Let me have your honest opinion! Re: finances and husband

[soccerdad72]

Why is that unfortunate?

It's unfortunate that my BIL married someone who nobody can stand to be around.

 

[Chirple]

We got married later in life. I spent many years single and taking care of my own financial responsibilities. When we married, I made more than my husband; I still do although the margin is smaller. We each have our own checking and savings accounts, and then we have joint checking and savings accounts to use for household expenses, vacations, etc. At one point I was contributing more to our joint checking account, but now we are equal. No arguments over money or over something one person might want to purchase with their personal savings.

I get a small bonus once a year; my husband might get a small occasional bonus. I might splurge on an expensive handbag, or I might use it to buy him an expensive birthday gift. It's my discretion how I want to use it, and it always goes directly to my personal account.

 

[Colleen27]

I'm not arguing and I enjoy our discussion, but I want to paint my own picture for you...if you were going to inherit a good deal of land and some buildings on the historic registry, would you put them at risk? Sincerely asking, because I wouldn't. Doesn't matter how much I love or trust someone, that's stuff I feel I'm merely an overseer/trustee of.

I think that's the one thing that might make me consider a pre-nup, if it were necessary to protect the property under my state's laws. My family's vacation property is nothing historic or special - basically just 10 acres of woods with a fishing stream and a primitive campsite - but my grandfather bought it, my mom owns it now, and when I inherit it I do so expecting to pass it to my children. Fortunately, Michigan law allows inherited assets to be held separately as long as they're not co-mingled with marital assets, so it isn't something we have to worry about planning for.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Pot has been decriminalized in Chicago. He is a pot head only. Would never be with a heroin user!
Lots of interesting opinions.
To clarify- I want to live downtown. DH would be just as happy in a cheaper suburb.
As far as his career? He is set - number 1 in seniority, 7 weeks vacation and pretty much unfireable.

Thanks for all the thoughts! Giving me a number of things to think about.
Running into Star Wars so I’ll be off the thread for a few hours.

In that case..buy him some dope and tell him to chill out. It's your money. Do what feels right for you.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I'm not arguing and I enjoy our discussion, but I want to paint my own picture for you...if you were going to inherit a good deal of land and some buildings on the historic registry, would you put them at risk? Sincerely asking, because I wouldn't. Doesn't matter how much I love or trust someone, that's stuff I feel I'm merely an overseer/trustee of.

While I would not get a pre nup in such circumstances, this is the only reason I can understand that someone might. To be fair, in such circumtances it would seem that any of the money spent on taxes, upkeep, etc for the properties should be "reimbursed" to the spouse who does not have claim to the properties in the event of a divorce and this should be in the prenup as well---if the one with an inheritance is not seeing those items as shared, that person should not expect shared responsibility for them in the interim of marraige either.

I am confused---you say the pre nup you have was useful and protected you in your divorce, but it sounds like you do not own any of the property yet?

 

[disykat]

IMO, family money and family businesses are probably the best reason for a prenup. I've actually tried very hard NOT to get legally caught up in DH's family stuff. It's not that easy. A prenup could protect BOTH parties.

I wouldn't be surprised if (won't know until my parents die) none of my grandmother's money has been touched because my Dad has tried so hard to stay out of mom's family money. It's kind of ridiculous.

 

[disykat]

When I hear "dope," I automatically assume marijuana, but I'm old - same age as the OP.

LOL - I'm probably older than you. Maybe it's a regional thing. I grew up in the 60's and 70's in an area where pot was a huge industry. The haight ashbury population moved north around 1968 into northern CA and southern OR. Pot was pot, and heroin was dope.

 

[FairestOfThemAll37]

DIS logic:

1. Man is primary/sole earner and wants to spend money he earns for himself - Man is a controlling jerk;

2. Woman is primary/sole earner and wants to spend money she earns for herself - Man is selfish, greedy, lazy jerk.

It wouldn’t change my mind necessarily, but the devil is in the details. Also this line of thinking comes from some pretty deep patriarchical socialization. Women couldn’t work while pregnant until 1978, they couldn’t apply for credit until 1975-it gets even more sad as you go back towards the 50s! This created a very uneven power and wealth distribution in marriage that we are just starting to see unwind. I don’t think it’s right because it hurts everybody, but I do believe that we still see some double standards in gut reaction to these historical inequities.

Oddly enough i am on the other side, almost to a TEE. My wife passed my income level a few years back.. she is approaching doubling my salary... we have separate accounts, which we got after she surpassed me, not before.. her idea... but whatever.. I am not a material person, i don't need a lot of STUFF.. She likes clothes, traveling and she was at a concert just this past Friday. I can't remember the last pair of jeans or shirt i bought... my car is 10 years old.. and i don't use drugs.. i am not a material person.. i do like sports and attend a few sporting events every year including my annual pilgrimage to Daytona and Talledega for NASCAR races... and Dallas for a Cowboys game.. or 2. She pays the house mortgage and all the insurances and i pay the other household expenses.. everything else is just make up as you go.. if she needs extra $ to pay for something, she will ask and i do that same but mind you.. i never need extra $ to pay for anything because i don't need anything extra...

She gets nice bonus every year and does with it as she pleases. She bought herself a new car with last years bonus.. mind you i drive a 10 year old Pontiac.. but again.. i am NOT a material person. This year, she plans on getting plastic surgery.. just like you as she is approaching 50.... She is also taking the kids on a Mediterranean Cruise in the spring... she asked me to go but i don't really want to.... not a big cruise fan myself... been there, done that..

Now would I love it if she were to ask me if i wanted a new truck from her bonus! OH YEA! She did offer to buy me a new truck just a few years ago and i turned it down because then i didn't really need it but now i do... I have mentioned it to her.. i need a new vehicle.. i just put $1,000 into my old vehicle but that will only get it another year or 2... The way i see it.. its her money and if she wants to have plastic surgery on her inner thighs (waste of money IMO) so be it. Its her money, but if i made a fuss about it she would relent and buy me a truck but i am too proud to do that...

To be honest, separate accounts creates a bit of a riff. When i was making 5x her i never thought about separate accounts.. my money was her money, no questions asked.. but now that the tables have turned she doesn't see it the same way. She resents that i have quit trying to climb the corporate ladder if you will. I did that for ~20 years or so and that was probably one of the things that drew her to me... I was ambitious, made decent money and appeared to be headed to an exec type of job.. something along the way changed that.. kids, layoffs, pessimism, not real sure but i eventually became content where i was in my career and remember her telling me more than once that i needed to advance in my company or look for another job because i had stalled out.. i said i was content and she was taken back.. and that's when she wanted separate accounts.

Personally, i think my wife is short sighted.. she is not looking very far down the road.. the tables might turn again some day and she better hope that I am the same person i was 20 years ago when i had no qualms with putting all of our money in one basket... maybe they wont ever change... to be honest. i hope they don't. She works hard and deserves every penny.

Geez, sorry for rambling... Enough of me, back to you.. if your husband had a need for some $ like a new vehicle or something of that nature then i think you would be obligated to help him financially with your bonus but if he's just gonna blow on dope or whatever, then no.. you don't owe him or and you should NOT feel obligated to throw some cash his way.

But you’re not really on the other side to a tee, though. From the OPs posts this was always sort of their arrangement.

It sounds like your wife changed the rules when she started making more. It also seems you changed the arrangement when you deciding to stop trying to climb the corporate ladder. You have a few additional factors going on than “we keep separate finances and she makes more.”

I agree with this - we are "equal" in our marriage regardless of who earns what. I just cannot fathom the mentality that one lives a difference life style from their spouse.
For years, DH was the main bread winner as I worked but I went for flexibility, less stress/hours etc to chase the kids, DH was corporate with all the benefits and larger salary. Then the recession hit, a major layoff, a major move and kids are now grown. I now make significantly more than DH but nothing has changed. We still review our monthly budget, agree on all spending, have a weekly "pocket money" allotment etc.

I think that in general the whole different lifestyles is rare. Most people I know who keep separate finances contribute to household bills in proportional percentages, along with anything else joint and retirement etc. leaving them with the same-ish amount of personal money.

Its really not (generally) to protect or create different maintainable lifestyles but so you don’t have to make judgement calls about each other’s preferences. Everybody values money a little differently and what “wastes” money.

Side note-I’m mid 30s and I think of heroin unless somebody says specifically “smoke dope” then I think Marijuana.

 

[Soldier's*Sweeties]

I feel like this should be the next plot line for one of the Real Housewives franchises...

 

[Soldier's*Sweeties]

Also... Dope to me means heroin.
As in one being “dope sick” when they need a fix. Never heard a stoner say that.

 

[disykat]

Women couldn’t work while pregnant until 1978, they couldn’t apply for credit until 1975-

huh?

 

[morgan98]

It wouldn’t change my mind necessarily, but the devil is in the details. Also this line of thinking comes from some pretty deep patriarchical socialization. Women couldn’t work while pregnant until 1978, they couldn’t apply for credit until 1975-it gets even more sad as you go back towards the 50s! This created a very uneven power and wealth distribution in marriage that we are just starting to see unwind. I don’t think it’s right because it hurts everybody, but I do believe that we still see some double standards in gut reaction to these historical inequities.

I don't know anything about the fact that women could not work while pregnant until 1978. This must be a typo.

I was born in 1970 and my mom taught her high school classes up until 48 hours before I was born. She was teaching in 1977 while pregnant with my brother.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

I'd have 0 issue with someone wanting to protect themselves.

I wouldn't see it as protecting themselves.

I would see it as them looking for what happens when they end the relationship.

For me, it is about being "all in."

 

[Pacolovestacos]

I wouldn't see it as protecting themselves.

I would see it as them looking for what happens when they end the relationship.

For me, it is about being "all in."

Let's say 5 years ago I bought Facebook shares during the IPO. And I really liked the investment. My options were:

Option A: Take all my money and invest it in Facebook because I wanted to be "all in" OR

Option B: Take maybe 25% and put it in Facebook but take the other 75% and diversify across a different set of investments.

Which option do you consider to be more prudent?

 

[FairestOfThemAll37]

I wouldn't see it as protecting themselves.

I would see it as them looking for what happens when they end the relationship.

For me, it is about being "all in."

How so? I mean the reality is that 50% of marriages end to divorce. Some people aren’t willing to risk generations of family work on the chance it doesn’t work out (even if in their mind it’s forever, you can’t ignore the reality).

Reality is for every happily married couple out there there’s one who is trying to ruin each other over resentment and bitterness. I’m pretty sure the latter group didn’t think it would end up that way.

I can still be all in and want to keep what I came with in the event that things don’t go as planned.

 

[North of Mouse]

I don't know anything about the fact that women could not work while pregnant until 1978. This must be a typo.

Not sure what year it changed, but I was working in an insurance company office (large office, but husband/wife owned and both worked there) and two girls I was friends with got pregnant - both 'hid' it as long as possible. One had terrible morning sickness, and I covered for her more than once. She hid fruit/crackers in her desk and snitched them when she could (no eating at desks!!)

This was in 1967 - my sil also hid her pregnancy as long as possible, then quit. The reasoning was they knew you would be having to take time off and they wanted employees they could count on! A different world then!!

 

[bdcp]

It wouldn’t change my mind necessarily, but the devil is in the details. Also this line of thinking comes from some pretty deep patriarchical socialization. Women couldn’t work while pregnant until 1978, they couldn’t apply for credit until 1975-it gets even more sad as you go back towards the 50s! This created a very uneven power and wealth distribution in marriage that we are just starting to see unwind. I don’t think it’s right because it hurts everybody, but I do believe that we still see some double standards in gut reaction to these historical inequities.

Huh? Women most certainly could work while pregnant before 1978. I graduated high school in 1978 and plenty of women worked while pregnant. I had pregnant teachers, even way back in the 60's lol. My mom worked up until she was 6 months pregnant with me in 1960 and she only quit because she wanted to. Where the heck did you get this "information"? As far as I know, women were also able to get credit prior to 1975 as long as they qualified for it.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Would it be better to pay off the debt with the bonus?

https://www.disboards.com/threads/debt-dumpers-2016.3470092/page-99#post-55743544

 

[FairestOfThemAll37]

Huh? Women most certainly could work while pregnant before 1978. I graduated high school in 1978 and plenty of women worked while pregnant. I had pregnant teachers, even way back in the 60's lol. My mom worked up until she was 6 months pregnant with me in 1960 and she only quit because she wanted to. Where the heck did you get this "information"? As far as I know, women were also able to get credit prior to 1975 as long as they qualified for it.

I misspoke on the working bit. It’s they weren’t protected from being fired (totally different I realize, like I said I misspoke).

As for credit, I guess I shouldn’t have said “couldn’t apply” because it’s more that single women were more often than not denied credit and married women needed their husbands to co-sign until the law made that illegal.

Poor word choice on my part as it does make a difference to the specifics but doesn’t change much in the general lack of financial automy for women in decades past (hope that made sense, if not I’ll take my chiding and slink away)

Apologies internet

 

[tzolkin]

I mean the reality is that 50% of marriages end to divorce.

This is often stated, but it’s really not true. There have been many studies calculating marriage/divorce statistics and all the different factors that have to be taken into account.

I believe the highest divorce rate was 40% (in the 70s) and it has been declining since (not increasing to 50% like they thought it would).

Here’s an article that estimates that only about 25% of new marriages will end in divorce.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ps...-half-all-marriages-really-end-in-divorce?amp