "deserve" might not have been the best word choice but it is what is. The working person is entitled to splurge on the better quality stuff IMO bc there certain expectations in corporate American (or the workforce generally) and people who work are judged on this stuff an are often required to have certain things to perform the job, network and maintain a certain image.

No one is trying to undervalue a SAHM's role but a crisp suit, nice shoes, a quality attache case and a perfectly detailed car w/ navigation, etc. aren't required for taking kids to and from school, doing homework and preparing meals, etc. But often to establish credibility in a job and get ahead in a chosen career, those things are.

And w/out someone working and bringing in money, there would be no home for anyone to be a SAHM in.
Josephine and sleepymeko like this.
3b (with 3c tendencies) on modified CG


Last edited by spiderlashes5000; 05-21-2012 at 08:16 AM.
The term "deserve" might not have been the best word choice but it is what is. The working person is entitled to splurge on the better quality stuff IMO bc there certain expectations in corporate American (or the workforce generally) and people who work are judged on this stuff an are often required to have certain things to perform the job, network and maintain a certain image.
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
I get what you're trying to say, but I think the issue people are having is that you're saying the working partner should be able to splurge. To me that's having expensive toys, spending money on hobbies, beauty treatments etc. In that case I don't think my husband deserves these things any more that I do.

What you're talking about is not really a splurge, it's a necessity for the job. My husband has an iPhone, my phone is from the year one. But for the job he's has he needs to be up with the latest technology, and an iPhone is pretty standard. I didn't look at it as a splurge he deserved because he makes the money, but something he had to have to look credible in his job. Luckily he can dress casual for work so he doesn't need fancy suits.

The flip side is maybe the working partner who commutes by train gets a small, old car for driving to the train station and the stay at home parent gets the bigger better car to shuttle the kids around.
If you got nothing to bring to the table - don't even bother sitting down.
The term "deserve" might not have been the best word choice but it is what is. The working person is entitled to splurge on the better quality stuff IMO bc there certain expectations in corporate American (or the workforce generally) and people who work are judged on this stuff an are often required to have certain things to perform the job, network and maintain a certain image.
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
I get what you're trying to say, but I think the issue people are having is that you're saying the working partner should be able to splurge. To me that's having expensive toys, spending money on hobbies, beauty treatments etc. In that case I don't think my husband deserves these things any more that I do.

What you're talking about is not really a splurge, it's a necessity for the job. My husband has an iPhone, my phone is from the year one. But for the job he's has he needs to be up with the latest technology, and an iPhone is pretty standard. I didn't look at it as a splurge he deserved because he makes the money, but something he had to have to look credible in his job. Luckily he can dress casual for work so he doesn't need fancy suits.

The flip side is maybe the working partner who commutes by train gets a small, old car for driving to the train station and the stay at home parent gets the bigger better car to shuttle the kids around.
Originally Posted by Jenny C
I'm using splurge to mean "spend more money on" and not "gratutitously indulge willy nilly."

I wasn't talking about toys and hobbies, unless they relate specifically to the person's career (such as golf outings if people in that industry play golf as a way of networking).

I do see beauty treaments as totally applicable bc there just more of a burden on someone who works in an office, esp, in a higher level position or if she is trying to get a higher level position, to be properly groomed. Especially women.

I say your husband "deserves" to "splurge" on his iPhone bc it is an investment in his career as well as a gadget he may personally enjoy using.

Couples can choose to handle these details, such as commuting and who gets the newer car first or whatever, any way they want. Sometimes car safety/reliability is more of an issue for a SAHM. Sometimes the SAHM might have to drive 100 miles a day and the working husband's job is just around the corner. I mean, there are all sorts of variables and nothing is carved in stone.

But the reality is, having a job or having a certain kind of job demands that certain investments be made. Other jobs or SAH situations may not demand such things tho the SAH person may just desire them for some reason. And if there isn't money for both the required investment and the desired investment, the required one trumps.

If money is no issue, then let both people do/buy whatever they want.
3b (with 3c tendencies) on modified CG

I don't think roles should change based on who makes more. But if one person doesn't work or only works parttime, then that person should do more of the household chores/childcare.

I also feel like when a person works (a paying job), there are certain things that person deserves to have that a non-income producing person doesn't...such as better clothes, a better car, more money to spend eating out at restaurants, more professional services, etc. That is, if there aren't sufficient resources for both to indulge equally. Whe money is an issue, the wage earner should have the edge bc there are certain expectations and needs that go along with having to go to work every day that a person who stays home usually doesn't encounter (e.g., if you stay home, you have more time to cook your own lunch, if you stay home you have less need for expensive new clothes.)

Other than that, I think the personalities of each person and their goals as a family should dictate who does what and where they live, etc.)

Not sure what you mean by:
constantly reminds my husband how he took her money
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
It took me a couple days to put my finger on why exactly that rubbed me the wrong way, and I finally can express it. It makes being the stay-at-home person seem like they should be an indentured servant instead of an equal partner in the relationship. A stay-at-home spouse isn't the hired help; they are (or should be) treated as an equal in the marriage. Just because you stay home or work from home doesn't mean that you aren't as valuable to the marriage as the person who earns more money. In many ways, the person who stays home is more so because very often what they do in keeping a home, raising the kids, etc. saves the family money that they would have to pay to others to fulfill the same functions. I don't think I could be married to someone who thought they were entitled to designer clothes, the latest gadgets, and an awesome car while I was dressed in Walmart clothes and drove a beater. I'd feel undervalued, to put it mildly. A family is a unit and everyone in it should share resources comparably.
Originally Posted by nynaeve77
You are projecting A LOT into what I said!!

Indentured servent? Hired help? Walmart clothes? Come on, stop w/ the hyperbole.

People can justify their choice to stay home however they want. I have no problem with women staying home. But it is disingenuous to say that, from a financial POV, a person staying home is more valuable than a person who has a job. (And that's what this thread is about -- the person who earns all of the money or more of the money).

Does the SAH person save the family money? Sure. Perform other very worthwile tasks? Sure. But objectively adding more value to the net household income? No, of course not.

The term "deserve" might not have been the best word choice but it is what is. The working person is entitled to splurge on the better quality stuff IMO bc there certain expectations in corporate American (or the workforce generally) and people who work are judged on this stuff an are often required to have certain things to perform the job, network and maintain a certain image.

No one is trying to undervalue a SAHM's role but a crisp suit, nice shoes, a quality attache case and a perfectly detailed car w/ navigation, etc. aren't required for taking kids to and from school, doing homework and preparing meals, etc. But often to establish credibility in a job and get ahead in a chosen career, those things are.

And w/out someone working and bringing in money, there would be no home for anyone to be a SAHM in.
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
I can see your point if the family relies mostly on traditional income streams such as a job for their income, but for families that have varied income streams such as rental income, dividends and such, I don't see this argument holding as much water.

I think of asset management much more than income management in my evaluation.
hello.world.

I can see your point if the family relies mostly on traditional income streams such as a job for their income, but for families that have varied income streams such as rental income, dividends and such, I don't see this argument holding as much water.

I think of asset management much more than income management in my evaluation.
Originally Posted by webjockey
This would be a very, very small percentage of the population, I believe. Do you have an idea where to find statistics on income diversification (what percentage of the population earns money above/beyond wages)? I can't find this info specifically, but it looks like there are 14.9 million rental properties in the US, and even if every property was run by a different person, that would still be only about 7% of the adult population of the US who own an investment property.

Anecdotally, people I know who have more diverse income streams also tend to have more discretionary funds, so they are more able to provide needs and wants (for adults and any children) and less likely to need to choose between her needs and his wants anyway, so none of spiderlashes narrative would really apply.
People rise to the standard expected of them. GC
I don't have the data, but yes, the majority of Americans rely on a job for their income streams. That's what been drilled into the modern America. Jobs jobs jobs.

I think that's what's wrong and why families get into this battle about mine/yours/ours in the first place.

It takes a mind shift to think about asset building and wealth building instead of just income. Spending money and making personal and joint purchases based on those principles instead of who brings in the bacon.

That's my point.

Forrest for the trees, big picture, long range vision and what not.
multicultcurly likes this.
hello.world.
It took me a couple days to put my finger on why exactly that rubbed me the wrong way, and I finally can express it. It makes being the stay-at-home person seem like they should be an indentured servant instead of an equal partner in the relationship. A stay-at-home spouse isn't the hired help; they are (or should be) treated as an equal in the marriage. Just because you stay home or work from home doesn't mean that you aren't as valuable to the marriage as the person who earns more money. In many ways, the person who stays home is more so because very often what they do in keeping a home, raising the kids, etc. saves the family money that they would have to pay to others to fulfill the same functions. I don't think I could be married to someone who thought they were entitled to designer clothes, the latest gadgets, and an awesome car while I was dressed in Walmart clothes and drove a beater. I'd feel undervalued, to put it mildly. A family is a unit and everyone in it should share resources comparably.
Originally Posted by nynaeve77
You are projecting A LOT into what I said!!

Indentured servent? Hired help? Walmart clothes? Come on, stop w/ the hyperbole.

People can justify their choice to stay home however they want. I have no problem with women staying home. But it is disingenuous to say that, from a financial POV, a person staying home is more valuable than a person who has a job. (And that's what this thread is about -- the person who earns all of the money or more of the money).

Does the SAH person save the family money? Sure. Perform other very worthwile tasks? Sure. But objectively adding more value to the net household income? No, of course not.

The term "deserve" might not have been the best word choice but it is what is. The working person is entitled to splurge on the better quality stuff IMO bc there certain expectations in corporate American (or the workforce generally) and people who work are judged on this stuff an are often required to have certain things to perform the job, network and maintain a certain image.

No one is trying to undervalue a SAHM's role but a crisp suit, nice shoes, a quality attache case and a perfectly detailed car w/ navigation, etc. aren't required for taking kids to and from school, doing homework and preparing meals, etc. But often to establish credibility in a job and get ahead in a chosen career, those things are.

And w/out someone working and bringing in money, there would be no home for anyone to be a SAHM in.
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
I can see your point if the family relies mostly on traditional income streams such as a job for their income, but for families that have varied income streams such as rental income, dividends and such, I don't see this argument holding as much water.

I think of asset management much more than income management in my evaluation.
Originally Posted by webjockey

That's irrelevent IMO. If one person is in a more public position where he/she is being sized up based on appearance and held to certain standards, that person needs to invest more in his/her image.

Some of my income is earned through investment property. My exhusband does some of the rehab and maintenance. He can wear 10 yr old jeans or work pants with holes. I meet w/ bankers and investor associations, and interview tenants. I need to dress professionally or semi-professionally. To say that he and i should spend the same amount of money on clothing and other acoutrements is just silly.

But yeah, most families support themselves on traditional streams of income.
3b (with 3c tendencies) on modified CG


I guess I don't see why you think the two are mutually exclusive.
I'm never going to be the one making the larger sum of money (and oh yeah, I work very hard), but if I were, and I were married, I would absolutely want the money to belong to both of us. So long as it weren't spent irresponsibly (as in, something extravagant that we couldn't afford), it wouldn't bother me that my lower wage-earning husband bought himself something nice. I wouldn't be keeping tabs on how much my hypothetical husband spent.
I do think having separate accounts is a good thing for whatever might come up and for indulgences, but I would still want the bulk of the money to be shared.
Originally Posted by Saria
I'm not saying the person who works the hardest makes the most money. I'm just saying I work too hard for my money to not belong to me. As long as the bills are paid, IDC how his money is spend. He could buy a giant moose head for all I care. Quite frankly, I think it's no one's business how someone decides to spend their money. If he makes enough money to go and afford a new car and it doesn't interfere with current bills then go ahead. If he wants a boat? Go ahead. I don't want to be someone's mother. And I disagree with the bulk of money being shared. That's not how I want to live my life, wondering what my husband spent "our" money on. If the bills are paid and he is taking the money out of his own account, then I really don't care what he does with the money.

It would be a different story if either one of us is buying things that are out of our price range since it will make us short for our bills. I don't want a man looking over my shoulder asking me why I bought a new bag and I don't wanna do the same for my husband either. Financial independence and having my own money is very important to me.
Originally Posted by sleepymeko
But isn't that more an issue of the type of person you marry, and not whether you choose to pool your incomes? I gave up my career 18 years ago when we began having children. Never once have I had to justify buying a purse, shoes, or makeup. Even with some big-ticket items, he never raised an eyebrow. He just doesn't approach things that way. I don't want or need him to justify his purchases either - big or small. I know and trust that if he buys something, we can afford it and we won't go into debt or fall back on paying bills.

I think the larger issue is to have these types of discussions with a potential mate BEFORE getting married. As long as you're both in agreement, you can manage your finances any way you want.
Originally Posted by SilverCurls
I don't think you're understanding what I mean... I don't want to spend his money, I want to spend MY money. I know everyone here disagrees with me that it's "our" money, but I disagree with the majority.

I already know that no one is going to agree with me, but I don't care either way. Yes, I'll have a prenup and no, not all of my money is shared with my husband. And who is to say that all because you're married you're required to live in the same household? There are active marriages where the wife and husband live in separate homes, and they're perfectly happy. I really don't care if my POV is nontraditional and I'm not going to apologize with disagreeing with the concept that all money is 'shared' because it's not.

And me not wanting to worry about what my husband will be spending on purchases (shared) money therefore, him making purchases on his own account is IMHO smart. Would I love it if I was to be married until the end of time w/o any type of problems? OFC! But is that realistic where marriages tend to fail in the states? NO! Men or women alike tend to leave marriages and sometimes that may be out of anger. I don't want to wake up one morning and see that my husband has disappeared and drained our accounts. In this day and age, me and my future children will always come before my husband. I am the most important person and when I have children, my children will come before me. Everything I do is for myself and for my children. I just feel I'm being more realistic. I'm not saying that this will happen to me, but if it does I want to be prepared or have the options to leave if my so-called husband turned out to be an abusive or adulterous *******.

Just sayin'

I'm not saying the person who works the hardest makes the most money. I'm just saying I work too hard for my money to not belong to me. As long as the bills are paid, IDC how his money is spend. He could buy a giant moose head for all I care. Quite frankly, I think it's no one's business how someone decides to spend their money. If he makes enough money to go and afford a new car and it doesn't interfere with current bills then go ahead. If he wants a boat? Go ahead. I don't want to be someone's mother. And I disagree with the bulk of money being shared. That's not how I want to live my life, wondering what my husband spent "our" money on. If the bills are paid and he is taking the money out of his own account, then I really don't care what he does with the money.

It would be a different story if either one of us is buying things that are out of our price range since it will make us short for our bills. I don't want a man looking over my shoulder asking me why I bought a new bag and I don't wanna do the same for my husband either. Financial independence and having my own money is very important to me.
Originally Posted by sleepymeko
But isn't that more an issue of the type of person you marry, and not whether you choose to pool your incomes? I gave up my career 18 years ago when we began having children. Never once have I had to justify buying a purse, shoes, or makeup. Even with some big-ticket items, he never raised an eyebrow. He just doesn't approach things that way. I don't want or need him to justify his purchases either - big or small. I know and trust that if he buys something, we can afford it and we won't go into debt or fall back on paying bills.

I think the larger issue is to have these types of discussions with a potential mate BEFORE getting married. As long as you're both in agreement, you can manage your finances any way you want.
Originally Posted by SilverCurls
I don't think you're understanding what I mean... I don't want to spend his money, I want to spend MY money. I know everyone here disagrees with me that it's "our" money, but I disagree with the majority.

I already know that no one is going to agree with me, but I don't care either way. Yes, I'll have a prenup and no, not all of my money is shared with my husband. And who is to say that all because you're married you're required to live in the same household? There are active marriages where the wife and husband live in separate homes, and they're perfectly happy. I really don't care if my POV is nontraditional and I'm not going to apologize with disagreeing with the concept that all money is 'shared' because it's not.

And me not wanting to worry about what my husband will be spending on purchases (shared) money therefore, him making purchases on his own account is IMHO smart. Would I love it if I was to be married until the end of time w/o any type of problems? OFC! But is that realistic where marriages tend to fail in the states? NO! Men or women alike tend to leave marriages and sometimes that may be out of anger. I don't want to wake up one morning and see that my husband has disappeared and drained our accounts. In this day and age, me and my future children will always come before my husband. I am the most important person and when I have children, my children will come before me. Everything I do is for myself and for my children. I just feel I'm being more realistic. I'm not saying that this will happen to me, but if it does I want to be prepared or have the options to leave if my so-called husband turned out to be an abusive or adulterous *******.

Just sayin'
Originally Posted by sleepymeko
Sorry if I unintentionally struck a nerve.

And, yes, I do understand what you mean. You want your money to be your money. Got it. I was responding to the part of your post that I bolded. Also, I did say that as long as you're both in agreement, you can handle your finances in whichever way you see fit. Not sure how that was missed.

I'm also unclear on where the prenup, living in separate households, ending up homeless and penniless because you were abandoned by your hypothetical abusive and/or adulterous ******* husband came from either. It sounds as if you have imagined the worst and are preparing for it. Best of luck to you!
Formerly misspam.
Joined: Feb. 2008

Reminds me of my safari in Africa. Somebody forgot the corkscrew and for several days we had to live on nothing but food and water. - W. C. Fields
Oy. All I can say is that I'm glad my husband values me as a person/partner and not for any money that I may or may not contribute to our household.
nynaeve77 and SilverCurls like this.

I'm not saying the person who works the hardest makes the most money. I'm just saying I work too hard for my money to not belong to me. As long as the bills are paid, IDC how his money is spend. He could buy a giant moose head for all I care. Quite frankly, I think it's no one's business how someone decides to spend their money. If he makes enough money to go and afford a new car and it doesn't interfere with current bills then go ahead. If he wants a boat? Go ahead. I don't want to be someone's mother. And I disagree with the bulk of money being shared. That's not how I want to live my life, wondering what my husband spent "our" money on. If the bills are paid and he is taking the money out of his own account, then I really don't care what he does with the money.

It would be a different story if either one of us is buying things that are out of our price range since it will make us short for our bills. I don't want a man looking over my shoulder asking me why I bought a new bag and I don't wanna do the same for my husband either. Financial independence and having my own money is very important to me.
Originally Posted by sleepymeko
But isn't that more an issue of the type of person you marry, and not whether you choose to pool your incomes? I gave up my career 18 years ago when we began having children. Never once have I had to justify buying a purse, shoes, or makeup. Even with some big-ticket items, he never raised an eyebrow. He just doesn't approach things that way. I don't want or need him to justify his purchases either - big or small. I know and trust that if he buys something, we can afford it and we won't go into debt or fall back on paying bills.

I think the larger issue is to have these types of discussions with a potential mate BEFORE getting married. As long as you're both in agreement, you can manage your finances any way you want.
Originally Posted by SilverCurls
I don't think you're understanding what I mean... I don't want to spend his money, I want to spend MY money. I know everyone here disagrees with me that it's "our" money, but I disagree with the majority.

I already know that no one is going to agree with me, but I don't care either way. Yes, I'll have a prenup and no, not all of my money is shared with my husband. And who is to say that all because you're married you're required to live in the same household? There are active marriages where the wife and husband live in separate homes, and they're perfectly happy. I really don't care if my POV is nontraditional and I'm not going to apologize with disagreeing with the concept that all money is 'shared' because it's not.

And me not wanting to worry about what my husband will be spending on purchases (shared) money therefore, him making purchases on his own account is IMHO smart. Would I love it if I was to be married until the end of time w/o any type of problems? OFC! But is that realistic where marriages tend to fail in the states? NO! Men or women alike tend to leave marriages and sometimes that may be out of anger. I don't want to wake up one morning and see that my husband has disappeared and drained our accounts. In this day and age, me and my future children will always come before my husband. I am the most important person and when I have children, my children will come before me. Everything I do is for myself and for my children. I just feel I'm being more realistic. I'm not saying that this will happen to me, but if it does I want to be prepared or have the options to leave if my so-called husband turned out to be an abusive or adulterous *******.

Just sayin'
Originally Posted by sleepymeko
This was me pre-2007. Even contracted a prenup agreement hired a lawyer and everything. I wish I could explain what it was that made made me rethink this way of thinking, but I figured out that it wasn't the type of relationship that I wanted. Maybe it was the age I was when I got married. Maybe it was the fact that my assets weren't in the 8-figure range and wasn't worth the cost to execute and manage the prenup. Maybe it was true love.

So far, so good. Celebrating 5 years this year.

hello.world.

But isn't that more an issue of the type of person you marry, and not whether you choose to pool your incomes? I gave up my career 18 years ago when we began having children. Never once have I had to justify buying a purse, shoes, or makeup. Even with some big-ticket items, he never raised an eyebrow. He just doesn't approach things that way. I don't want or need him to justify his purchases either - big or small. I know and trust that if he buys something, we can afford it and we won't go into debt or fall back on paying bills.

I think the larger issue is to have these types of discussions with a potential mate BEFORE getting married. As long as you're both in agreement, you can manage your finances any way you want.
Originally Posted by SilverCurls
I don't think you're understanding what I mean... I don't want to spend his money, I want to spend MY money. I know everyone here disagrees with me that it's "our" money, but I disagree with the majority.

I already know that no one is going to agree with me, but I don't care either way. Yes, I'll have a prenup and no, not all of my money is shared with my husband. And who is to say that all because you're married you're required to live in the same household? There are active marriages where the wife and husband live in separate homes, and they're perfectly happy. I really don't care if my POV is nontraditional and I'm not going to apologize with disagreeing with the concept that all money is 'shared' because it's not.

And me not wanting to worry about what my husband will be spending on purchases (shared) money therefore, him making purchases on his own account is IMHO smart. Would I love it if I was to be married until the end of time w/o any type of problems? OFC! But is that realistic where marriages tend to fail in the states? NO! Men or women alike tend to leave marriages and sometimes that may be out of anger. I don't want to wake up one morning and see that my husband has disappeared and drained our accounts. In this day and age, me and my future children will always come before my husband. I am the most important person and when I have children, my children will come before me. Everything I do is for myself and for my children. I just feel I'm being more realistic. I'm not saying that this will happen to me, but if it does I want to be prepared or have the options to leave if my so-called husband turned out to be an abusive or adulterous *******.

Just sayin'
Originally Posted by sleepymeko
This was me pre-2007. Even contracted a prenup agreement hired a lawyer and everything. I wish I could explain what it was that made made me rethink this way of thinking, but I figured out that it wasn't the type of relationship that I wanted. Maybe it was the age I was when I got married. Maybe it was the fact that my assets weren't in the 8-figure range and wasn't worth the cost to execute and manage the prenup. Maybe it was true love.

So far, so good. Celebrating 5 years this year.

Originally Posted by webjockey
Yeah, there was a time when I was very young (17-1 when I didn't want to get married at all and if I somehow ended up getting married, I insisted there'd be a prenup, separate accounts, etc. However, I'm glad I didn't go into an actual marriage with that viewpoint. I think I'd be pretty miserable.

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com