We may be setting ourselves up for a big surprise if we ever get divorced, but it’s been 23 years and we still haven’t even considered it, so I think we’re doing pretty well.

I was especially struck by IRG’s distaste for the monthly allowance. I agree with that, if it is a one-sided thing, which makes it seem very patronizing. But I think if a couple has the need to save more, my preference would be to hold everything jointly, then give EACH spouse an allowance to live on, not based on how much each brought to the account, but make it the same amount, or else make it based on what each spouse needs after discussing it together.

Interesting views, all. I think the bottom line is absolutely communication. I think either of these plans (or others) would work, but ONLY if both spouses are expecting it and agree that the plan will work.

I know from personal experience– divorce is expensive!

Great series Trent, and I think the logical follow-up would be How To Teach Your Kids About Money at the various stages of their lives.

It’s surprising to me how many people, with intelligence, education and even common sense, have not had open discussions with their spouses about money. And we’re talking all ages and soci-economic backgrounds.

Yea, money and spending and debt are VERY personal. And yes, there will always be one person who has “more” (makes more, inherited more, saved more, invested more) and one who may “spend” more. Knowing how each person views their money is critical. Knowing how each person views spending is essential.

I’ve had money and no money. My attitude is the same in both situations. As a SO, we share certain things (mortgage, basic household expenses). Then, we proportion our contributions to things like emergency savings, vacations, big joint purchases, based on income.

Debt: We are each responsible for personal debts and basically try NOT to incur shared debt, other than a mortgage. (Cars were individual debts.)

We are responsible for meeting our expenses and so far, no problems. (When we don’t, that will be an issue, because then one of us will have to do a “loan” to the other. Neither of us is in a position to support the other. Might be different if it were the case.)

If we each meet our shared expenses, there is no need to discuss personal spending or debt repayment issues. Frankly, I will not justify what I spend or not on anything to anyone nor would I expect them to do the same. If you’ve got the money to spend, it’s yours. You’ve earned it.

The way to avoid debt issues? Personal debt (credit cards) is all in one person’s name, not as a married couple. And we have our own individual retirement, health insurance, etc.

We have discussed our financial goals as a unit and also addressed the need for each of us to have money that is independent of us as a couple. (Hey, stuff happens. It’s naive to not think about stuff, even while you open your heart in present moment.)

Issues have come up based on both of us having our own businesses and we’re working through that. The goal is basically to ensure that no one is stuck with the debts of the other and that the living partner has some way to utilize the assets and has access to them, to dispose of as per a will.

We’re both generous people and are fond of gift giving, so that’s not an issue and our basic approach to life is, if you want something, save for it and buy it for yourself. Don’t expect someone else to fund your dreams, fantasies or lifestyle. That’s a great way to cause huge rifts in relationships. (And why should it be my SO’s responsibility to purchase stuff for me?)

it works only because we’re similar in approach. (I have lovely friends who are frugal, borderline cheap. I could not live with them, nor could I deal with a shared life with my very wealthy friends who don’t get that people aren’t really able to enjoy a similar lifestyle.)

In this world, it makes sense to treat your finances as separate entities with provisions for the other in case of death.

Today, everyone has to work and build up their own financial stability. You can’t expect one partner to just take care of another, except in emergencies (like job loss…but even then, it can get very tricky.)

In the end, it’s never really about money. It’s about how you view your life and what you consider to be your responsibilities and your own personal generosity.

I’ve seen families with quite a bit of money where the non-working spouse is basically doled out an allowance. Ugh. No way, no way.

To me, being part of a couple means still being responsible for who you are. And understanding that if you split, pretty much somebody is going to lose some “stuff” unless it was acquired separately.

I’ve watched friends lose homes they built (think of the War of the Roses) in divorce, whole lives they created in the name of a family. To me, that’s an unnecessary loss.

If I were a stay at home mom, work at home wife, I’d set up a payment schedule for the SO for my services(and vice versa). I’d put that money in escrow/savings. Then, at some point, I’d put it towards a joint goal, or if needed, I’d have for a divorce, to start over.

Sometimes, the difficulty is that one partner makes more than the other and this partner then wants to dominate the choices and the spending. This is a disaster. And should be avoided.

You should separate romance and love from ideas of money and financial stability. Too many folks confuse the two. It’s the best way to find yourself on the street.

I’m a woman. We’re the ones most often left with nothing–but kids and debt. So I believe we really have to be practical. But it applies equally to men who may find themselves married to a woman who gets them into huge debt. It works both ways.

If you’re really in love, you won’t expect someone to be responsible for you. That’s not love. And if you’re really in love, you won’t drag someone down into debt either.

When you think about it, most people are truly not prepared to create shared lives. Especially when they are not clear about what their expectations are about lifestyle, etc.

Too much focus spent on wedding planning, and not enough on THE MARRIAGE and what comes afterwards.

Some schoools have good courses on this but everyone should be required to go thru the equivalent of a “degree” program before marriage and before having children. It might stop a lot of pain and messiness.

It should be really, really hard to get married and easy and not expensive to get out.

And the marriage tax? It should be credits that accrue for partners so that in case of divorce, they can both start over.

We always knew this, but we had some idea that we would embrace personal growth by “practicing” what we were bad at; so we decided that my husband would handle some of the bills and file the taxes, and I was the primary shopper because, duh, I like to shop. It was a disaster; instead of a series of wholesome learning experiences, we fought a lot, lost trust in each other, and actually brought ourselves to the brink of divorce over this and some other issues.

Our lives improved in many ways when we decided to play to our strengths rather than compensating for our weaknesses, and I took over all the day-to-day money management and he took over all the shopping. This sounds really obvious, but hey – we were young. :-) He has one credit card that he is responsible for paying on time, and I confess I surreptitiously checked the bills as they came in for a year to reassure myself that he was handling it. Which he was. I’m pretty sure that now in our late thirties/early forties, we have gotten to the point where each of us can be trusted not to wreak havoc in the other’s area of expertise. But we are comfortable with the status quo.

One of the advantages of marriage is that you *can* compensate, somewhat, for each other’s weaknesses. I have decided that as long as we aren’t so dependent on each other that either of us would be utterly helpless if we split up or one of us dies, I’m not going to worry about each of us being great at everything. What a relief.

Boyfriend should be the first to “open up his books” as you put it. He’s living in *her* house; she sounds like she wants assurance that he’s trustworthy. They’re also *not married*; she has a right to ask him for rent; he has no right to ask for house equity in a relationship which does not have legal freight.

Thoughts?

Enjoyed reading something different and learned a little a long the way.