His, Hers, Ours

[maat55]

As Christians, our household has always been joint in most all decissions. Decissions that I am more suited for are left to me and ones DW are suited for, are left to her.

I do not win all decissions, but when push comes to shove, I have the last word. Decissions like: Dating, belly earrings, large purchases etc., I have the last say on.

In many of the threads, the subject of separate finances comes up. I've stated that ours are joint, but many have separation.

Out of curiosity, how do those of you with separation, solve a situation when you both strongly dissagree? Biblically, I'm the head of the household and we have never dissagreed on that. And as I have said, that does not mean I decide ALL disagreements. But, at some point, someone has to have the final authority, IMO.

How do you solve this issue?

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by maat55

Out of curiosity, how do those of you with separation, solve a situation when you both strongly dissagree?

I think the same question applies just as well to those of us who keep our money joint. In either case, there needs to be agreement on spending. If my wife decides to go out and buy our daughter a shotgun for her birthday (which would never happen but I was trying to think of an extreme example), I'd raise hell no matter where the money was coming from.

I'll have to give this some thought, but in 16 years of marriage and over 18 together with joint finances, I can't think of any situation offhand where we had a strong disagreement on a spending issue. As I said in another thread yesterday (I think), if the two partners are compatible in their financial mindset, it doesn't matter if money is joint or separate because you will still be working together toward common goals.

[jIM_Ohio]

There are so many issues wife and I disagree on, we deal with each issue one at a time. Often it becomes a compromise- if you do this, then I will agree to do that.

For example wife wanted ballet and I wanted to go to hooters, so wife agreed to go to hooters- ONCE- if I took her to the ballet.

My kids do not have earings or belly button rings yet. I am relatively liberal and my wife is very prissy and particular about appearences, so the policy will probably be something like you can do it if others cannot see it. For example my tatoo can only be see if I don't wear socks.

I am in no position to talk about how joint accounts work. I could only talk about how I think they should work.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Boy maat, if my DH thought he was the biblical head of the household and had last word, I would not be married. I am an equal partner in my marriage and I have equal say. There is no final decision. There is only joint decisions.

And joint decisions come from compromise and/or educated money numbers.

I've always wondered how women can let their husbands make the financial decisions when they oppose it?

But maybe it works better if people gives in.

[ScrimpAndSave]

Final say? Head of the household?

::rolls eyes::

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by LivingAlmostLarge

And joint decisions come from compromise

But maybe it works better if people gives in.

I think "compromise" and "give in" are often just different terms for the same thing.

[maat55]

Originally Posted by LivingAlmostLarge

Boy maat, if my DH thought he was the biblical head of the household and had last word, I would not be married. I am an equal partner in my marriage and I have equal say. There is no final decision. There is only joint decisions.

And joint decisions come from compromise and/or educated money numbers.

I've always wondered how women can let their husbands make the financial decisions when they oppose it?

But maybe it works better if people gives in.

My comment was not to appear cavemanish. DW gives more respect to that tradition than I. I'm sure there are many reasons you and I would not be compatible. But again, I carry no club.

I never allowed belly rings and my older daughter after going to college, had one for a short period then took it out because she agreed it was stupid.

There are very few occurances where I put my foot down and there have been times when DW did. Besides, i'm not here to argue the bible, I didn't make the rules.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Married 23 years, together something like 28 years. Totally combined finances. We have always agreed on what to do. Why would anyone need to be the final decision maker? I would include decisions about navel piercing, dating, and large purchases in that, too. We've just never not been able to find an agreement--without arguing or grudges either. Similar values, similar goals, and growing together over time makes coming to loggerheads just about unimaginable.

If a particular family wants to have a back-up final decision maker, how would they choose whom it is to be? I imagine maat55's thing about a back-up decision maker means it must be a man. But what about in a family without grown men? Say there is a woman, the woman's sister-in-law, and two children, a household situation I know of. Is this a "headless" household, unable to make a settle on a decision? I don't think so. They probably would serve as a good example in shared decision-making for married couples who have trouble with it.

[seattlemanicurist]

Firstly my SO and I are athiest, and as such the bible has little impact on our lives. We also don't have kids together and I got "fixed" so I can't have any more. I have a daughter with my ex husband and I pay all her expenses without contribution from SO, and make all of the decisions about parenting and custody along with her father.

As far as disagreements I would say that since we have separate finances we are in less of a position to have them in the first place. If SO wants to buy a guitar it doesn't matter if I think it's a waste because he already has 3 guitars. It's his money and my bills get paid whether he chooses to buy a guitar or not. Similarly if he wants to put 500$ a month towards his student loans to get them paid off faster, it's not taking any money from my bills, so that is also his decision to make. If he wants to spend 50$ on crab legs it's not taking any grocery money away from me and I will have food to eat either way. If I want to save up and buy myself a burial plot, then that's by decision and he doesn't have to agree to it because it's my money.

The only things we really have to agree on are where we live and what kind of internet and phone service we have. SO didn't want long distance because he gets it fro free in the evenings on his cell, but I don't have a cell so I wanted it and I pay for all of it. If I want to upgrade to a bigger fish tank and SO doesn't want to spend the money on it then it's up to me to either pay for it myself or live with the one we have. If there is something we both want then we agree on which one to get and we split the cost. It's very very simple and easy.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Disneysteve, you obviously have never talked with a religious couple like Maat. NOT picking on Maat, but I've meet women who actually believe their husband's are head of the household. They do not agree with their husband's financial decisions but have to allow it to happen because he is the "man".

That is not compromising DS. Sorry but it is a dictatorship.

No, people who wrote the bible (not God by the way) made the rules. And I believe the writers were MEN.

But I have no qualms about saying that there is no "final" decision maker in our household. We make joint decision with fair and equal say.

DS, I do not say to my DH you know best being a man. I also am not "compromising" because he's a man. Sometimes my DH compromises to me and I for him.

But heck I would not allow my husband to go ahead and do something completely stupid because he's the "man." I will go and post a story.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by seattlemanicurist

If I want to upgrade to a bigger fish tank and SO doesn't want to spend the money on it then it's up to me to either pay for it myself or live with the one we have.

I think your situation is inherently different because you aren't married, in which case you should keep separate finances.

I have a question, though. To use your example, what if you want the bigger fish tank and your SO doesn't, not because of cost but for other reasons, like he doesn't think it will look good in the room or it will raise the power bill or some other non-financial reason. Would you still go out and buy it just because it is your money to do with as you please?

I just don't get the whole "it's my money and I can do what I want with it" point of view when you are half of a couple (not directing that at you personally, just a general statement).

[disneysteve]

LAL, I didn't say compromise and give in were always the same, just that they are often the same.

If we have a choice of doing A or B, I want A and she wants B, in the end, one of us is going to get our way and one isn't. That's just the way it goes. But neither of us always has the final say. Sometimes she gives in and I get to do it my way, sometimes I give in and we do it her way.

[Seeker]

"Give in" is something my Mom would have done, because she didn't earn the money; Dad would have final authority and the final say: his word was law.

Old traditions (but that's they way it was done, and Mom in this case went along with everything); but both my folks are ESL (English as a Second Language). There's nothing wrong with this.... just culturally thinking as they were taught, and she went with the flow and that of itself was not a point of contention.

Times have changed however,; more woman work outside the home and want some say in financial matters. Along with the fact that woman usually outlive men, collaboration is in both the parties interest. Both should understand the financial picture/situation of the family as a whole. Even in other countries, now, I believe that the old fashioned way is melting away.

DH & I have separate accounts and joint accounts. Some things are held in my name alone and some as joint. Part of the separateness in our case is because of a BK in his past history, and the fact that I had a fully paid mortgage in my name before I even met him.

But now together, WE make decisions and collaborate on everything financially, though often it's like his response is "if we can afford it, do it." I pay the bills, balance the checkbook, move the moneys and we have a generous allowance that he can do whatever he wants to do with.

If I say "no" to him, then it's for a major reason that I explain my concerns fully. He has always agreed to my reasons. Sometimes I say "not now" or "not here" (meaning not in California -- to his wanting to purchase a motorcycle) and I explain why. And he understands that when we retire and get out of crazy California driving, and live on our land in another state away from city-driving -- that we will purchase a motorcycle for him. It's not that I'll deny this to him forever... it's that I'd rather have him with me and not worry about it everytime he hops on a motorbike to stress any telephone calls.

Marriage is compromise between peoples needs and wants. If there's understanding and reasons are understood, then there's no real reason for someone to have ultimate authority. There's usually compromise beforehand.

There are NO winners and losers in marriage -- because if your partner "loses" you've lost too. If your partner wins, you win. Ultimately it's all about sharing and understanding -- it shouldn't be a competition nor a fight.

[seattlemanicurist]

Originally Posted by disneysteve

I have a question, though. To use your example, what if you want the bigger fish tank and your SO doesn't, not because of cost but for other reasons, like he doesn't think it will look good in the room or it will raise the power bill or some other non-financial reason. Would you still go out and buy it just because it is your money to do with as you please?

There are several possibilities. I can put it in my own room (we have separate rooms). I can pay more towards the electric bill. It's always up for discussion as well. We are quite capable of negotiating and reaching compromises. We just prefer to not have to do it over every little thing.

[cptacek]

Originally Posted by Seeker

There are NO winners and losers in marriage -- because if your partner "loses" you've lost too. If your partner wins, you win. Ultimately it's all about sharing and understanding -- it shouldn't be a competition nor a fight.

hear hear!

[maat55]

Originally Posted by Seeker

"Give in" is something my Mom would have done, because she didn't earn the money; Dad would have final authority and the final say: his word was law.

Old traditions (but that's they way it was done, and Mom in this case went along with everything); but both my folks are ESL (English as a Second Language). There's nothing wrong with this.... just culturally thinking as they were taught, and she went with the flow and that of itself was not a point of contention.

Times have changed however,; more woman work outside the home and want some say in financial matters. Along with the fact that woman usually outlive men, collaboration is in both the parties interest. Both should understand the financial picture/situation of the family as a whole. Even in other countries, now, I believe that the old fashioned way is melting away.

DH & I have separate accounts and joint accounts. Some things are held in my name alone and some as joint. Part of the separateness in our case is because of a BK in his past history, and the fact that I had a fully paid mortgage in my name before I even met him.

But now together, WE make decisions and collaborate on everything financially, though often it's like his response is "if we can afford it, do it." I pay the bills, balance the checkbook, move the moneys and we have a generous allowance that he can do whatever he wants to do with.

If I say "no" to him, then it's for a major reason that I explain my concerns fully. He has always agreed to my reasons. Sometimes I say "not now" or "not here" (meaning not in California -- to his wanting to purchase a motorcycle) and I explain why. And he understands that when we retire and get out of crazy California driving, and live on our land in another state away from city-driving -- that we will purchase a motorcycle for him. It's not that I'll deny this to him forever... it's that I'd rather have him with me and not worry about it everytime he hops on a motorbike to stress any telephone calls.

Marriage is compromise between peoples needs and wants. If there's understanding and reasons are understood, then there's no real reason for someone to have ultimate authority. There's usually compromise beforehand.

There are NO winners and losers in marriage -- because if your partner "loses" you've lost too. If your partner wins, you win. Ultimately it's all about sharing and understanding -- it shouldn't be a competition nor a fight.

Your situation is much like mine. It sounds like you are the more financially aware of you two. It would be a disaster if I left our finances in DW's hands. I dominate our finances because I have too. Being the bread winner has nothing to do with our situation. I would in no way advocate higher authority to the bread winner. Only to the more financially responsible person.

[moneybags]

Originally Posted by maat55

Besides, i'm not here to argue the bible, I didn't make the rules.

But you choose to follow them.

Sorry, I just can't grasp the concept of "final authority". He's my husband, not my father. Decisions are made together.

[gamecock43]

my fiance and I are working out the kinks.
We have seperate finances and split bills 50/50. Likely we will always do this.

When there is a big decision to be made we discuss and agree on something. (yes buy it/no/who's going to pay for it) If fiance wants it and I dont approve...he finds a way to work it into christmas/birthday wishes or gets mom and dad to buy it for him. When i want something he does not approve...he sighs and then turns the 'you tell me we are saving for this...' and I have to justify it to the point that he gives up.

Overall, we are pretty much on the same page regarding big purchase priorities though.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by seattlemanicurist

I can put it in my own room (we have separate rooms).

As I said, your situation is different since you aren't married. You are what my friends used to call roommates with fringe benefits.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by maat55

I would in no way advocate higher authority to the bread winner. Only to the more financially responsible person.

That makes sense. In any relationship, each person will have their strengths, weaknesses and aptitudes. One of my strengths happens to be managing the finances, so that is my job. If DW is wondering if we can or should do a certain thing or spend for some particular purchase, she would never do it without consulting with me first since I'm the one handling the finances. If I think we can do it, I'll say so. If I think we can't, I'll explain why. So I guess in that sense, I have the final say, but I don't really think about it in those terms. It isn't like I'm sitting on the mountaintop saying, "Yes, you may buy that dress" or "No, you can not get that new vacuum cleaner." There is always a discussion and we work together to figure things out. Maybe that means finding a cheaper way to get the item in question by going online or finding a coupon or getting a refurbished model or finding a cheaper model that would still serve the purpose. It is never just a flat out ruling on my part.