Need help explaining something ... opinions

[RitaE]

I've barely had time to skim through the thread but I agree with those who say interest rates at their current level make the mathematical argument (You're Loaning The Government Money Interest Free!!!) almost laughable. You might as well loan the government money interest free as loan the bank money practically interest free.

Hey, if that's the way your future husband wants to save money, then so be it. Believe me, there are bigger arguments to be had in marriage.

Now in return for your agreement that he gets to have a bunch of taxes withheld and then refunded - that isn't the end of the story. What is going to happen to that money once it is refunded? That's the big question in my book. Nobody here can really tell you whether money should go for Giants tickets or Disney Vacations or whatever because it isn't our money. It's your money and your soon husband's money. You two need to decide that, together.

No advice beyond what I've said. I've seen many married clients who keep their money separated. It isn't something I'd ever personally do and I have seen it cause huge friction and in some cases break-up. I've also seen it work in some cases so I can't claim it is 100% wrong.

If you want my opinion beyond .... from what you've presented here, I feel like you're headed toward the big friction side of that line and you should probably really discuss more and more and more with him until you both are satisfied with the answer, before the marriage.

 

[furb & dez]

If you want my opinion beyond .... from what you've presented here, I feel like you're headed toward the big friction side of that line and you should probably really discuss more and more and more with him until you both are satisfied with the answer, before the marriage.

I agree...

...as long as "discussing" is actually discussing, and not "nagging him like a harpy until he either gives in to what 'I' want him to do," or "he agrees just to shut me up".

 

[ilovemk76]

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.

ITA with the second paragraph.

It seems fair to do it by % of income but is it really fair?

Both put 75% of their take home into bills. Each gets to spend the remaining 25% as they want.

DH makes $100K and DW makes $25K. The DH has $25K to spend as he wants but the DW only has $6.25K. That is a huge difference. What happens when they have a baby and the DW wants to stay home? Does the DH pay all the bills but get all the fun money? She has not income any more.

What about retirement. If he has 3/4 of the retirement account who gets to decide if they move to FL to retire?

What happens if the DW's retirement in not enough to cover her bills and her medical costs? Is she SOL.

Joint is so much easier to make things equal.

 

[MrsPete]

I agree with the people who say that you need to discuss these things BEFORE you say "I do". What to do with your taxes and who pays what percentage of things may be the issues right now, but other items can rear their ugly heads too:

What percentage of your income should you put away for retirement?
What are your thoughts about saving for your children's college educations?
How much debt could you incur before you become uncomfortable?
How much do you expect to spend on vacations each year?
How big a house do you aspire to own?
Will you downsize when you retire?
How do you feel about adult children living with you?

ALL of these (and more) will affect you, so it's better to discuss them now. Yes, your views will change as you grow older, as your finances ebb and flow, and as your family grows -- but you need to start out with the idea that you're going to periodically discuss these things and come to an agreement. Speaking only for me and my husband, we do this twice a year: Every January 1st and our anniversary, which falls mid-year. When we were younger, we needed to discuss money more often, but now we've developed our how-we-approach-money habits.


Something I'm reading between the lines of your posts:

You tend to look at money with a long-term view. You want to plan and make sure you maximize each dollar. (Personally, I'm with you.)

Your fiance', however, values being able to have some "oh, let's just go have a good time" spending money occasionally. This is so important to him that he's willing to overlook the fact that using Uncle Sam as a savings account isn't the smartest way to get that spending money.

What you two need is a budget. A budget that allows you to see that you're making wise decisions . . . but that also allows him some "fun money". If he sees that his "want" will be met, he's likely to go along with letting you have your way on exactly how the paychecks fall out each month. Perhaps he'd go for altering the deductions your way . . . but having X amount of money deposited into a short-term savings account, an account from which you can each withdraw for frivolous reasons -- but be sure to discuss how you'll determine when you can withdraw.

 

[MrsPete]

Joint is so much easier to make things equal.

I agree. If you're going to entertwine your life with this other person, you should be able to combine finances. If you can't, you're going to run into other issues.

 

[drcmk]

I assume that for loss of job, long term illness etc.. Basically he would be fine paying my bills I would be fine paying his if needed . . . 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....

We just have always thought of ourselves as a single entity, so all of the bills are "our" bills, whether they are for my eyeglasses or his physical therapy or the birthday gifts we give to my nieces. We work together to maximize whatever resources we have, and the resources include income-earning ability and the time and effort we both spend to take care of our children, and, recently to take care of his elderly father. Based on the sum total of those resources we decide what we can afford and what we can't. One of my major leisure expenditures happens to be baseball game tickets but my husband wants me to buy those because he knows it makes me happy and we go to games together some of the time. He likes to buy computer equipment and I want him to have what he wants. Neither one of us is extravagant and we don't really fight about money (We're more likely to fight over whose turn it is to pick up the kids or empty the dishwasher). Now that I think about it, if we there ever were to be resentment it would be about time, not money.

 

[floydfamily4]

Why not get three accounts, one that dumps your paychecks into a central home account and then each of you have x amount for fun money. You can save yours and he can spend and you will both be happy.

I like this suggestion! I believe its all about PEACE and AGREEMENT. Doesn't need to be what everyone else does but it needs to end with each of you having peace and being agreement. JMHO

 

[Colleen27]

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.

Having some "me money" is not exclusive to separate finances, though. I don't think there's anything wrong with each spouse having their own spending funds that don't have to be accounted for to the other, but too often it really breaks down when that small luxury is based on relative earning power.

I have a friend who is a teacher married to an engineer. He makes more than twice what she does and they divvy up the bills accordingly, with him paying about 70% of everything (including their agreed-upon college savings for their kids). But 30% of a 6-figure lifestyle is a lot of money on a teacher's salary, and he has far more "play" money than she does. He isn't outright disrespectful about it but it does leave her feeling resentful at times because it has created a situation where his preferences often outweigh hers. Like when it comes to vacations - she loves Disney but he doesn't so they've only gone once because she has to really save for a long time for a trip and he isn't interested in planning one, she would like to cruise but he isn't interested, etc. The imbalance of disposable income translates into an imbalance of power when it comes to decisions like that. The percentage-based system worked well when they were fresh out of college and just getting by, but as his raises outpaced hers and their lifestyle changed to reflect their combined household income it has become a constant source of stress.

 

[DisneyDebbie]

Having some "me money" is not exclusive to separate finances, though. I don't think there's anything wrong with each spouse having their own spending funds that don't have to be accounted for to the other, but too often it really breaks down when that small luxury is based on relative earning power.

I have a friend who is a teacher married to an engineer. He makes more than twice what she does and they divvy up the bills accordingly, with him paying about 70% of everything (including their agreed-upon college savings for their kids). But 30% of a 6-figure lifestyle is a lot of money on a teacher's salary, and he has far more "play" money than she does. He isn't outright disrespectful about it but it does leave her feeling resentful at times because it has created a situation where his preferences often outweigh hers. Like when it comes to vacations - she loves Disney but he doesn't so they've only gone once because she has to really save for a long time for a trip and he isn't interested in planning one, she would like to cruise but he isn't interested, etc. The imbalance of disposable income translates into an imbalance of power when it comes to decisions like that. The percentage-based system worked well when they were fresh out of college and just getting by, but as his raises outpaced hers and their lifestyle changed to reflect their combined household income it has become a constant source of stress.

Well, I think in that scenario, there is more wrong in the relationship than just separate finances. The husband seems very selfish, and not willing to compromise. My DH makes triple what I make. I LOVE to vacation, and he doesn't, however, he's willing to pay for them to make me happy

I agree that having 'me money' is not exclusive to separate finances.

 

[taaren]

Having some "me money" is not exclusive to separate finances, though. I don't think there's anything wrong with each spouse having their own spending funds that don't have to be accounted for to the other, but too often it really breaks down when that small luxury is based on relative earning power.

I have a friend who is a teacher married to an engineer. He makes more than twice what she does and they divvy up the bills accordingly, with him paying about 70% of everything (including their agreed-upon college savings for their kids). But 30% of a 6-figure lifestyle is a lot of money on a teacher's salary, and he has far more "play" money than she does. He isn't outright disrespectful about it but it does leave her feeling resentful at times because it has created a situation where his preferences often outweigh hers. Like when it comes to vacations - she loves Disney but he doesn't so they've only gone once because she has to really save for a long time for a trip and he isn't interested in planning one, she would like to cruise but he isn't interested, etc. The imbalance of disposable income translates into an imbalance of power when it comes to decisions like that. The percentage-based system worked well when they were fresh out of college and just getting by, but as his raises outpaced hers and their lifestyle changed to reflect their combined household income it has become a constant source of stress.

Part of this sounds like they didn't adjust well together to life changes. Its been interesting watching my parents marriage and finances shift over their 40 years together ... first they were young and broke, then they had us and were both working but very financially interdependent, then after we moved out they started separating out their finances more in some ways, particularly when my dad opted to take his pension sooner and the mortgage was paid off, etc.
Life changes happen, you change with it and find what works for you as a couple for each stage of life. The key seems to be working together to find what is best for your relationship, fiscal health, and sanity which your friends don't seem to be doing.

 

[rockundergirl]

Thanks everyone, some advice applied some didn't but I have taken everything in and giving it thought and talked to stbdh about new ideas.

Here is what I'm taking away from all the helpful advice
- communication communication communication ... instead of just talking a lot about the money situ, I think we will write it down together. You are all correct it could be a point of contention between us.
- I do think I'm correct and he is incorrect.. and thats not a good way to think.. I'm going to try to resolve it in my head.

Thank You everyone!

 

[SaraJayne]

Thanks everyone, some advice applied some didn't but I have taken everything in and giving it thought and talked to stbdh about new ideas.

Here is what I'm taking away from all the helpful advice
- communication communication communication ... instead of just talking a lot about the money situ, I think we will write it down together. You are all correct it could be a point of contention between us.
- I do think I'm correct and he is incorrect.. and thats not a good way to think.. I'm going to try to resolve it in my head.

Thank You everyone!

You are correct. Just because he does it differently does not mean he's wrong ~ it means he does it differently.

If you continue to hammer at him your way is the ONLY correct way, well, it won't end well for you.

 

[cornflake]

Thanks everyone, some advice applied some didn't but I have taken everything in and giving it thought and talked to stbdh about new ideas.

Here is what I'm taking away from all the helpful advice
- communication communication communication ... instead of just talking a lot about the money situ, I think we will write it down together. You are all correct it could be a point of contention between us.
- I do think I'm correct and he is incorrect.. and thats not a good way to think.. I'm going to try to resolve it in my head.

Thank You everyone!

Exactly. Remember - exactly as much as it seems obvious to you that your way of doing it and thinking about it and your outlook on it is right and his is wrong? It's just the same from his point of view that his way is right and yours is wrong.

The natural reaction to that is 'but... <I'm really actually right because...> which, again, is his reaction as well.

If you can remember that, or keep reminding yourself of that, that he's got the same feelings about it and you're no more "right" than he is - as this is NOT a black or white issue, and tons of people differ about this, it's not like oh he thinks it's ok to murder people who annoy you - it can go a long way.

It's like... doing the dishes. If you grew up washing dishes under running water and he grew up filling the sink and washing them in that, you're each thinking the other is doing it "wrong."

Each way seems utterly, completely, wrong, gross, wasteful, inane, etc. You'd want to convince the other person they should do it correctly.

However, if you weren't in the room, and the other person washed the dishes and you came in and had never known what went on - it'd be 'oh, that's so sweet, you did all the washing up, thanks!'

If you see it, it's 'I can't believe he washed the dishes in the sink filled with soapy water, that's so wrong and gross and how could...'

It's not right or wrong, people have been washing dishes both ways forever. They get clean both ways or half the populous would've died out by now.

So... try to look at the result, rather than the process, for things where the process may not make much of a difference besides of opinion, you know?

 

[ccgirl]

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 .

Definitely get on the same page about money. This may have been suggested but have one JOINT account for household bills (rent/mortgage, electricity, food, etc). Each put the same percentage of your income in to cover the total needed. For example, if the total needed is $2,000 and he makes $50,000 and you make $60,000 you both put in 22%. Make sure you budget for home maintenance and the unexpected things as well. Anything more than the 22% you do with as you please.

Hope this helps.

 

[NotUrsula]

Having some "me money" is not exclusive to separate finances, though. I don't think there's anything wrong with each spouse having their own spending funds that don't have to be accounted for to the other, but too often it really breaks down when that small luxury is based on relative earning power.

I have a friend who is a teacher married to an engineer. He makes more than twice what she does and they divvy up the bills accordingly, with him paying about 70% of everything (including their agreed-upon college savings for their kids). But 30% of a 6-figure lifestyle is a lot of money on a teacher's salary, and he has far more "play" money than she does. He isn't outright disrespectful about it but it does leave her feeling resentful at times because it has created a situation where his preferences often outweigh hers. Like when it comes to vacations - she loves Disney but he doesn't so they've only gone once because she has to really save for a long time for a trip and he isn't interested in planning one, she would like to cruise but he isn't interested, etc. The imbalance of disposable income translates into an imbalance of power when it comes to decisions like that. The percentage-based system worked well when they were fresh out of college and just getting by, but as his raises outpaced hers and their lifestyle changed to reflect their combined household income it has become a constant source of stress.

DH & I are in a similar position and use a similar system, but we're flexible about it, and the thing that keeps us from fighting is an understanding that even when the purchase is coming out of our "fun-money" hold-back, if it is over a certain dollar amount we give the other spouse the courtesy of discussing it beforehand. These days in our house that threshhold is around $500. (The exception is airline tickets; if we've agreed on tenous plans for a trip, the first one to see a good deal is free to grab it without discussion.)

This has worked for us for 22 years now; we've never had a fight about spending. Of course, it helps that we have very similar tastes and backgrounds, so we tend to value the same things most of the time. We also do not have any debt these days, which also helps. (When we met I was up to my ears in it due to moving costs and college loans; for a long time he carried all the household bills while I got rid of that debt.)

PS: About the percentage system; NEVER use net income. Calculate it on the gross, and give credit for whichever one of you carries the health insurance. (Probably you both do now, but once you have kids only one of you will have the family coverage.)

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Cornflake, I agree with your posts.

My DH and I just passed 30 years together. Believe it or not, our very first "fight" was about whether or not to break spaghetti before placing it in boiling water. I couldn't believe he actually became mad about it! Having a stubborn streak myself, both of us dug our heels in and wouldn't give to the other's viewpoint. At some point we realized how ludicrous it was to argue about something so dumb, so we agreed that whomever was doing the cooking could decide how to cook the spaghetti.

And that's actually been how we've lived our lives together. We divied things up early on about who would do what and how they'd be handled, from paying bills down to cleaning toilets. We both figured that if someone wants to take on the task, they get to do it their way. It's not cut and dry because many things get done by whomever gets to them first, together, or you do this while I do that, etc. We basically think of it as teamwork. And while we may not always agree on things exactly, we've learned how to work them out and generally don't argue about things a lot (though we might get a little annoyed, lol).

Financially, we also operate on the mine, yours and ours system. We both contribute to the things we need to contribute to, and that's the important thing for us. If someone puts in more for one thing, it evens out later somewhere else, and that is very much the "ours" of our system. So I agree it's not necessarily a "generational" issue; it's more a personal one.

 

[yoopermom]

I'm a saver married to a spender for the past 20 years. We've *never* had equal incomes (unfortunately). Neither of you is "wrong" (as long as he's not driving you into debtor's prison), but there will be a ton of resentment built up (on your part, unfortunately, since you're the "responsible" one), if you don't iron out every single aspect of this in advance of your marriage. Have you read any of the really nasty threads on the DIS about the wife treating the husband like a child (usually because of money issues)?

I would literally make a spreadsheet of every single expense and discuss it. How willing he is to do so will tell you more about the future of your relationship together than you might want to know.

Money habits are learned early, and die hard, I've come to believe...

Terri

 

[timmac]

I'll first state that I'm of the mindset that neither is necessarily "right" or "wrong"; as long as expenses get paid, and both partners can--more or less--agree on the same basic direction of your financial future, then I wouldn't even be one to worry about joint/separate or any of that argument. As long as both feel as though things are basically fair and equitable, then so be it.

I'm of the camp that accurate witholding/deductions are far better than a 'big payoff', and I'll attempt to explain why below. One thing that does stand out to me, however, is that every response so far, when speaking to the matter of claimed exemptions vs. a large refund, has only looked from the standpoint of interest rates, and investment risk. I think this is, at best, a bit of a narrow view.

If one wants to consider dollars and cents only, then it's probably good to also keep in mind inflation. Suppose the "big check" refund were due to be received towards the end of February. Then, the "extra" taxes withheld from Jan 1 would essentially be returned about 14 months later, while those from Dec 31 were only held by the federal government for about 2 months. So, on average, each dollar of that refund was held for about 8 months. If the annual inflation rate over the past year was 3%, then the average of 8 months time-lapse on that money means inflation of around 2%. Going back to a canonical example of a $5,000 tax refund, then it's not just the 0.5% in interest ($25), but also another 2% in lost buying power ($100). Still not a huge amount, by most standards, but nonetheless it's more than meets the eye. Even with no interest earned at all, the loss is about four times larger than most have estimated so far on this thread.

All of that said, let's look at a more serious dilemma. Anyone here get an IOU from the state of California back in 2009, or read about it happening? Or remember last spring when the government was on the verge of a shutdown, and the flurry of posts on this very board, panicked that people wouldn't be getting their tax refunds "on time", that they were depending on? Fortunately that situation was averted, but what if it hadn't been? My point here is that correct payroll withholding means that your money is in your pocket, to do with as you please. Money one is expecting as a refund can't help you pay any expenses that come up, offers little security, and really has no guarantee exactly when it will be yours again.

Extraneous funds given to the government, though technically 'your money', are completely unavailable to you. Some find comfort in that, viewing it as forced savings. I, personally, don't feel that way.

 

[eliza61]

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.

Good luck.

The tax thing is a dumb thing to argue over. My dh claims like 4, I think so that we get more out of his paycheck to pay living expenses, I claim 1, so that we don't owe any taxes and should get some back (and honestly you may think he's giving the gvt his money to play with all year, but if you would blow it/not invest it otherwise than it is not a dumb idea!). It's not a big deal. What is a big deal is how you guys split your expenses from your paychecks. When I got married I made less than half of what dh made (I worked as a nanny). We got a mortgage based on what his income would cover, not including mine. He has always paid the mortgage/bills from mostly his paychecks. Both of our money has always gone into one account, there is no division of who is paying what for bills or who gets more fun money. It's his, mine, and ours. So all the bills are paid from OUR money. It shouldn't matter who is bringing more or less in, it should be treated equal in how you guys spend it. I think if it isn't you guys will never agree on financial issues. .

Most money habits are personal and ingrained. There are absolutes. so in this instance I probably would not have a big fight over it.

I know many people who claim zero to get large refunds. a guy Tim on my job does this because he then uses the money to finance his disney trips. He says this way he knows he's going on vaca every year.
That's important to him and makes him a happy camper.

My husband and I file jointly but have seperate credit card accounts. He doesn't like the way I spend and it would drive me to homicide to have him question the bill every nanosecond. It's worked for us the last 25 years. but we are on the same page with our goals, stuff like saving to educate the kids and retirement.

So I say if it makes him happy to loan the feds the money for a year, let him.

P.S. I own timeshares (dvc and marriott) every financial guru from Dave what's his name to my financial planner swears they are a bad thing to own but you know what, they bring me and my family a heck of a lot of joy so they are worth every penny. I rarely listen to those tv financial gurus because they get paid to give advice so their number one priority is getting paid, not my life.

 

[MrsPete]

Having some "me money" is not exclusive to separate finances, though. I don't think there's anything wrong with each spouse having their own spending funds that don't have to be accounted for to the other, but too often it really breaks down when that small luxury is based on relative earning power.

I have a friend who is a teacher married to an engineer. He makes more than twice what she does and they divvy up the bills accordingly, with him paying about 70% of everything (including their agreed-upon college savings for their kids). But 30% of a 6-figure lifestyle is a lot of money on a teacher's salary, and he has far more "play" money than she does. He isn't outright disrespectful about it but it does leave her feeling resentful at times because it has created a situation where his preferences often outweigh hers. Like when it comes to vacations - she loves Disney but he doesn't so they've only gone once because she has to really save for a long time for a trip and he isn't interested in planning one, she would like to cruise but he isn't interested, etc. The imbalance of disposable income translates into an imbalance of power when it comes to decisions like that. The percentage-based system worked well when they were fresh out of college and just getting by, but as his raises outpaced hers and their lifestyle changed to reflect their combined household income it has become a constant source of stress.

I think your teacher-engineer scenerio illustrates why trying to parcel out "your percentage /my percentage" isn't going to work in a marriage. You're either all in, or you're not.

Incidentally, I happen to be a teacher married to an engineer. Off-topic, but I know LOTS of couples with this particular combination. It seems that we just go together. For one thing, both occupations attract frugal people.

Back to the topic: Yes, my husband makes much more than I do; however, we'd never consider saying that he "has more money" than I do. I have better benefits than he does, and he reaps the rewards of those benefits through me. I have more time off, which has allowed me to save money on daycare/other child expenses over the years -- something that really doesn't have a price. My work schedule has saved us money over the years, and it's made his life less stressful. He may bring home more dollars, but he'd be the first one to tell you that although my paycheck is smaller, my contribution to the family isn't smaller.

I don't think it's a bad idea to say that each spouse gets X amount of money for "whatever". You're both adults, you both work hard, and you deserve to have some within-the-budget luxuries. But the higher-earning partner doesn't deserve more.


Getting back to the initial post, I maintain what I said in my previous post: What really matters is that you decide WHY you want what you want, and you each be sure that you're getting what really matters to you.

I don't believe he's all that invested in getting a big tax return. I think he just wants to know that once a year he can have some luxury money to "blow". It makes him feel good, and it's a priority for him. A tax return isn't the only way to give him this reward; present him with other (smarter) ways to get this same thing.