Note: I’ve made some edits to the original post to be fair to the other decision-maker in our family. Also to the definition of financial independence which I didn’t read carefully enough at first.
Last week I read this very thought-provoking post by Pepper on money, marriage and financial independence. R’s Mom also had a post in response to Pepper’s. It’s a topic I’m always interested in because it’s one of those issues I have struggled with myself.
Since I was about 11 or 12, I’ve pondered the power dynamic in a marriage and how money plays into it. Even as a child, I had this thing about financial independence. Ever since I was old enough to understand about money – and we were introduced to money early as our parents never co-opted cash gifts given to us, but let us save and spend them after discussing our purchases with them – I was never comfortable spending anyone else’s money, even my parents. I was parsimonious in my expenditure, even as my sister was gregarious.
The moment I got my first paycheck though, it was very different. I could be very generous to myself and others with my own money. I didn’t even track it that carefully. My sister was the opposite here too. This is not to say I was financially independent. I couldn’t be on the pay I was receiving. And then when I did my Master’s I was dependent on my parents for an allowance. But that was a hisab I kept in my head and now that I am in a position to pay them back, I keep trying to settle that account, though they insist that higher education was and should be their responsibility.
When I got married and moved to Hong Kong, I was dependent on V for a very short while. V left money for me every day but I felt the need to use it very sparingly. I remember very clearly buying the cheapest burger in McDonald’s. I don’t know what would have happened if I didn’t get a job – I’m pretty sure we would have figured out something that did not involve be subsisiting on cheap food – but I found a job very quickly. I maintained rigorous accounts for the first year and discovered I was well within my limit, after splitting expenses and saving a fixed amount each month.
Now to some of the issues raised in Pepper’s post.
The infernal “so what do you do?” question: This question has begun to offend many. My brother-in-law, for example, hates it. I used to be contemptuous of it myself. But I’ll admit that I have used it in social settings, simply because I sometimes can’t think of anything else to say. I must emphasise that I am socially inept. I don’t think this question is always posed in an aggressive or needling way; often it is a thoughtless one, tossed out automatically with the hope of providing other topics of conversation. The Mad Momma had once posted about how people often look bewildered when offered “stay-at-home mom” as an occupation. I again admitted to being one of these people, simply because I didn’t know how to take the conversation forward from there, not out of any disrespect to stay-at-home moms. Now that I am a mother, I have no such problems. I have lots to ask other parents. The Mad Momma suggested some alternative conversational props and I took her suggestions to heart.
I also think, though, that people who have made a choice must be secure in it. If you have chosen to take a break from the professional track, be proud of it and say so. It’s similar to questions that working moms face about leaving their kids – I recently got asked “oh you left them so early?” with a shocked expression, but I simply said “Yeah, I think that’s the best for me as I can’t handle being home with them 24/7 and I was fortunate enough to find really good helpers” and that was that. The interlocutor may not have been convinced but she had the grace to accept it. I would not brook rudeness though, and I would explain my choices firmly a bit and then just tell people off. I can understand how it can be annoying to be asked things in a judgmental way – like the incessant “any good news” question new couples face – but these questions are not always badly meant, so we need to examine our instinctive reactions to them. I also think that people, men and women, working outside the home has become the norm and if we want to dismantle that norm, we are going to have to work at it, and getting irritated at the ignorance people display, at least the first time they display it, might not be the best tack. Repeat offenders can be snapped at freely, I say.
Financial independence: Pepper makes a good point that married couples are rarely financially independent because even when they are earning separate incomes, their decisions are joint. This is true at the conceptual level.
But decision-making is just one aspect of dependence. The other is one’s contribution to one’s own upkeep. If you are not bringing in an income, do not have an existing income, or are not providing a service that could be quantifiable in income-terms (and I believe a lot of what a homemaker typically does can be) then one is dependent.
For me, financial independence means earning enough or having enough funds to meet one’s basic needs oneself.*
Thus, does one need to be working professionally to be financially independent? No. You could have a trust fund that covers your expenses. You could have saved enough to tide you over. You could have assets in your name designated from the income of your spouse or parent or benevolent uncle that could cover your expenses.
I remember telling my mother that I wonder about my cousin’s wives who do not work professionally because what if something happens to my cousins. My mother pointed out that they have property in their name that would keep them well provided for. Frankly, these women are probably more financially independent than me toiling away at my little job ad infinitum.
You might have quit your job but be very sure that tomorrow, if need be, you could get one and be back to earning and supporting yourself pronto. The reality is, though, as many women who take a break to care for their children fulltime when the kids are young discover, is that it is not that easy to slide back into the workforce. Nevertheless, for certain specialised jobs, it might indeed be easy to find a well-paying job. So are they financially independent or not? I’d say at the moment, no. But they are 90% sure that they could be in a jiffy and that should be good enough.
Pepper cited the example of a friend who earns a very basic salary and counts on her husband for luxuries. Is she financially independent? I would say, yes, if she can support a basic lifestyle. However, what I was earning when I started off as a journalist would not support even that. So at the time, I was not financially independent. I had a friend who was a teacher and earned a pittance. She was not financially independent either, nor did she claim to be, though she rightly took pride in her work, just as stay-at-home moms rightly take pride in theirs.
I think if you are dependent and it’s a well-reasoned dependency, then why quibble about it. My current visa status is “dependent”. I choose this because my husband’s office processes the visa very easily and it gets renewed for a longer duration that it would had I processed it myself. I know for a fact that I could get a work visa at any point should my marital status change. I choose to be “dependent” for my own convenience and I’m not ashamed to admit it. Frankly I think it’s quite ingenuous of me.
Financial independence, as per the definition above, has been touted as a mantra for women because it has been found that generally women who did not have an independent income fared worse off in a divorce or when the spouse suffered an untimely death.
It may be possible that people are very sure that they are well covered even when their income is mixed with someone else’s and it is possible that they are. However, the wisdom comes from generalities and it tells us that some amount of clarity in matters of money makes sense, especially in places (like India) where the rule of law is weak.
And herein lies the crux of my dilemma. I would like to think idealistically like those who advocate a “what’s mine is yours and vice versa” approach. But from a practical point of view, what if there is a breakdown of the marriage? When it comes to deciding on the division of money then, it is always acrimonious and I’d wager that if one member is earning and the other has not been for a long time, then the earning member is in a stronger position to claim assets and funds. It’s not like I would covet the lion’s share of our joint income were V and I to divorce. I would just want to be very clear that I am left fair and square with what I am due, which according to me is what I earned and extra services I provided to the marriage that facilitated V to keep earning (like giving birth to my children). Which is why I feel it’s important for non-earning partners in a marriage to secure an income for themselves for services rendered within the marriage.
The fact is that V and I are very similar people. We view things very practically. Maybe we are not generous enough to give each other blank cheques. We also have different priorities and spending styles, which means that there is a certain amount of push and pull over what we spend on and how we spend.
So how do we manage our finances in our marriage?
This is something that I only just achieved equilibrium on. We have a joint account in Hong Kong, into which both our salaries go, which I was always iffy about because I had no clarity on where my savings ended and his started. This I felt the need to know about due to the reasons mentioned in the preceding subsection, and also some below. I also felt that if I had a separate account, I would pay more attention. V pointed out that this wasn’t true (and he’s right). I basically don’t have a separate account because I cannot be bothered to pay much attention and someone does need to pay attention. But my lack of attention would scare me sometimes and then I’d grumble to him (instead of paying attention).
We do all our household expenses from this account. We used to update each other on every little luxury expenditure, but now we don’t. But we do consult each other on the big expenditures.
Sounds good right? But there’s a but coming…
This works when the couple’s spending style and priorities are more or less aligned. Many couples cite that they resolve differences by “having a discussion”. But what if you cannot resolve things with discussion?
On certain occasions, V has made major investments without me agreeing to them. To say that I was pissed would be putting it mildly. My instinct says that major decisions, like buying property for example, should be taken jointly and those assets be held jointly. But my sense of fairness questions this.
More to the point, what if partners cannot agree on what to do with their money? Or one is passionate about an investment that the other doesn’t buy into? What if one is so passionate that it’s a lifelong dream? Ideally, the couple should come to an agreement. But if they can’t, would it be easier for them to separate finances in such a way that there is his, hers and our money, whereby each individual partner can follow their own discretion even on some biggish things.
The more I think about it, the more I find that the coming to agreement on finances works smoothly when serendipity strikes and people were somehow able to achieve that balance, or when one partner is more laidback about the financial decision-making. When both have very strong views about what they want to do with the money and these views tend to diverge, divide and rule might be the way to go.
For example, I foresee that I might want to support my parents financially in the future. It is completely unlikely that V would ever need to do this for his parents. I would want to be as generous as I like. But I know that V and I might have different ideas on what is appropriate. But know I would not really want to have a discussion on this. That’s why I would like to know what’s mine to play with.
V very shortly wants to quit corporate work and pursue his own interests. Maybe I should be bankrolling him. Unfortunately, I have neither the earning capacity nor the generosity of spirit (maybe I would have the generosity of spirit if I had the earning capacity). V argues that he will not be living off me, but his savings. This is strictly true. The fact is that V has pushed himself harder careerwise all his life and spent less than I ever have to reach this point. But to quantify his savings, so that he can dabble into them in peace, we have to separate them from mine.
Hence, right now, we have one joint account which might be something like the current account in a business, which operate for regular expenses with relative smoothness and a certain amount of grumbling. And we have separate accounts in India with savings in each of our names, to some extent proportionate to our contributions. I believe this is fair. It works for us.
I still believe that couples should keep each other informed and take the views of their partners into account on major financial decisions even with their “own” money. I cannot logically justify why I feel this way – I do not subscribe to sentimental notions of oneness – except to say that in a marriage the other person is your back-up/security, even if he/she is not your immediate provider. Individuals need to have a realistic picture of the financial status of that back-up. They also need to be comfortable that a financial decision taken with their partner’s “own” money doesn’t end up compromising their and/or their children’s agreed upon lifestyle. I also think that it’s important for partners to agree upon a base lifestyle that each of them will contribute to maintaining (and traditionally non-paid for services like caring for children, looking after the home, cooking, count as maintaining said lifestyle and should be quantified and accounted for).
When I asked around, I found that couples have a range of styles in financial management. I know one couple that started out with a joint account but found themselves squabbling over minor expenditures and luxuries so much that they separated the accounts and have a joint one into which they transfer household expenses.
I know that in Hong Kong divided finances are so common that in extreme cases some couples even settle accounts with each other for dinners out. While this seems too much for me, it gives me comfort that I am not way off. Hong Kong has a higher divorce rate than India but there are still many many marriages that last extremely long and remain very romantic till the end. The number of old Hong Kong couples I see on the streets holding hands and being generally solicitous to each other warms the cockles of my hearts. But they are an extremely practical society when it comes to money matters.
Just as those who are tagged as “dependent” feel judged, I sense a counter-judgement coming from their direction about couples that choose not to completely mesh their finances. I think the dominant directive will and should continue to be in the direction of individuals securing an income for themselves in their own names as well as, if needed, the income they have with their partners. But I also feel like there might be a range of practices in between and that to judge, the details are really important and there might not be a one-size-fits-all answer.
*Initially I had posted this this definition of financial independence, posted by Pepper’s first commenter: “Financial Independence is a term generally used to describe the state of having sufficient personal wealth to live indefinitely without having to work actively for basic necessities.[1] In the case of many individuals whose financial circumstances fit this description, their assets generate income that is greater than their expenses.”
This is a very ambitious definition which I don’t quite agree for a number of reasons.
Hi Bride,
A very well considered post taking into account all aspects and your trademark way of sharing personal details without any qualms. It’s very refreshing and makes one ponder on the state of ones own finances & marital decisions. I am one of those stay-at-home-moms who are ‘dependent’ on the other half financially but only just. Like many couples we have joint decision making where our outflows are concerned with each being generous with the other in terms of letting them indulge their ‘extravagant’ whims every once in a while. It helps that in the 7 yrs that I did work I put away a nest-egg that has only grown with time and helped finance the down payment for our apartment in India and later for the re-payment of the remainder loan amount when things got a bit tight once we moved abroad and didn’t want the burden of having to send an EMI to India every month. While my hubby has already repaid half of the amount I gave, it still gives me a feeling of being equally in charge of our joint finances despite not working for nearly 4 yrs now. But much as I pride myself in that there are issues that arise like you pointed out in Example 2. While thankfully both our parents are financially well off & don’t need our help , there are differential expectations in terms of ‘gifts’ especially now that we live abroad. My mother is a very simple lady with a simple life so her wants are very limited. However the in laws expect frequent gifts on all imp occasions, like to lead a flashy lifestyle and want lifestyle products to be taken back for them every time my hubby visits (every month on business trips) and would like to visit us more often and be taken around the city in style. Now to be fair, they do offer to pay for some of these things but all in all there is no comparison between their wants and what I would do for my mother. And I do a lot but just it fades in comparison to the expectations of the other side.
We manage right now by gifting what we can, actually taking money when it’s is a really expensive item etc. but all in all it has become a contentious issue when it rears its head. I also tend to be a bit more practical when it comes to our joint savings, always conscious of the fact that we have to live within means of a single income and still save, while the other half is a bit lax in the matters as he feels that it does not matter that much.
What’s your take on dealing with such a situation….more views may help me clarify my own stand
I amended the post a bit because felt it was not fair for me to share certain details without V’s consent. However, those who read it early, have first dibs
I am no expert on this matter as I am still learning. So while I don’t feel completely comfortable giving advice, I’ll just share my take:
I have noticed since I was a child that how money is allocated to parents can become a source of conflict in a marriage. This may have impacted my decision to seek an independent income and to some extent, it still motivates me. One of the decisions I made when I got married was that I would turn a blind eye to this expenditure on family, and I would expect my husband to do the same. That is, what my husband spends on his family is his own business (though I’d like to be kept in the loop if there’s a major expenditure). I think I said this to myself so many times that it became ingrained in my psyche. I’m not sure V takes entirely the same view. But he is the cautious spender generally. I think this policy is easier to implement when there are two separate incomes.
However, even then, a situation may arise where one person’s expenditure on their extended family reaches a stage where the lifestyle of their spouse and children is compromised. I have an uncle who is very generous with extended family but always saying no to his own family. I think it’s easier to be generous when one’s own situation is not impacted.
I think it’s important to try to reach an agreement on basic lifestyle that the couple would want to maintain, including long-term goals like retirement savings, college education for kids, etc. and then offer support to the next level of family members. Although it’s a human tendency to compare, I don’t think there should be a one-on-one equivalence in gift-giving. It should depend on the needs of each set of parents. Thus, if one set of parents is well-off and doesn’t need free tickets to visit, I don’t see the need to pay for it. If people like getting gifts, for me, I would like the decision to rest with the person whose parents it is, as long as the couple’s basic lifestyle is not compromised by the gift-giving. But as I think about it, I feel that this policy works better where there is some separation of income. If incomes are combined, then I can see how joint decisionmaking might be the way to go.
I have no clear answer really. Ideally, I feel like it’s best to let these things go, if you can. But if you feel that it’s really affecting your financial stability then discuss setting a budget for such gifts, which your husband can then use at his discretion?
Thanks for your take Bride! I agree in most part except where you say that it might be easier to ignore what ones partner spends on their family if there were an separation of income. For us, our income is seen as a joint income and I’ve never sensed that my hubby feels that he can spend what he wants on his family as its his ‘own’ money. We have always treated both our incomes as our money and even after I quit working I can more then quantify my contribution as I manage home & child without any external help ever since moving abroad. But yes while our discretionary expenditure was well within limits earlier, I find that it is a bit imbalanced now & thats what I need to make peace with. Commenting here helped me clarify to myself that its not really the equivalence of what is given to both sides that disturbs me as I would still give the same things to my Mom irrespective of what my partner gives his parents. What I’m probably grappling with is the sense of avarice and entitlement that I get from the other side. This unsettles me perhaps because of my upbringing of indulging yourself only as a reward for a job well done and not just because….so simplicity in wants & desires has been instilled in me since very young and so what I am dealing with is perhaps a case of cultural differences in lifestyle (given that we are a West meets North couple). I’ll probably need to exercise restraint on just how I vocalize this….
On the comment made by another reader on owning property, I feel that the property should always be jointly held irrespective of the financial contribution to it. This is as per law as even in the case of any eventuality, the first right to property is always of the spouse & children and in that order (if I’m correct). It just reduces the legal hassles if your name is already included in the property. Also in cases of divorce, I believe now even homemakers have equal right on financial assets accrued to the family in the course of the marriage as both partners contributed to the said financial success, either directly or by virtue of taking care of the home so that the other partner could go out & spread his/her wings. So while ones contribution to the buying capacity maybe limited but by virtue of being a family unit, you have equal rights to the said property.
Oh, I didn’t mean he should spend what he wants on his parents because it’s his own money so much as because it’s his own parents (and vice versa for your parents). Again, this is an attitude I adopted because I anticipated that this area could be ripe for conflict. And I have found that taking this attitude has resulted in me having a lot of peace in this area versus my friends. So I turn a blind eye mostly.
But I realise this might not always be practical. The key for me is that the gifts don’t impinge on one’s own lifestyle.
I can see how one might be disquieted by people displaying a grasping attitude. I too have come up against cultural differences – parents who need but don’t ask versus parents who don’t need but ask. While it some cultures accepting gifts is a loss of face, in others it’s something to be proud of, that one’s child is doing so well, he can buy his parents expensive gifts. It is always going to be a delicate matter pointing out what you percieve to be avarice; I would stick to practicalities such as why this might not be sustainable expenditure.
Oh yeah, I read somewhere the law changed in India. I’m not sure what it is in Hong Kong. Although, I can see why this would play out fairly in the most cases in India, I personally think it’s unfair. I say this even though I would stand to gain from these arrangements in India. If someone has slogged their ass off to make a certain amount of money and another partner has decided to take it easy, I don’t see how it’s fair in a break-down of marriage for the other partner to get a 50-50 share. By decided to take it easy, I don’t mean homemakers. I mean people like myself who chose to work in slower-track fields for reasons of personal satisfaction. I feel the division of finances should be on a case-by-case basis, taking into account non-financial contributions of partners too.
Bhagwad has a post here on this: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2012/rights-and-freedoms/the-government-now-defines-the-role-of-indian-women-in-marriages.html/
I don’t agree with everything he says but the basic reasoning.
I don’t think there’s ever a one-size-fits-all solution, you have to factor in not just actual earnings but also personality types and decision making capacities.
The way property prices have risen in the UK, it is impossible for someone like me, earning what I do, to ever buy a place on my own. Even if I end up buying with a partner, I think I’d probably end up financing the one wall or something. Which means that my partner would be taking the brunt of financial responsibility in that situation but I’d get a say in which place we choose. Also, while I could bother to take an interest and participate actively by understanding how the financing works, truth is I would probably not do that. On the other hand, I have a good head for savings so I’d probably take charge of that aspect.
Personally, it would be a matter of whoever is smarter about the decision being made getting the final say. I’d go ahead and do my research and buy a camera without completely involving the partner if I was more interested in photography. A laptop, especially if it was for general use, would have to have votes from both; if it were something I was buying only for my use, I’d consult regarding specs and such but it would have to be my say in the end.
As for savings, I have the idea that I’d still have my own expenditure as well as savings account, in addition to having joint expenditure and savings account. all that is based on the assumption that I would be earning/working all along. I don’t plan on not working and therefore it’s an easy enough conclusion for me to come to. Which is not to say I’m judging someone for being ‘dependent’ on their partner. I just think that if I have the good sense to keep my nose out of someone else’s personal choice and situation, I should be given the same consideration.
The thing is, people judge no matter what. There’s always something to judge. Most of the people I know are earning independently and yet, I sometimes get the feeling that I am being judged for having stayed in the same job for longer than most people do. Never mind the fact that most people don’t understand the way my industry works. Money is/makes funny.
Pepper had a question which I didn’t address on how do you buy a home if incomes are separate? If one person can only afford a wall, for example.
Instinctively, I feel that if I were to live in a home, I would like to be joint owner. I think that if the discrepancies in income are not massive, it doesn’t have to be a 50-50 split for joint ownership. However, if there is a huge discrepancies in financial or other contributions between partners and the partner with the bigger contribution, doesn’t feel comfortable with sharing ownership, I would understand this too. Although it goes against my instinct, it fits my logic. I think women need to be extremely careful to properly value their contributions to a marriage. This is one of the reasons I put a price on child-bearing, for example.
Personally, I would feel very insecure without property in my name long-term. Therefore I would either like to jointly own a home with my husband or own something smaller, commensurate to my savings separately.
Needless to say, regardless of whose name the house is in, both partners living in it would be equal decisionmakers.
As for judging, I have a post coming up on that.
Well, see, I was working on the assumption that it would be jointly owned property even if all I could buy was a wall. Of course it doesn’t have to be that way, the major contributor may prefer to not share ownership. On the other hand, I think partnerships like these, by their nature, ought to veer towards eventually being some kind of insurance policy. If I’m earning more and have a partner dependent on me to support them, I would want to ensure that they don’t get stranded if I die tomorrow. Not sure what I’d advocate if there were to be a split/break-up, but I think the laws have it covered somewhat?
“I think women need to be extremely careful to properly value their contributions to a marriage. This is one of the reasons I put a price on child-bearing, for example.” I agree. And this arises from being third-class citizens in a society that functions on (largely, male) privilege and hierarchy. However, I also think that the more people focus on being in healthy, supportive relationships, the better and easier it might be to come to a solution that works for both parties involved.
We havent bought a house as yet, but something similar happened when we were buying our first car. I was unemployed at the time, so logically the husband was the only earning member and I was dependent on him.
But turned out I was the only one with savings (from before the time we were married) and he depended on that for the massive down payment, before he took the load of EMIs.. And we both agree that the Car is jointly owned by us. In fact it is more mine, simply because I use it a lot more than he does.
As for judging, I think its true, people will always find things to judge/talk about. As long as the couple in question are at peace with the decisions they take and how they arrive at them, I don’t see why anything else should matter.
Dewdropdream, I take your point about insurance. In case of death, I think the law on next of kin is clear, or it can be specified in a will, though joint ownership may be simpler. One might also use other means (like a life insurance policy) to make sure that your spouse is provided for in case of death Does every asset, and specifically the house, need to be allocated to the spouse? Also, if a spouse’s main job is to take care of the home and thereby forgoe an income, this might be necessary. But otherwise, one should not be stranded in case one’s partner dies no?
I see marriage working as an insurance policy in case of unforeseen events like sickness, loss of job, or some other strange expenditure. One of Pepper’s questions was – if your partner is sick, would you view it as a gift? I think in such situations, the insurance aspect of marriage kicks in (and I guess the same in case of death then if needed) and I don’t see myself thinking of it as some form of charity anymore than I would expect say an employer to think of maternity leave as charity to use an imperfect analogy. It’s one of those unwritten assumptions in the marriage contract, and in some cases, an explicitly stated one in the marriage vows. The other bits I think are more up for negotiation.
Haathi, in the case of your example, it seems like it evened out. You were a non-earning member but you shared the expenditure, and now you both share the ownership.
Just wanted to add that I am quite sure there is a provision in the UK LAw by which you can actually define what proportion of the house is owned by each partner, in case of joint ownership.
It is of course the couple’s decision to figure out what share of the house would be in each partner’s name. Even if you can only finance a wall, you might want to go 50:50, if you trust each other or whatever your reasons may be. However, it is entirely possible to split it, say 70:30. or 99:1.
Hi, I read the unedited post and am glad you put it up again. Delurking to say that this post is a perfect example of why I read you. The contexts are not really something I have to deal with as a singleton. However, I love how you are never sanctimonious or judgmental and always so candid about your own self. And you make so much sense.
I do waver on how much to reveal. And yeah, try not to be objective. I’m not super sure of my views on this topic and always interested in the experiences of other couples.
I think I agree with your reasoning. However, so many of the variables that need to be taken into account for any fair calculation of contribution are so “grey” (for example, coming back early from work – is the person coming back early from work to take care of the children solely to benefit the other’s career or because they in any event do not want to work that long/hard in the office?). As a working mother of two kids with a working partner, I find life exhausting enough and just wondered whether this distinction your draw causes additional tension in what are probably the most stressful years of any persons life (i.e. parents of two youngs kids)?
You’re right that they are grey. And also they tie into sentimental stuff like “shouldn’t you be wanting to do this stuff if you love your children”. Because of this, and well, because society is patriarchal and women were generally doing the unaccounted for stuff, it never was quantified. To some extent, the religious and social sanctions around breakdown of marriage were supposed to ensure that women were provided for even if not paid explicitly. However, ownership and power in marriages was largely concentrated with men and this not proved to be a not a very reliable or fair formula.
I’m not recommending couples account for every penny. But broadly, I feel that there might should be a balance in contributions (financial and non) for it to be an equitable relationship. So one of the huge things that women do is childbirth and the early rearing of children. Many women continue to play a dominant role in the later rearing of children. This involves time and effort and is rarely compensated. It’s quite possible that this extra effort combined with the rigours of pregnancy and labour if quantified would be equivalent to half of what the earning partner earns. That is the assumption when splitting incomes down the middle in the case of a divorce and pooling resources in a what’s-mine-is-yours manner till such. The pooling of resources works well… until it doesn’t. From what I have seen if there is a breakdown of marriage, or even less dramatic but serious issues such as loss of income, need to support aging parents, but mainly in case of a split, it becomes extremely acrimonious when valuing contributions. Therefore, I sense it might make sense to from every two years take stock and balance these accounts in financial terms. Thinking about the worse case scenario is not going to cause it to happen, neither is not thinking about going to prevent it (as many people who have been through a breakdown of marriage know).
Again, it is subjective and hard to quantify and it takes some honesty to value contributions, which I believe is more likely when people love each other. Thus, I can say that in my marriage, while I put in huge effort in pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, and early rearing of children, now the amount of physical work my husband and I do has evened out. If anything, he does more than me in terms of unpaid household stuff – cooking, banking, odd repairs. And he earns more and it is hard-earned money. So then should I be accessing half his income? I would be happy to take that free ride but if I’m honest, in my case, it is a free ride.
One of the things Pepper said a comment was that drawing these lines might cause the relationship to be rocky. Actually, I think what causes relationships to be rocky is when partners sense that one of them is not pulling their weight. I feel that discussing these things openly, drawing lines if need be, can reduce tensions, not cause them. The division of labour is clear and if one person feels that they are doing the lion’s share of the work, then if they are compensated in other ways, they might feel better.
Carrying ones weight – even though your post is about financial issues, in reality money is just one aspect of the basket of issues/tasks that need to be achieved in a marriage. Cooking, cleaning, admin, child rearing, decision making for children (eg choosing schools), managing savings, managing parents. It’s not always easy to figure out who is responsible for what and how much of the family time or resource should be allocated to one’s parents/siblings. And I don’t think you ever get that perfect formula – you just negotiate the sticky issues as they arise. So I guess you are right that a rocky marriage is one where the general balance of the relationship is skewed in favour of one person whether it is financial or parental or control over decision making and one or both of the people in the marriage do not like the imbalance. Don’t forget that there are people who actually like/want such a relationship.
This was a very rambly post, but on reflection I think it was about two things: financial security (ie – trying to ensure that you are never in a place where you are stranded unable to support yourself at least) and fairness, and I guess the two are linked. The financial aspect is just part of fairness in a marriage and I think that one needs to negotiated so that both adult partners get a fair deal. I’m a stickler for fairness, even if I stand to benefit from an unfair deal, while an easier to swallow option, the unfairness still rankles.
“It’s not always easy to figure out who is responsible for what and how much of the family time or resource should be allocated to one’s parents/siblings.” I think if this is the case then you’ve got a balanced or an almost balanced equation, and you may not need to get into the nitty gritty. When there is injustice, it is commonly glaring.
You are right that there are people who like those relationships, and fine it if works for them. I guess if both partners are okay with it, there might be quid pro quo somewhere.
I agree with this approach when partners have different ideas and definitions of spending and saving.But I guess being married requires a certain amount of acceptance and not so much dependence I think more maybe compromise in terms of each others spending and saving habits, sometimes easier said than done but my husband and me have this system where we give ourselves certain amount of pocket money each month which we do not account for and this helps us. In a way we do get to spurge on our little desires and big ticket items we have to discuss and sometimes agree to disagree on things.But I like the way you deal with this situation.
Easier said than done indeed. Well, it does seem like from the comments on the R’s Moms and Pepper’s posts that couples manage to do so. But there are couples that don’t. So what then? Do they part ways? There are such things as conflicts that cannot be resolved, and honestly I feel they come up more when there are children because incomes are fused more, household work is more and expenditure increases. Also when parents age.
The pocket money/spending budget does sound like a good idea and appears that it works for you. In my marriage, ironically these little luxuries are not the issue. We are largely on the same page there and manage to negotiate them.
The issues of conflict became savings and large investments. Our approaches diverged and we could not come to an agreement that satisfied both. Then what?
Directed here by Haathi. This post is perhaps the most rational one I’ve read on this issue, so far (maybe also because I identify a lot with what you say. I am single, so I don’t know how things will change once I am married, but right now, the idea of shared finances is not one I am easily accepting of. It will take me time. My thoughts about money, especially money that is not mine, is also similar to what you’ve shared).
Two things that resonated most with me – 1) the need to de-romanticize this issue (without taking away from the fact that a marriage is unlike any other relationship between two people)
2) the point on judgement. All of us make many non- popular choices when it comes to our lives. While in an ideal world, we would not like to be judged for it, in real life, it does happen. As long as we (the concerned parties in the decision- making) are happy and at peace with it, the rest of the world shouldn’t matter. Also, that point on ignorance – very often, what we take to be rude and inquisitive is sometimes just sheer ignorance on the part of the other person.
De-romanticize is a good word. I guess that’s what I’m trying to do. About judgement, I get that getting asked the same question over and over can be annoying as can rude responses (which do happen as Pepper’s post shows). But I also get the sense that people are defensive about their choices.
From working as a college lecturer and earning more than my intended in those days, to being financially dependent for decades now, I’ve seen it all. Life circumstances made working out of the home very difficult for me, although I did work sporadically as and when when I could. However, I do have an equal voice in all major financial decisions, and both of us have taken care of ageing parents on both sides to the best of our ability. That said, I think I was one of the most unlikely people to not go out into the world to earn my living!!! And after decades of marriage, neither of us is going to go leaving the other. (I hope). All assets are in our joint names.
!
Dipali, you’ve reached a place of security and after all these years, you are making a pretty informed guess about your marriage. I think one of the questions this post raises is – do people consider the possibility of a breakdown of marriage when making their financial arrangements within the marriage and if so, how does that impact their decisions? Given that the rate of divorce is higher now than it was in the past, is this something we can consider ourselves immune to?
Life comes with absolutely no guarantees! It makes sense to be prudent in allocating earnings and resources within a marriage. And yes, we have fought bitterly over money or the lack of it at times. Life is far more comfortable now. But during the tough times I did have the security of knowing that I would find work if I needed it.
That you have fought over money gives me hope!
Found your blog from your post on Dr. Kelly Flanagan blog. In reading your blog I was taken back. I have never thought of financial independency or dependence in relationship to my husband in the way you have outlined. I quess when we got married we agree to take it one step at at time. I have been blessed with the gift of a choice. It sounds to my that you as well have been blessed with a choice. I was able to say to my husband, I would like to stay home with the kids when we have them. And he said if that is what you want and you are willing to make the sacrifices to live on one income then I am all for it. I was proud and very happy to be a stay at home mom. I wanted to be there and when I was asked I would be more than happy to tell you that I was a stay at home mom. So for me it was different at social gatherings but not to where I felt like I wanted to go back to work. While I was at home, I did not feel like I was not contributing to our family financially or otherwise. This is because frankly being a stay at home mom is the hardest most rewarding job you will ever have.
I am worked for 5 years prior to marriage and kids and so I did have a 401K that was in my name, required by law. All our other accounts are all joint accounts. I think the key to this is talking to your spouse and trying to come to some agreed upon guidelines. In our house we do the finances differently than most. The easiest way to explain it is i am the CFO of our house hold. I pay the bills I know how much money we have and how much money we dont have. I have a credit card in my own name as well as we have several cards that are joint cards. But every woman should have one credit card in her own name to have her own credit. We have monthly meetings and I give a summary of the bills and we make decisions on what to do if we need to priorities what to pay. As the CFO, I make recommendations on how to handle all the finances. And as the CEO my husband will listen to my input and 90 percent of the time agree with me on what to do. In the event, we disagree, I usually will defer to my husband. When it comes to money we are both pretty much the same. WE dont spend more than we have and we always save money. I also know that my husband does not feel comfortable to spend money out of the family house hold account…I dont have that issue. So several years ago we set up a separate account for his fun money. It is a joint account and It gets funded once a year and he can purchase whatever he wants when ever he wants. I really dont care. I purchase whatever I want when I want as well. But since neither of us spends beyond our means it is not an issue for us.
There have been a couple times in our now 22 yrs of marriage that I disagreed strongly with my husband and I thought we should make a purchase he thought we could not afford. And I told him it was something I felt very strongly about. And since he knew it meant that much to me he worked with me to redo our budget so we could afford it. Mind you 2 times in 22 yrs for a major purchases he did not agree with but did anyway not really that much. But I refused to drive a car that was not reliable when I had little kids.
I belong to the it is our money, not his or mine. We dont make purchases over 400 dollars with out talking about it first. The only exception would be his fun money because I honestly could careless. AS far as families go, my family is larger than his family so we do tend to spend more money on them because we just have more nieces and nephews. When it comes to our parents, I purchase all the gifts and i usually ask him what he wants to get. I tell him what I am planning for my parents and he either suggests something else or agrees with me. I would say we spend more time discussing the budget for Christmas than we do about the specific gifts we are getting a particular parent. As ou parents approach their “golden” years we agree we will help them if they need it. And I am not talking about just money. When we finished our basement in our house it was with the intent that if my parents needed a place to stay to recover from surgery or something they would have a place. When it comes to my husbands mother we would probably spend more money on helping her mainly because my husband would not want her to live with us.
I know for a fact that fights about money are not about money. Often they are about priorities, control, values and even self worth. So we decided early on to address those things and to let the money just be money. I am truly blessed because my husband is my best friend and partner in life. My husband in all our years of marriage has always been the provider for our family, or the bread and butter. When I have worked and currently am working I am the gravy. I am the extras the Disney vacation or right now I am the cash college fund for our kids.
Hi Jane, not sure if you got the impression that I am a stay-at-home mom. I’m not. I have two kids but work outside the home. The first part of my post was in response to another post that I linked where people shared their frustration at the “what do you do” question and the reactions to their answer. Some of them were stay-at-home moms, others were people who had chosen to take a professional break for a variety of reasons. I agree that people should not be defensive about their choices and that caring for children full-time is a demanding and rewarding career choice. Because it is so, I believe it should be compensated for like other jobs are. This would ensure that women who choose this path are financially secure (joint ownership of assets would qualify I guess).
I like your CFO-CEO analogy and I know other couples who have this arrangement. If you have differed strongly only twice in 22 years, then you are fortunate. I have been married about seven years and we’ve differed strongly about twice. So not as good a ratio as yours (but not as bad as this post might have made some think).
The two times we did differ, however, gave me serious pause. What happens when one partner wants to buy an apartment and the other partner feels they cannot support it? What if one partner insists on going ahead with our without your consent? Does the marriage break down? Apparently not. But the financial arrangements change. In our case, some parts of our joint finances got sectioned out into individual savings/discretionary fund like your husband’s fun fund. Maybe we can do this because there is still an extremely large “our” pool so are not really pinching pennies with each other.
I wanted to comment on this earlier…I loved the way you put across stuff BRide…honestly!
Anyways, after reading all the comments on Pepper’s blog, my blog and your blog, I think I have concluded that at the end of the day, each couple has their way of dealing with money. IT can be fair in my eyes or unfair in my eyes…but if a couple is comfortable with that way of spending..so it is…
There is no written rule which will work for anyone…just as all marriages are not the same, and yet people stick to it, similarly I guess all financial decisions are not the same..
One thing I should thank you and Pepper is – I have learnt in the past few days after reading all the comments, that I shouldnt be judgmental in deciding what is right for a couple and what is wrong
To each his/her own!
I think it’s really hard to judge based on a few superficial facts. There was a post on Women’s Web about judging mothers – those who stay at home vs leave their kids in daycare vs those who leave their kids in another country – and how it’s so relative and everyone’s bar is different.
Thank you Bride. I love and agree with almost everything you say
I am not sure I know how to define ‘financial independence’. As per what wiki says, It means you don’t have to work to maintain your lifestyle. That means you have enough deposits in the bank such that the interest is enough to cover your expenses. Or own a house you have given on rent, and the rent is enough for your living. Basically, it says enjoying a standard of living without having to do anything is financial independence. So in that sense, saying individuals (or women) have to work to be financially independent itself is a misnomer.
Anyway, I think you make complete sense because you believe ‘traditionally non-paid for services like caring for children, looking after the home, cooking, count as maintaining said lifestyle and should be quantified and accounted for’
The crux of my problem is that these non paid contributions and services rendered within the marriage are rarely taken into account.
Thank you for giving your own example. I like the way you guys work. In your case, the division of funds makes complete sense. You and V are practical.
A lot of people who commented on my post seemed to believe I was against the idea of separating funds. That is really not what I meant. I suppose I lack the ability to express myself with clarity. Needless to say, I loved the clarity in this post.
Regarding the ‘what do you do’ question, I just have one thing to say. You say people who have made a choice must be secure in it. Sometimes though, what you do or do not do is not a choice that you have made. You are forced to do it because your situation demands it. In my case, I could never be proud of the fact that I chose to take a break from my career, simply because it was not a choice I made. The country I lived in did not give me work authorization. So when people questioned me ,and actually scoffed at my response, I couldn’t help but feel insecure. I know the fault was mine, but I still wish we wouldn’t look down at people who seem to have chosen differently.
Thank you again for prompting so many thoughts and giving me an opportunity to put my thoughts in order on this issue.
I initially linked to that definition of financial independence but when I read it carefully I didn’t quite agree with it’s premise. First, it’s very ambitious. Second, it seems to take as it’s criteria “not working actively” and I don’t see why that should be anyone’s aim. But more importantly, it is based on the idea that if you are working you are dependent on someone for salary and that if you have a portfolio of investments you are not. But actually, then you are dependent on your investments and there is no such thing as a completely secure investment. Then I noticed that this definition was being pushed by financial planners and it worked even less for me.
Yep, I mean it when I say that non-paid contributions should be valued. Even if not converted into a financial amount (though I believe they should be, at least roughly but that’s a financial security issue), they can be viewed in terms of “contribution to a marriage”.
I’m not entirely satisfied with the way the finances in our marriage work, but I don’t think it’s a bad way to go simply because it involves separation of finances. That is, that separation of finances can be a good thing. I too got the impression you were against separating funds, so glad you clarified.
Oh, I didn’t consider the didn’t have a choice option. Guess I just assumed those that didn’t have a choice, especially in situations like yours, would say so. Curious why you wouldn’t? Is it because you want to defend the idea of not “working” even if one has a choice? I totally agree with not looking down on people who have chosen differently. Unfortunately, this is a novel concept and beyond most people.
Pingback: On judgement « for whom the bell tolls
I agree with your post almost entirely. I think this is the most rational way of looking at finances in a marriage. Romanticising money in the happy days of a marriage can lead to a lot of grief if you ever fall out or lose a partner.
Also absolutely love the bit about being secure in your own choice, even if you do choose to be dependant. It’s ok to recognise that you are happy with your choice, even if it’s not the wisest choice for all circumstances, because it may work best for you. If the choice has been forced on you, be secure anyway. Contribute in other ways and safeguard yourself financially as best as you can, in case things go wrong.
Contrary to some others here, I completely agree that things like spending money on your parents (or other expenses that not for both of you) is easier if you have separate accounts. I don’t think this is because of lack of trust or affection. I simply think that you are less likely to feel guilty about this expense. It actually takes emotion out of the financial decision, which is always good.
My husband and I have been married for a year, lived together for 3 and been a couple for 10 years now. There is no lack of love or trust between us. However, we have always had separate accounts. We split the mortgage and other fixed outgoings evenly. We take things like dinner bills, grocery bills in turns. If someone misses a turn or two, it’s obviously no big deal and this is all only approximate. We still discuss big individual expenses and of course joint expenses but pay out of our own accounts.
Why do we do this if we love each other and depend on each other for general happiness (like all couples)? Because we think it’s good that we are both financially aware and responsible. There is never any room for resentment (like he spent more on shopping than me). Banks don’t have access to both our money in the same account in case something goes wrong, which is really a safety measure most people just overlook. It separates emotions and finances and we like that. I’m no expert, but in all our years together, we have never ever fought about money.
Pingback: On independence | for whom the bell tolls