Which practice to keep finances after getting married: joint, or separate?
"If you ask ten different couples what they do, depending on a variety of factors, you'll get anywhere between two and ten different answers. One personal finance blogger that I read swears by the fact that he and his wife keep their finances totally separate.  His wife has her own retirement account, he has his.  His wife has her own checking and savings, he has his.  They pay fifty-fifty for expenses and each buy their own ""toys"" from their own accounts.  He views this as valuable for allowing them to have their own personal finance styles, as his wife is a very conservative investor and he is more generous. My spouse and I have mostly combined finances, and view all of our money as joint (even though there are a smattering of accounts between us with just one name on them as holdovers from before we were married).  Almost all of our purchasing decisions except regular groceries are joint.  I couldn't imagine it any other way.  It leaves us both comfortable with our financial situation and forces us to be on the same page with regards to our lifestyle decisions.  There's also the ideological view that since we believe marriage united us, we try to live that out.  That's just us, though.  We don't want to force it on others. Some couples find a balance between joint accounts and his and her fun money stashes.  You might find yet another arrangement that works for you, such as the one you already described. What's going to be important is that you realize that all couples have the same six basic arguments, finances being one of them.  The trick is in how you disagree.  If you can respectfully and thoughtfully discuss your finances together to find the way that has the least friction for you, you're doing well.  Some amount of friction is not just normal, it's almost guaranteed." Echoing Justkt, different approaches will work for different couples.  It also depends on your background, life experience, age, maturity.... Irrespective of the structure, any agreement must be based on a thorough understanding of the mechanism by which responsibility and accountability is apportioned. As in any financial relationship, when money is plentiful and covers all ends, then conflict hardly ever arises.  Problems only turn up when money vanishes. Business contracts are written with a view to such conflicts and agreements within a marriage must be equatable and based on a shared understanding. So, don't worry too much about the structure.  Think about thinkgs like the following: In other words, given that income between spouses is likely to be unbalanced, how do you manage this within a caring relationship so that neither feels like a charity case, a social worker, or dependent? There will not be one clear answer except that open and honest discussion on an ongoing bases can only serve to strengthen your relationship. I feel there are two types of answer: One: the financial. Suck all the emotion out of the situation, and treat the two individuals as individuals. If that works for the two of you, fantastic. Two: the philosophical. You're married, it's a union, so unify the funds. If that works for you, fantastic. Personally, my partner and I do the latter. The idea of separate pots and separate accounts and one mixed fund etc makes no sense to us. But that's us. The first step for you in deciding on an approach is to know yourselves as people - and everything else will follow. "We've had everything in one pot almost from day one of marriage. The key ingredients to making that arrangement work is to communicate about the money, and realize that you're in it together.  Everything one person does affects the other. Separating finances compartmentalizes the ""affecting one another"" part and makes it a little clearer perhaps, but I can also see it creating a sense of entitlement: ""This is my money.""  There should be a place for individual discretionary spending, of course, but I'm not sure that roping off that money is the best way to do it. It's less likely to be viable if there's one main breadwinner in the house.  In our house, this is me.  If we separated the finances like this, it would amount to giving my wife an allowance.  Since she works harder at home than I do at work most of the time (she keeps the house, does meals and shopping, raises and schools our daughter, etc.) but just doesn't get paid for it, it would border on insult to her to treat the finances this way." My wife and I have a different arrangement.  I like to track everything down to the transaction level.  She doesn't want everything tracked.  We have everything joint and I track everything except she has one credit card where I do not see the statements only the total.  She is more comfortable, because she can buy things without me seeing the price for individual transactions. Here are the main ways of doing this that I've encountered. I've met advocates of each. You might be interested in this set of articles: http://www.slate.com/id/2281885/ which looks at some different ways of doing this and the financial - and other - effects. "My wife and I maintain seperate accounts. We have the bills split between us so that certain bills are paid by one of us, and other bills by the other. This is not a perfect 50/50 split as we don't make the same amount of money, but comparable enough that neither feels like they're doing all the bills alone. Our investments are similar. That means we each have a pool of money that we can spend on toys or entertainment as we see fit without overspending. Once my bills are paid and my savings are paid for the month, if I want to go buy some DVDs and my wife wants to buy a new lens for the camera, we don't have to agree. We just use our own money and do it. For us that's led to minimal friction or arguments over what to spend money on, simply because we aren't using the same pool. Getting it work requires getting the split right AND having the mindset that the other person is just as entitled to spend their share of the money as you are to spend yours. It really helps to eliminate issues where she spent money that I expected to be able to spend before I could, which can happen in a joint account. (We have no joint accounts, only things like the mortgage are in both our names.) I've been told by more then one person that how we're doing it is ""wrong"", but it works a lot better for us then trying to combine finances ever did. I think it also helps that we're younger, and this seems far less common amongst older couples." "This particular topic has probably been beaten to death already.  But from the other comments, it seems that splitting finances them is a popular solution on this forum.  I can see the individual benefit of this - makes it easy to go buy whatever you want.  But it can hurt too.  What if the situation changes, and you are no longer employed?  Your setup will cause stress because now you are having to ask your spouse to pay for everything.  If this works for you - congratulations.  But, fights may ensue - divorce may follow. I would like to offer an alternative.  In my situation, I bring home a paycheck, while my wife does not.  In this case, each of us paying 50% would simply not work.  Not to say my wife doesn't work - she works her butt off cleaning house, raising kids, etc. What we do is have any money that comes in go into a pot.  We budget (Oh no, the B-word!) out regular expenses (lights, gas, rent).  Anything that isn't allocated goes towards retirement savings (In the US, an IRA is an Individual Retirement Account), or towards a war-chest for big project (such as home ownership).  And each of us gets the same ""blow money"" allowance every week that we can do with as we please. Keep in mind, using this mentality allows the possibility of me staying home at some point in the future when my wife goes back to her dream job.  And there is no financial stress about ""whom owns what"", or ""who paid for what"".  We own it because we decided to pay for it." I personally think that you should do whatever you believe works best. I am not married but when I get married I would also want to do what you are doing with having a joint account for certain things but also still having seperate accounts. I find this is a good approach so that neither of you is dependent finanically on the other one. Also, if you want to buy a present for your wife you would do it with your own money and not the joint account money. I hope my answer helps.
"Personally I would advise only buying what you can afford without borrowing money, even if it means living in a tent. Financially, that is the best move. If you are determined to borrow money to buy a house, the person with income should buy it as sole owner. Split ownership will create a nightmare if any problems develop in the relationship. Split ownership has the advantage that it doubles the tax-free appreciation deduction from $250,000 to $500,000, but in your case my sense is that that is not a sufficient reason to risk dual ownership. Do not charge your ""partner"" rent. That is crazy." "There are different approaches, but here is what we do and what I recommend.  Now that you are officially a married couple, open a joint bank account, and eliminate your individual accounts.  There are several reasons for this. Having a joint account promotes unity and teamwork.  When you only have a joint account, you do not have ""your income"" and ""her income,"" or ""your expenses"" and ""her expenses.""  You work together in everything.  You discuss your goals and set your household budget together.  If one of you makes more money than the other, that person is no longer ""worth more,"" because your incomes are pooled together.  If one person with a higher income has more in their account than the other person does, it can lead to envy, which you do not want in your marriage. Having a joint account is more efficient and makes more sense.  With separate accounts, who pays the rent/mortgage?  Who pays the utilities, or buys the food?  If you have separate accounts, it takes a lot of work to worry about what is ""fair"" when deciding how to divide up the expenses.  With a single household budget and a joint account, you decide together what the household expenses are, and they get paid from one account.  If one of you has debt, you both have debt.  You work together to get it paid off and strengthen your financial situation in the process. Having a joint account forces you to discuss your finances together.  Working toward common financial goals together is crucial in a strong marriage, but if you maintain your separate accounts, you might be tempted to put off these discussions until you are forced to by life circumstances.  It is better to work together from the start, and joining your finances facilitates that. You are intending your marriage to last.  Live your financial life like you believe that you are a team for life.  If you live in a community property state, separate accounts are a fiction anyway; everything is treated as if it was pooled together in the event of a divorce. I understand that if you are used to having your own money, it can be difficult to give up that sole control over your income, but in my opinion, it is worth it.  You will certainly hear of examples from couples who maintain separate accounts and make it work.  In my humble opinion, combining your finances completely is easier to do right." Obviously, there are many approaches. I’ll describe what we do and why we think it is successful. I have seen many couples having disagreements and even divorce over money; it seems that this is a typical reason to fight and sometimes fight badly. The realization is that different people have different preferences what to spend their money on, and if you are not rich, it continuously leads to disagreements - ‘did you really need another pair of shoes?’, etc. Our solution is a weekly allowance. First, all our money goes into one pot and is considered equal. Many couples find that a difficult step, but I never thought twice about it - I trust my spouse, and I share my life with her, so why not my money? From this, we agree on an ‘allowance’ that is used to cover any non-common cost; this includes all clothing, dining out, buying things, etc. The amount was chosen to match about what we spent for those things anyway, and then adjusted annually. The main point is that there is no critique allowed about what this is spent on - you can blow it all on shoes, or buy books, or wine and dine, or gamble it away, whatever. We are doing this since 23 years now, and we are very happy with the results; we never have financial ‘fights’ anymore. Disadvantages are the effort - you need to keep track of it somehow. Either you use a separate credit card, or hand it out in cash, or have a complete accounting (I do the latter, because I want to). Regarding all other spend, we use the accounting to plan ahead for at least a year on all cost and income that are expected, and that shows us the available cash flow and where it might get tight. It also shows you where the money goes, and where you could cut if cutting is needed (or wanted). Again, there is some effort in collecting the data, but it is worth it (for us). In Ontario, common law marriage requires 3 years of cohabitation, and doesn't give rights to property (which remains separate). I'd say in your situation you can still file as single, but I'd suggest asking your tax accountant to be sure. If it makes your finances easier, why not? My wife and I had his/hers/our since before we were married. I also have an account to handle transactions for my rental property, and one extra for PayPal use. I was paranoid to give out a checking account number with authorization for a third party to debit it, so that account has a couple hundred dollars, maximum. All this is just to explain that your finances should be arranged to simplify your life and make you comfortable. I won't answer in a detailed manner because most people at this site like answers with certain bias' on these questions, like pool resources always relative to which partner is asking.  If you follow the above advice, you are hoping things work out.  Great!  What if they don't?  It will be very messy.  Unlike most of my peers, I did NOT follow the above advice and had a very clean exit with both of us feeling very good (and no lawyers got involved either; win-win for both of us with all the money we saved). One assumption people make is the person with the lowest income has the strictest limits.  This is not always true; I grew up in poverty, but have a very high income and detest financial waste.  I can live on about €12,000 a year and even though my partner made a little less, my partner liked to spend.   Counter intuitive, right?  I was supposed to be the spender because I had a large income, but I wasn't.  Also, think about an example with food - sharing expenses.  Is it fair for one partner to split whey protein if one partner consumes it, but the other doesn't (answer: in my view, no)? My advice based on your questions: Balance the frugal vs. spendthrift mentality rather than income ratios.  If you're both frugal, then focus on income ratios - but one may be more frugal than the other and the thought of spending €300 a month on housing is just insane to a person like me, whereas to most it's too little.  Are you both exactly the same with this mentality - and be honest? Common costs that you both agree on can be easily split 50-50 and you can often benefit from economies of scale (like internet, cell phone). Both of us feel very strongly about being financially independent and if possible we both don't want to take money from each other. This is so healthy for a relationship.  My partner and I split and we both still really love each other.  We're headed in different directions, but we did not want to end bitterly.  What you wrote is part of why we ended so well; we both were very independent financially.   Kids are going to be a challenge because they come with expenses that partners don't always agree on.  What do you and her think of childcare, for instance?  You really want to know all this upfront; again a frugal vs. spendthrift mindset could cause some big tensions. "Before you are married, I recommend keeping your finances separate.  However, once you are married, I recommend combining your finances completely. In my opinion, marriage works best when you work together as a team, a single unit.  You no longer have ""his money"" and ""her money,"" or ""his income"" and ""her income.""  Nor is there ""his debt"" and ""her debt.""  There is only ""our money,"" ""our income,"" ""our debt,"" and ""our budget.""   Indeed, if you are the one with less debt, isn't it in your household's best interest to help eliminate your spouse's debt as fast as possible?  If you are the one with more income/employment, how do you quantify the monetary value of the spouse who stays at home more and manages the household?  You can't, and it is best not to try.  Instead, pool together all income and expenses, and work together to meet common goals. To do this, open up a joint bank account and close your individual accounts. Meet on a regular basis to decide your household budget.  If you do that, it doesn't matter who is responsible for the mechanics of paying the bills or balancing the budget.  These tasks just get assigned to someone, just like any other household chore. Usually, one of you will be more financially minded than the other, and that person will take the lead in setting the budget, paying the bills, balancing the checkbook, etc.  However, it is important that both people are aware of what is going on and have access to the financial information.   In our house, I am the one who takes the lead on financial matters.  I pay the bills (out of our joint accounts) and set the monthly budget using YNAB software.  However, my wife has the ability to look at YNAB at any time to see the budget, and she can log into the bank website to see the transactions there as well.  No secrets. To be clear, we each have a small amount of cash/fun money that we can spend without worrying about checking in with the spouse on every little thing.  But this is a small percentage of our budget, and we talk to each other before spending any significant amount of money." Well the idea of 'good practice' is subjective so obviously there won't be an objectively correct answer. I suspect that whatever article you read was making this recommendation as a budgeting tool to physically isolate your reserve of cash from your spending account(s) as a means to keep spending in check. This is a common idea that I've heard often enough, though I don't think I am alone in believing that it's unnecessary except in the case of a habitual spender who cannot be trusted to stay within a budget.  I suppose there is a very small argument to be made about security where if you use a bank account for daily spending and that account is somehow compromised, the short-term damage is limited. In the end, I would argue that if you're in control of spending and budgeting, have a single source of income that is from regular employment, and you use a credit card for most of your daily spending, there's no compelling reason to have more than one bank account.  Some people have a checking and savings account simply for the psychological effect of separating their money, some couples have 3-4 accounts for income, personal spending, and savings, other people have separate accounts for business/self-employment funds, and a few people like having many accounts that act as hard limits for spending in different categories. Of course, the other submitted answer is correct in noting that the more accounts that you have, the more you are opening yourself up to accounting issues if funds don't transfer the way you expect them to (assuming you're emptying the accounts often). Some banks are more lenient with this, however, and may offer you the option to freely 'overdraft' by pulling funding from another pre-designated account that you also hold at the same bank. There would be no point to claim the gift exemption because a gift from a spouse that you file jointly with wouldn't be considered income. It would be the same as if you moved money from one bank account to another. "These sort of issues in structuring your personal finances relative to expenses can get complicated quickly, as your example demonstrates.  I would recommend a solution that reduces duplication as much as possible- and depending on what information you're interested in tracking you could set it up in very different ways. One solution would be to create virtual sub accounts of your assets, and to record the source of money rather than the destination.  Thus, when you do an expense report, you can limit on the ""his"" or ""hers"" asset accounts, and see only the expenses which pertain to those accounts (likewise for liabilities/credit cards). If, on the other hand, you're more interested in a running sum of expenses- rather than create ""Me"" and ""Spouse"" accounts at every leaf of the expense tree, it would make much more sense to create top level accounts for Expenses:His:etc and Expenses:Hers:etc.  Using this model, you could create only the sub expense accounts that apply for each of your spending (with matching account structures for common accounts)." Being new does not allow me yet to vote on your question, but what a good question it is. We share our opinion in separating finances in our very well going mariage. Currently I have found a sort of okay solution in two websites. These are http://www.yunoo.nl and http://www.moneytrackin.com/. You can actually tag spendings with multiple tags.  I don't like the idea that the data is on a remote server, but since I have not found a proper  local software solution, I just naively trust their promise that your data is save. Then again our financial situation is not that special. The basis of the home is the cost of land and material. That's it.  Your time isn't added to basis. No different than if you spend 1000 hours in a soup kitchen. You deduct miles for your car and expenses you can document but you can't deduct your time.  Over 2 years, you could have a gain up to $500K per married couple and pay no tax. "First, filing status. If you and your wife are legally married, you should be filing your tax returns as married, either jointly or separately. In the US, ""head of household"" has a specific meaning and is for unmarried people who are supporting one or more relatives, per the IRS. If you are working full-time and your wife is not, then likely you will file a joint return, including all your income and all the expenses for your wife's business. So yes, the losses in her business will offset your income. Depending on how complex things are, you may want to hire a professional to help with your taxes. The rules for what can and cannot be deducted as a business expense can be opaque." HSAs are very similar to IRAs. Any investment returns grow tax-deferred and once you reach age 59 1/2 65, you can withdraw the funds for any purpose (subject to ordinary income tax), just like a traditional IRA. If you can afford to do so, I would recommend you to pay medical expenses out-of-pocket and let the funds in your HSA accumulate and grow. In general, the best way to allocate your funds is in the following order: Contribute to a 401(k) if your employer matches funds at a substantial rate Pay off high-interest debt (8% of more in current environment in 2011) Contribute to an IRA (traditional or Roth) Contribute to an HSA Contribute to a 401(k) without the benefit of employer matching One advantage of HSAs versus IRAs is that you don't have to have earned income (salary or self-employment income) in order to contribute. If you derive income solely from rents, interest or dividends, you can contribute the maximum amount ($3,050 for individuals in 2011) and get a full deduction from your income (Of course, you will need to maintain a high-deductible health plan in order to qualify). One downside of HSAs is the lack of competitively priced providers. Wells Fargo offers HSAs for free, but only allows you to keep your funds in cash, earning a very measly interest rate, or invest them in rather mediocre and expensive Wells Fargo mutual funds. Vanguard, known for its low-fee investment options, provides HSAs through a partner company, but the account maintenance charges are still quite high. Overall, HSAs are a worthwhile option as part of your investment plan. "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-06/are-low-interest-rates-bad-for-growth) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; James Chessen, the chief economist of the American Bankers&amp;#039; Association, said in a June 5 interview, &amp;quot;Interest rates have been too low for too long. It has created a problem for banks.&amp;quot; The Independent Community Bankers of America, which represents smaller U.S. banks, believes that &amp;quot;Higher interest rates would be a net plus for the community banking sector that would help them extend more credit,&amp;quot; according to spokesman Paul Merski.  &gt; Officials at the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan are sensitive to the side effects of extremely low or even subzero interest rates.  &gt; In a May 24 speech in Madrid, ECB President Mario Draghi acknowledged that low policy rates &amp;quot;May compress banks&amp;#039; net interest margins and thus exert pressure on their profitability.&amp;quot; But he said that ECB researchers found that taking into account offsetting beneficial effects, &amp;quot;The overall impact of our measures on bank profitability was positive.""   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6fodm5/is_the_world_overdoing_low_interest_rates/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~138044 tl;drs so far."") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **rate**^#2 **interest**^#3 **Low**^#4 **Calomiris**^#5"