Need help explaining something ... opinions

[DisneyDebbie]

I hear what everyone is saying about the joint money, but I still really enjoy having separate accounts, and I don't ever feel that we aren't fully committed to eachother.

As long as you have the same common goals for the future -savings, retirement, children's college.....(and trust that your partner won't run into debt) there's no reason why you each can't handle your own finances.

My DH and I have NEVER complained to eachother about the 'little' expenses. If he wants to spend $ on a concert ticket, it's his decision. If I want to spend my $ on make-up, that's my choice. As long as our bills are paid, future financial accts. in order, we're happy to spend our lives together and enjoy our life.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

Ok, so this makes me laugh (not at you, but at Dave Ramsey). Getting your taxes back in one lump sum is no more "horribly not smart" than using Ramsey's snowball method. If one were really disciplined, one would not snowball debt, but would pay off the highest interests loans first. Now, recognizing that for some people, the emotional reaction to paying down a debt is a better motivator than sticking with the best mathematically solution, Ramsey came up with the snowball method. It is emotionally satisfying, but not the "best" way to pay down debt.

So, mathematically speaking, earning a small amount of interest by not getting a big refund is optimal, just like not snowballing is optimal. But if you accept that the emotional reaction to the snowball method is legitimate, then it is disingenuous to call getting a refund "horribly not smart."

If savings accounts were earning 5% or more, then, yeah, maybe you could make a stronger case that one is "better" than the other. But these days, it really isn't a big decision.

This!

Back in the day, I had an AIG account called "taxes". I put all the money I should be paying in taxes into this account, used the little vouchers to pay quarterly and collected a tidy sum of interest every year.

Now I have my taxes set to take an extra $200 a paycheck at 0 deductions as do DH. We don't have to have any self restraint whatsoever to not think about or touch the tax account (which is now the Disney fund), because we cannot touch it!

Much easier, as DH is a spender and I break too easily and give in to him when I shouldn't, so now he never eyeballs that money and whines and whimpers until I give in and then I'm scrambling and cussing him out as I figure out a way to pay the quarters that usually involves ME giving up something and he feels awful about it. . . until the next pretty thing comes along. (Which really isn't all that fair. He's gotten a lot better about this over the years, mostly because I finally got a spine and now when he wants a new pretty thing, I tell him what I will be giving up for his pretty and I tell him that I will remind him of whatever it was I wanted but gave up for him until we are in the nursing home. LOL. It's mean, but it usually works. . .he finds alternatives or decides he doesn't want it that badly. In fact, completely out of the blue, he volunteered to give me all of his OT on a big project next fall to buy a DVC with! . He did the math with me and figured out how much money we would save in 20 years, LOL!)

But really, you're giving up a meal or four at McDonald's in interest these days if you put the money in an account instead of letting the government hold it for you. Totally worth it if you aren't entirely self-disciplined!

 

[taaren]

One option would be to take your gross pay, before taxes, and decide that each of you will deposit a particular percentage into a joint "household" account and pay all the bills from that account - mortgage, utilities, groceries, etc. Then you each have a separate account for yourselves, and from there you pay your own credit card bills and have your own "fun money." If you do it percentage-wise, and your husband isn't happy with the amount he has "left over" then he can up his withholdings and have more money in his paycheck, provided your debt to Uncle Sam is covered.

My husband and I have joint everything because we agree thankfully. But I just want to say my parents have been happily married for 45 yrs now and have always kept everything separate because they don't agree on finances. This is what works for them.

Yes, it's smarter to jointly file but if it saves frustration perhaps you should go ahead and file separately.

I think a combination of these two might work the best for you. It sounds like you do have $$ differences and so keeping separate accounts might help you. DH & I lived with housemates before we had the DS/bought our house/got married, so we already had a "household account" (in fact, we left the old household account open with the old roommates and still use it, and just opened our own new joint account when we moved into our own place). Having such an account while still keeping some individual accounts keeps us from driving each other crazy even though I handle most of the money stuff, there's some spending I just don't want to know about and we both earn fairly equal amounts, his varies a bit more with OT, etc. It sounds like you're organized and like your version of money maintenance, and so does he so that's not a bad thing. Then for your together splurges you can spend that out of joint money but your individual splurges you can have your own money too.

As for the tax issue, peace in the home is worth more than what you would get back in savings from asking him to change his tax ways if its something he doesn't want to. File separately. You can't put a price on having one less thing to argue about.

Remember different things work for different people and "optimal" is about more than money.

 

[CowboyCO]

So soon to be dh and I have very different ideas about money. We talk about it a lot.. and most of the time just respectfully each do things our own way. His accountant ( his uncle ) told him that filing jointly is almost always better tax wise once you are married and he mentioned it at dinner last night. This sparked our first in depth conversation about taxes... it went poorly.

Me : I claim 3, to insure I get a very small refund at the end of the year, I see no purpose having the gov't hold onto my money all year and gift it back to me like its a gift...

Him : claims 0, so that at the end of the year he joyfully gets back an insane refund in one lump and feels like he hit the lotto. ( as a side effect he sees this as fun money to be wasted)

I tried many different angles to explain why I feel so strongly about my way of doing things.
Also.. I'm a little up set at this because we decide on who pays what bills on how much we each make in our paychecks each month... I was not happy to find that hes shorting himself about 500 a month that he gets back in a refund and wastes.. while I have my paychecks paying out how they should and in turn I'm paying more then my share of the bills. ( to give you an idea of our math.. If our paychecks combined are say 10k per month , and 4 k of it was from my pay check, I make 40% of the money so I pay 40% of the mortgage, 40% utilities etc) I thought this was a fair way to each have a fair amount of spending money / extra money etc.. Its not perfect since I work a lot more hours and still make less then him lol , but it works for us.

His solution : I start claiming 0 then a the end of the year we split the refund as fun money or spend it on a family vacation or something.

my solution :we meet in the middle he claims 1, I claim 2 when taxes are done we spend the money on something for the family .. vacation/ home upgrade etc..

What do you guys think? I'm a missing any factors that might help me explain my point? Maybe I'm just wrong? Idk... its crazy how much we talk about money and try to be open and still stuff keeps coming up .

Uuuhhh. Your money in your paycheck is also his and his money in the tax return is also yours. Why are you splitting money? You're either all in, or all out in marriage. Get on the same page.

 

[angierae]

I think this is a rather silly bridge to die over.

Right now savings accounts earn so little that the difference between getting your money in one lump sum as a refund, or split out over the year is rather negligible, and certainly small enough that the enjoyment of getting the 'big check' can be worth the interest forgone. If you say that you invest your money in something other than a cash equivalent vehicle, then I'd say you are putting the money at risk for losing value over the course of the year, so your plan isn't any "better" than your fiancé's, just different. Investing the money makes you feel good, getting the check makes him feel good. Recalculate the amount you contribute on the basis of the IRS tax estimator and then you can each do as you please.

Now, on the flip side, I will say that I'm in the camp of disliking separate finances. There is just no way to keep finances separate without every decision coming down to money, which I think makes mountains out of molehills. Is the ice cream you hate out of the shared grocery budget, or my discretionary fund? Do we each get the same amount of fun money, or do we get the same percentage of fun money? Should the allocation take into account the number of hours one person works, or just salary (since if one person works more hours they are less likely to do the same amount of household chores)? What if my hobby is more expensive than yours, but your takes more time from the family? Sure, I've put myself at risk of needing a good divorce lawyer, but I have kept skills up to date and have a plan if I were on my own. I would would rather have a couple of years of re-entry stress than a marriage where money is always a debate barely under the surface.

DH and I have had separate money for the entire six years we've lived together and it's never been anything like this. I pay him half the bills. I write him a check for half of that amount out of my first check of the month, and since I do all the grocery shopping, when I write teh second check I deduct out half of what I paid for groceries. We both make an equal monthly deposit into savings. End of story. If he wants to hit up 7-11 for ice cream, he can do that. If I want to save up for a Disney trip (which I've done), then I can do that. (He's paying for the rental car and the gas and our travel expenses, which is about 25% of the total cost of the trip, but *I* wanted to go, so I said I would shoulder the financial responsibility of the trip. I was totally okay with this.)

With my first husband, I felt like I had to ask permission every time I wanted to buy a cd. We eventually settled on "allowances" but that made him crazy because he made 3x as much money as I did, and he felt he should get 3x as much allowance.

Now, it's so much easier. the bills are paid, I know how much spending/saving money I have, and money is not at all an issue.

 

[crisi]

Now, it's so much easier. the bills are paid, I know how much spending/saving money I have, and money is not at all an issue.

That may be a difference in husbands, not methods Although, having been divorced once myself to a guy financially unwise - it can be much harder emotionally to combine finances with a second marriage if you've been burned once.

In my case, I don't think with my second husband any particular system has made that much difference - but each has been appropriate more to our life stage. When we first shacked up, we had separate accounts and paid equally into joint expenses. This was a good system for the "not necessarily permanent" state of our arrangement - and helped him get his house in order and straighten out some things he needed to straighten out - like he'd been working part time, he had some of his own debt, etc. Later, we married and did the allowance thing - this was a good situation for two people making similar incomes but who still needed some non-judgmental fun money. Then we had kids and our incomes increased, and the allowance started seeming silly - with kids, we spent all our time together, we never spent money apart, and the "allowance" was covering lunch at work. At that point, combining completely made a lot of sense since suddenly there was no time for "poker night out to blow $200 on" or "Spent $200 getting my hair cut and foiled"

 

[furb & dez]

That may be a difference in husbands, not methods Although, having been divorced once myself to a guy financially unwise - it can be much harder emotionally to combine finances with a second marriage if you've been burned once.

This is a good point. Another good point: just because you're playing cards with friends, doesn't mean you don't shuffle the cards.

I agree that you should not be thinking about marriage without discussing and solving this. The biggest problems faced by couples are incompatible needs regarding a) money, b) sex, c) whether to have children. Most people get divorced because they don't actually tackle these subjects and let themselves get caught up with being SOOOOOOOOO IN LUUUUUUUUUURVE. Marriage is a contract, you need to talk terms before signing on the dotted line!

If you're not comfortable mixing money with your spouse, don't. Find a different way to deal with it that you are both comfortable with. And don't pay attention to the people with the extremely provincial attitude of "well, if you don't trust him with all your money, you obviously shouldn't be married." That's just, well, stupid. What works for one couple will break up another. DON'T, on the other hand, think that "oh, we can talk about this after we're married!" NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. Discuss this until you come to a solution, NOW.

 

[crisi]

If you're not comfortable mixing money with your spouse, don't. Find a different way to deal with it that you are both comfortable with. And don't pay attention to the people with the extremely provincial attitude of "well, if you don't trust him with all your money, you obviously shouldn't be married." That's just, well, stupid. What works for one couple will break up another. DON'T, on the other hand, think that "oh, we can talk about this after we're married!" NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. Discuss this until you come to a solution, NOW.

I think the trick here is mutual respect. i.e. just because your spouse manages money differently or makes different decisions - doesn't mean they are WRONG decisions. i.e. rockundergirl not wanting a tax return isn't wrong, but her fiancee arranging his taxes to be a savings account isn't either. As long as the methods get you to the level of financial security you are comfortable with. (i.e. I'm married to a spender, but he doesn't spend at a rate that doesn't allow me to stash for college and retirement - and as long as that balance is in place, if he buys the occasional toy - I'm good).

 

[furb & dez]

I think the trick here is mutual respect. i.e. just because your spouse manages money differently or makes different decisions - doesn't mean they are WRONG decisions. i.e. rockundergirl not wanting a tax return isn't wrong, but her fiancee arranging his taxes to be a savings account isn't either. As long as the methods get you to the level of financial security you are comfortable with. (i.e. I'm married to a spender, but he doesn't spend at a rate that doesn't allow me to stash for college and retirement - and as long as that balance is in place, if he buys the occasional toy - I'm good).

Exactly, I couldn't have said better than you just did.

 

[adventure_woman]

Figure this money thing out before you get married please - it will only get worse! The way DH and I did when we first got together and were both working was this:

We figured out what all OUR expenses were:
Housing
Utilities
Groceries
Out to eat that we would both be doing
Saving for house/vacation/whatever our goal was
Cell phone if you have shared plans

From that, we set up a SHARED account and ALL expenses that were for 'us' came out of there.

We each put the same percentage into the shared account. He put more in because he made more money - but it was still the same percentage of his income as mine.

Then, we all had our play money. Our cars were separate, insurance was separate at the time, etc. If he wanted to go and spend his money eating out at lunch all the time, that was HIS money. BUT, I chose to save my money for other things.

It definitely helped in not having arguments about money.

 

[Arielle22]

If you have your child with you, then how does that figure into your calculations? If your boyfriend pay 60% of expenses, some of which are incurred for your child, then he is really paying more than his share.

DH and I have been married 26 years and combine money. My sister and her DH kept it separate until she stayed home with my nephew. Either way can work but you need to make peace with it.

DH and I withhold enough to get 2k back. I don't want to be in a situation where we owe at tax time. As our DDs have aged we lost various deductions for them that lowered our refund.

 

[drcmk]

DH and I have separate accounts and we each pay what was decided in our original discussion.

I respect this decision and understand this philosophy. I've always wondered how couples that use this approach manage when jobs and income change. I've been married for 20 years. In the beginning we had very little money-- I was a student and he worked part time. We never considered any approach other than to deposit all of our money and hope it covered all of our bills. Since then things have changed many times. There were times when each of us has worked full-time, part-time and not at all. There have been times when one of us has earned much more than the other. But that never really mattered because we always shared every penny and shared the common goals of having a lifestyle we could afford and enjoy and saving for our retirement.

So if you divvy up bills and spending money based on what you earn how do you manage when someone is unemployed or has a prolonged illness that keeps him or her from working? Doesn't it fuel resentment if the poorer spouse has less "fun money?"

 

[Colleen27]

I think this is a rather silly bridge to die over.

Right now savings accounts earn so little that the difference between getting your money in one lump sum as a refund, or split out over the year is rather negligible, and certainly small enough that the enjoyment of getting the 'big check' can be worth the interest forgone. If you say that you invest your money in something other than a cash equivalent vehicle, then I'd say you are putting the money at risk for losing value over the course of the year, so your plan isn't any "better" than your fiancé's, just different. Investing the money makes you feel good, getting the check makes him feel good. Recalculate the amount you contribute on the basis of the IRS tax estimator and then you can each do as you please.

Now, on the flip side, I will say that I'm in the camp of disliking separate finances. There is just no way to keep finances separate without every decision coming down to money, which I think makes mountains out of molehills. Is the ice cream you hate out of the shared grocery budget, or my discretionary fund? Do we each get the same amount of fun money, or do we get the same percentage of fun money? Should the allocation take into account the number of hours one person works, or just salary (since if one person works more hours they are less likely to do the same amount of household chores)? What if my hobby is more expensive than yours, but your takes more time from the family? Sure, I've put myself at risk of needing a good divorce lawyer, but I have kept skills up to date and have a plan if I were on my own. I would would rather have a couple of years of re-entry stress than a marriage where money is always a debate barely under the surface.

I agree. I don't know about the rest of you but I'm not even earning 1/2% on my savings account. Having the IRS hold onto my vacation fund instead would cost me less than a trip to the Mickey Ds drive-thru! It just isn't that big a deal IMO, not nearly as big as the larger mis-match between financial philosophies.

I think separate finances, especially when one spouse has a very different approach to money or earns significantly more, are a recipe for resentment. There needs to be so much negotiation over who is responsible for paying what and the exact parameters of each category... If DH wants the NFL package should DW have to pay her share of the higher cable bill? If DW decides organic foods are worth the extra cost while DH doesn't care should he contest the higher grocery bill? And how will hobbies be handled? Will it really be okay when the higher earning spouse is golfing, traveling, and making big ticket purchases while the lower earning spouse's "fun money" doesn't extend to covering any of that? I've seen friends divorce over dealing with these kinds of questions every day of their marriage all because they don't really trust their spouses enough to fully intertwine their lives, and it amazes me that a person could love and trust someone enough to buy a house and have a child together but not enough to share a checking account.

 

[rockundergirl]

If you have your child with you, then how does that figure into your calculations? If your boyfriend pay 60% of expenses, some of which are incurred for your child, then he is really paying more than his share.

DH and I have been married 26 years and combine money. My sister and her DH kept it separate until she stayed home with my nephew. Either way can work but you need to make peace with it.

DH and I withhold enough to get 2k back. I don't want to be in a situation where we owe at tax tour DDs have aged we lost various deductions for them that lowered our refund.

Good question. We talked about it a lot. We decided that James ( my son) will be treated like any of our future children and be our joint responsibility. He considers himself James father, biology doesn't matter.

 

[DisneyDebbie]

I agree. I don't know about the rest of you but I'm not even earning 1/2% on my savings account. Having the IRS hold onto my vacation fund instead would cost me less than a trip to the Mickey Ds drive-thru! It just isn't that big a deal IMO, not nearly as big as the larger mis-match between financial philosophies.

I think separate finances, especially when one spouse has a very different approach to money or earns significantly more, are a recipe for resentment. There needs to be so much negotiation over who is responsible for paying what and the exact parameters of each category... If DH wants the NFL package should DW have to pay her share of the higher cable bill? If DW decides organic foods are worth the extra cost while DH doesn't care should he contest the higher grocery bill? And how will hobbies be handled? Will it really be okay when the higher earning spouse is golfing, traveling, and making big ticket purchases while the lower earning spouse's "fun money" doesn't extend to covering any of that? I've seen friends divorce over dealing with these kinds of questions every day of their marriage all because they don't really trust their spouses enough to fully intertwine their lives, and it amazes me that a person could love and trust someone enough to buy a house and have a child together but not enough to share a checking account.

I've found just the opposite. I'm close with MANY couples that fight frequently because they see exactly what the other spouse is spending their money on. Husbands get defensive b/c their wife doesn't think they should spend that much on a sporting event. Wives actually hiding credit cards so their husbands don't know how much they spend. Just last month I went to a MaryKay party, my friend was cringing b/c her husband would see how much she spent on facial products. I have another friend who does alot of shopping at Target, so when her husband asks why she spent so much she can say it was on groceries, and not the new books or movies she wanted. A male friend that bought his buddies lunch before a game and his wife got mad. Obviously if the higher earning spouse is doing whatever they like, while their partner is home 'broke' there is more wrong in the relationship. It's all about communication and respect (which is also needed for joint finances). In my life, I feel we avoid bickering and resentment by being responsible for our own purchases.

I respect this decision and understand this philosophy. I've always wondered how couples that use this approach manage when jobs and income change. I've been married for 20 years. In the beginning we had very little money-- I was a student and he worked part time. We never considered any approach other than to deposit all of our money and hope it covered all of our bills. Since then things have changed many times. There were times when each of us has worked full-time, part-time and not at all. There have been times when one of us has earned much more than the other. But that never really mattered because we always shared every penny and shared the common goals of having a lifestyle we could afford and enjoy and saving for our retirement.

So if you divvy up bills and spending money based on what you earn how do you manage when someone is unemployed or has a prolonged illness that keeps him or her from working? Doesn't it fuel resentment if the poorer spouse has less "fun money?"

In the 14 years we've been together we have had to change our plans. I guess I shouldn't have said 'original' but 'most recent' discussion. When my DH lost his job, I worked fulltime, and was responsible for most of the bills. When he returned to work, we switched things around again. As our income has increased we've had to decide how much more we'll put into savings, retirement, etc... We communicate really well, and have mutual trust and respect.

 

[HHSTigerFan]

I havent read this thread so sorry if its a repeat.

JMO, whether to have a large refund or not is just foolish in the current market, if you get a $5000 refund instead of getting your withholding exactly correct and getting $0 refund, you are losing about $25 over the year in interest if placing it in a savings account.

 

[rockundergirl]

I respect this decision and understand this philosophy. I've always wondered how couples that use this approach manage when jobs and income change. I've been married for 20 years. In the beginning we had very little money-- I was a student and he worked part time. We never considered any approach other than to deposit all of our money and hope it covered all of our bills. Since then things have changed many times. There were times when each of us has worked full-time, part-time and not at all. There have been times when one of us has earned much more than the other. But that never really mattered because we always shared every penny and shared the common goals of having a lifestyle we could afford and enjoy and saving for our retirement.

So if you divvy up bills and spending money based on what you earn how do you manage when someone is unemployed or has a prolonged illness that keeps him or her from working? Doesn't it fuel resentment if the poorer spouse has less "fun money?"

Well we both have a lot of insurance in place and more than 6 months of living expense in savings. However we have touched on this because of maternity leave/effect caring for a young baby has on a woman's career. I have a fast pace tech job, and It will be very damaging to take time off and no longer be able to do my 55 hours a week. It will really set back my earning ability. We agreed that during this time we would just adjust how we do things so that I'm comfortable. I assume that for loss of job, long term illness etc.. we would do the same. Basically he would be fine paying my bills I would be fine paying his if needed. I remember in my first marriage it was a no brainier to combine money. This was mainly because thr was not much of it ha ha. Its funny I wonder what you wonder but the opposite. So you have two adults , money pooled each making a large income and one has a loss of income.. but the complete ability to just keep the same lifestyle... doesn't that build resentment? I love my stbdh ( soon to be dear husband.. made that one up myself and if he lost his job I would pay his bills our bills etc.... would I buy him tickets to the giants game.... ummmm no I see things like that as a waist of money. Given a pooled money situation... would I be happy to log into my checking account and see that giant tickets were purchased.... hell no... The moral of the story is I will never be the type of person who thinks 700 dollar football tickets are ok to spend money on , and he will never be the sort of person who doesn't spend months of his life looking forward to seeing a giants game. Its ok that we don't agree on these things... I don't want to change his wants.. so we keep money separate. I wanted some insight on this tax issue because I think 500 dollars a month is enough to change comfort levels / lifestyles. Like if we decide to put 400 a month into our vacation fund for disney, maybe that could have been 500 a month... etc.

I agree. I don't know about the rest of you but I'm not even earning 1/2% on my savings account. Having the IRS hold onto my vacation fund instead would cost me less than a trip to the Mickey Ds drive-thru! It just isn't that big a deal IMO, not nearly as big as the larger mis-match between financial philosophies.

I think separate finances, especially when one spouse has a very different approach to money or earns significantly more, are a recipe for resentment. There needs to be so much negotiation over who is responsible for paying what and the exact parameters of each category... If DH wants the NFL package should DW have to pay her share of the higher cable bill? If DW decides organic foods are worth the extra cost while DH doesn't care should he contest the higher grocery bill? And how will hobbies be handled? Will it really be okay when the higher earning spouse is golfing, traveling, and making big ticket purchases while the lower earning spouse's "fun money" doesn't extend to covering any of that? I've seen friends divorce over dealing with these kinds of questions every day of their marriage all because they don't really trust their spouses enough to fully intertwine their lives, and it amazes me that a person could love and trust someone enough to buy a house and have a child together but not enough to share a checking account.

see above

 

[DisneyDebbie]

rockundergirl, it sounds like you have great communication with your stbdh! If I were in your place, I think I would do our budget on gross income. If he still wants to withhold that much $, it's his choice.

I'm sure whatever you decide together, is what will work for you

 

[cornflake]

You sound like you're very independent and self-sufficient. Can I ask you why you're getting married? Please don't take this the wrong way. I just don't understand why a couple that has been living together, and is happy with the arrangement, would see a need to get married. Most companies don't require you to be married just to add a domestic partner to insurance. You don't need to be married to buy a house or create a child.

There must be something about that little piece of paper that makes things different for you and your future husband. What is that "something"?

Because to me, when one or both partners in a relationship is reluctant to combine their finances, it seems to say "I choose you for now. But maybe not forever. I'm not sure that I trust you to make the best decisions for us. I'm going to withhold this little part of me back so that there is something that I can have complete control over. And you can't."

I'll admit that I come at this from a different perspective. I got married almost 27 years ago. I'm from a different generation with a different concept of what marriage is.

Really? I don't think it's generational - I know plenty of people who were married longer than that ago who don't have that idea. Twenty-seven years ago was the 1980s for goodness sakes, not the 1950s.

I don't get the idea that marriage must equal pooling finances and if you don't, why get married, or it must mean you're not committed.

It just means you don't want to pool your finances. I've never understood how couples can do anything besides the 'mine, yours, and ours' type system with each person putting a portion of paycheck into a joint for household expenses, because that's what makes sense to me (even just the idea of buying gifts for each other if everything is joint is weird to me), but that doesn't mean I don't think they're not committed if they don't do that.

As for the OP - I agree with those who've said you need to get on the same page, and to stop thinking he's just wrong and you're just right and you need to "explain" to him why he's wrong and then he'll get it and come over to the correct way of thinking.

Unless he's rather addled, he gets what you're saying, he just disagrees. As many have pointed out as well, it's not like he's losing out on huge amounts of interest from not putting the $ in the bank, and if he's the type who'd spend it if it was there (especially if it was there in $100 "extra" increments or whatever) then maybe he's being smart by managing what he's doing.

Come up with some plan whereby you both feel the household expenses are shared evenly and whereby you have some sortof plan for both extras like vacations and for your own money stashes that can be free from the other's resentments - you for his 'wasting' or him for your 'hoarding.'

 

[furb & dez]

you are losing about $25 over the year in interest if placing it in a savings account.

Oh no, that's like... a single trip to McDonalds for a family of four! </s>

Interest rates are crap and have been crap for years. I'm not worried about $25, nor am I incensed about not "earning" it. If I were worried that much about "lost" money, I'd take a huge look at my automobile—since cars are a bad investment and a Cash Suck from the moment you drive them off the lot.