OT - Couples and buying stuff together

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

Well quite. I imagine, for most, the only significant asset is the house, which is jointly owned anyway. It's not worth getting a lawyer involved over a couple of ISAs and a National Savings account.

This is why I don't believe in one pot of money, because splitting it becomes crazy.

I'd rather

She work and that's hers.

I work and that's mine.

Should a joint account happen, we would go half on that.

I've got a lot of time for women who don't want anything from ex-partners. Liz Hurley.... mmmmmmmm

lost_in_thought

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

So you've hidden this stuff away so nobody can find it. Presumably you can't spend it or someone will realise and the game's up, so remind me what the point is.

Just a thought, but if you do have children, all these assets from either party could be put into trust for the children, then the kids are set up nicely, and neither parent has any major assets worth fighting over. Probably some major issue I've overlooked, bu you wouldn't need to hide anything then.

The reality is that 99.99% of people need their assets day to day to support the lifestyles that they choose to lead. The notion of having enough spare to be worth hiding doesn't arise until you get to a pretty rarefied level of wealth.

Well quite. I imagine, for most, the only significant asset is the house, which is jointly owned anyway. It's not worth getting a lawyer involved over a couple of ISAs and a National Savings account.

Well, no, I disagree, some people are obsessive savers and put a lot of money away while they can, how much that is depends on their salary, but for example I was always told to have at the very least a year's salary in savings, if not much more.

lost_in_thought

DDD wrote:

When you get to that level people go to far reaching lengths to try and claim, steal or usurp your hard earned wealth

And you voted Labour? :P

jonginge

lost_in_thought wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

So you've hidden this stuff away so nobody can find it. Presumably you can't spend it or someone will realise and the game's up, so remind me what the point is.

Just a thought, but if you do have children, all these assets from either party could be put into trust for the children, then the kids are set up nicely, and neither parent has any major assets worth fighting over. Probably some major issue I've overlooked, bu you wouldn't need to hide anything then.

The reality is that 99.99% of people need their assets day to day to support the lifestyles that they choose to lead. The notion of having enough spare to be worth hiding doesn't arise until you get to a pretty rarefied level of wealth.

Well quite. I imagine, for most, the only significant asset is the house, which is jointly owned anyway. It's not worth getting a lawyer involved over a couple of ISAs and a National Savings account.

Well, no, I disagree, some people are obsessive savers and put a lot of money away while they can, how much that is depends on their salary, but for example I was always told to have at the very least a year's salary in savings, if not much more.

This is sense. Makes things a lot easier when unforeseeable expenses occur* or just when you need a deposit for a home.

* stupid boiler

DonDaddyD

You would hope that the person you marry, should it not work, would not go after those savings as they would understand how much they mean to you.

A little like my comics.

Getting divorced doesn't always mean destroying lives and taking as much as you can.

If that happened to me and Ms DDD had huge savings they would be hers, mine would be mine and we'd split the joint account. As for the house sell and split 50/50t or keep and reduce the maintinance costs. Kids are for the courts to decide. But really kids decide once they're old enough to say "I wanna live with mummy/Daddy".

mrushton

Just be sensible about it all. We live in the house I own but when we had an extension my partner went joint on the loan. She doesn't use the car so I don't expect her to pay for the running of the car. We split the utilities equally. Holidays are roughly equal but as I earn more I tend to pay a bit more but might say you buy the dinners out. She buys her clothes/cycle kit/repairs out of her money but I will chip in if it's something she really wants or can't stretch to.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Well quite. I imagine, for most, the only significant asset is the house, which is jointly owned anyway. It's not worth getting a lawyer involved over a couple of ISAs and a National Savings account.

This is why I don't believe in one pot of money, because splitting it becomes crazy.

I'd rather

She work and that's hers.

I work and that's mine.

Should a joint account happen, we would go half on that.

I've got a lot of time for women who don't want anything from ex-partners. Liz Hurley.... mmmmmmmm

I consider myself to be working for us rather than me, so whether it's in my account or our account makes no difference, once it's in one account or another it's ours. For example, Mrs RJS has just picked up my wheels from Pearson, and a new chain for the Dahon. There's no point me giving her some money for that as it's all the same money - it's just moving it around. We're like a mini communist state. My view may be coloured by the fact that we've been together since we were both at art college (14 years and counting, 6 years married).

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

So you've hidden this stuff away so nobody can find it. Presumably you can't spend it or someone will realise and the game's up, so remind me what the point is.

Just a thought, but if you do have children, all these assets from either party could be put into trust for the children, then the kids are set up nicely, and neither parent has any major assets worth fighting over. Probably some major issue I've overlooked, bu you wouldn't need to hide anything then.

The reality is that 99.99% of people need their assets day to day to support the lifestyles that they choose to lead. The notion of having enough spare to be worth hiding doesn't arise until you get to a pretty rarefied level of wealth.

Well quite. I imagine, for most, the only significant asset is the house, which is jointly owned anyway. It's not worth getting a lawyer involved over a couple of ISAs and a National Savings account.

Well, no, I disagree, some people are obsessive savers and put a lot of money away while they can, how much that is depends on their salary, but for example I was always told to have at the very least a year's salary in savings, if not much more.

Of the 0.01% who fall outside my sweeping generalisation, those "some people" would be that part of the 0.01% who aren't the 0.001% wealthiest segment of the general population.

I suspect.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

Getting divorced doesn't always mean destroying lives and taking as much as you can.

I

Wait until the lawyers turn up!

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

DDD wrote:

When you get to that level people go to far reaching lengths to try and claim, steal or usurp your hard earned wealth

And you voted Labour? :P

Lib dem actually :shock:

I don't want to be Tory, but I think I am. I love wearing a suit a brogues, walking through the City head held high and drinking on roof top bars. I imagine this is what the 80s was like, glorious! What the hell was everyone complaining about. I don't see why I should pay more percentage of tax than someone who earns less.

If this was Jamaica I'd vote Tory. Most of my family would. The belief is that the Tories don't best represent minorities, that's why they often lose out on their vote.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

I consider myself to be working for us rather than me, so whether it's in my account or our account makes no difference, once it's in one account or another it's ours. For example, Mrs RJS has just picked up my wheels from Pearson, and a new chain for the Dahon. There's no point me giving her some money for that as it's all the same money - it's just moving it around. We're like a mini communist state. My view may be coloured by the fact that we've been together since we were both at art college (14 years and counting, 6 years married).

This unsettles me. I mean sure, I'm glad it works for you. But I may go and get a pint after work, I don't want to feel guilty or have to ask because I'm using our money from the joint account.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I consider myself to be working for us rather than me, so whether it's in my account or our account makes no difference, once it's in one account or another it's ours. For example, Mrs RJS has just picked up my wheels from Pearson, and a new chain for the Dahon. There's no point me giving her some money for that as it's all the same money - it's just moving it around. We're like a mini communist state. My view may be coloured by the fact that we've been together since we were both at art college (14 years and counting, 6 years married).

This unsettles me. I mean sure, I'm glad it works for you. But I may go and get a pint after work, I don't want to feel guilty or have to ask because I'm using our money from the joint account.

It's OK DDD, I don't feel guilty buying a pint after work, nor does Mrs RJS for buying some new jewellery. If I went and blew what savings I do have on something gratuitous, then I would, and should - just because the money is technically yours, doesn't mean your not a an ar$ehole for spending it irresponsibly and selfishly.

EDIT: That's not to say that it always works seamlessly, but I can't see how having separate accounts would avoid any such disagreements on how money is spent. It's all very well saying, "it's my money, I'll spend it how I like" but that's not going to get you very far.

biondino

Hey DDD, did you see my offer of a 19" monitor on the "what bikme stuff have you bought" thread? Just checking in case you missed it.

shouldbeinbed

rhext wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

A (not by any means the only) solution:

Both parties put all their earnings into a single joint account. Everything comes out of that account. Simples.

Swings and roundabouts, and a self imposed restraint make it work.

What if:

You need a vacuum cleaner and a new TV

One person wants a Dyson and LG TV

The other person wants a Henry and Samsung LED TV

Who wins?

She does. Cause you're whipped and you know it.

Speaking on behalf of married men everywhere, I can confirm that LiT is right

don't you mean 'yes dear, you're quite right as always'

Me and Mrs SBIB have earned quite different wages over the years but it all goes into the same pot, we're married, its a joint venture thingy even if I do earn more and am the only one that knowh how to work the hoover and get the creases right in my shirts and ..... oh hang on :evil:

as for the pint after work, I get no grief over that and vice verca. The only hitch comes in the run up to christmas, going through the bank statement and spotting a £50 spend at the whisky shop can spoil the surprise a bit.

hmbadger

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I consider myself to be working for us rather than me, so whether it's in my account or our account makes no difference, once it's in one account or another it's ours. For example, Mrs RJS has just picked up my wheels from Pearson, and a new chain for the Dahon. There's no point me giving her some money for that as it's all the same money - it's just moving it around. We're like a mini communist state. My view may be coloured by the fact that we've been together since we were both at art college (14 years and counting, 6 years married).

This unsettles me. I mean sure, I'm glad it works for you. But I may go and get a pint after work, I don't want to feel guilty or have to ask because I'm using our money from the joint account.

It's OK DDD, I don't feel guilty buying a pint after work, nor does Mrs RJS for buying some new jewellery. If I went and blew what savings I do have on something gratuitous, then I would, and should - just because the money is technically yours, doesn't mean your not a an ar$ehole for spending it irresponsibly and selfishly.

EDIT: That's not to say that it always works seamlessly, but I can't see how having separate accounts would avoid any such disagreements on how money is spent. It's all very well saying, "it's my money, I'll spend it how I like" but that's not going to get you very far.

+1. Me and the missus have never had any sort of separate account since we moved in togther 25 odd years ago. As with RJS we work for the family unit. Often she hasn;t been working, for one reason or another. We made a joint conscious decision at onbe point for her to go part time to enable us to 'invest' in a change of job for me (to a more demanding and well paid job). So it gets complicated - any notion of yours and mine just would';t work.

Aidy

It always surprises me that people worry so much about partners paying their fair share.

I've always tended to get by by paying what I reckon is right - normally the issue ends up being that neither party wants to feel in debt to the other, and you argue over who gets to pay this time

That said, I've not done large appliance purchases with people, I'm sure it would end up working out in much the same fashion, though.

Agent57

My wife and I are both paid into the same joint account. From that, all the bills and household needs are met. We also pay ourselves "an allowance" into separate accounts each month. Personal stuff comes from that.

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

And you voted Labour? :P

Lib dem actually :shock:

I don't want to be Tory, but I think I am.

Truth is, you really voted Tory this time.

Wasn't so bad, was it? :twisted:

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

And you voted Labour? :P

Lib dem actually :shock:

I don't want to be Tory, but I think I am.

Truth is, you really voted Tory this time.

Wasn't so bad, was it? :twisted:

Nothing wrong with voting Tory

Unless you're a middle management health/public sector type with a vague job title and a job role which seems remarkably hard to pin down but has something to do with marketing and 'policy'

Then you're into turkey/christmas territory

NGale

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

And you voted Labour? :P

Lib dem actually :shock:

I don't want to be Tory, but I think I am.

Truth is, you really voted Tory this time.

Wasn't so bad, was it? :twisted:

Nothing wrong with voting Tory

Unless you're a middle management health/public sector type with a vague job title and a job role which seems remarkably hard to pin down but has something to do with marketing and 'policy'

Then you're into turkey/christmas territory

I wouldn't class Jake as 'middle management health/public sector type' and he voted Tory

Ok Posh school upper class type yes, but not middle management

I voted Labour in Exeter and my own father was standing for the Liberal Party in the City :roll:

shouldbeinbed

TailWindHome wrote:

Nothing wrong with voting Tory

Unless you're a middle management health/public sector type with a vague job title and a job role which seems remarkably hard to pin down but has something to do with marketing and 'policy'

Then you're into turkey/christmas territory

has someone been reading the Daily Mail book of lame cliches?

Nothing wrong with voting Tory if thats what you wanted to do, but if you put your cross in the Lib Dem box then you have every right to feel even more cheated that the rest of us.

tailwindhome

shouldbeinbed wrote:

has someone been reading the Daily Mail book of lame cliches?

Genius.

A cliche within cliche





Oh and Whooooooooooooooooooosh!

SamWise72

I'm on my second marriage; got sort of screwed, and sort of not, the first time round. Second time round, same deal; everything goes in the middle. We buy all the things that are needed (food, car servicing, bills), and what is left over is spent on things we'd like. This is facilitated by two things: a) I trust her. If I didn't trust her enough to share everything, there's now way I would have married her, and I'd rather trust her and be found wrong than not trust. we are generous, and both prioritise the other's happiness over our own. The stuff about wanting to stop each other buying comics or whatever else is bizarre; why would either of you want to stop the other doing things that make them happy? There are unspoken rules about the way this works (we evidently have a LOT less money than you); if I want to spend £20 on a bit of bike kit, I don't ask permission, neither does she if she picks up, for instance, a sewing machine for £50, but we think seriously together before getting a takeaway!

The thing is, we both want the other to be happy, and would tend towards giving up the things we want, if that was what was needed for the other to have their thing. This extends to other things like who gets lay-ins and how we spend our time, and I have to tell you, if you both are trying hard to be sure the other gets what they need, everybody wins. My previous wife was the opposite; she resented spending money on anything; spending more than £50 gave her the heebiejeebies, even if it was on something that was for her, and that she really needed. She also really resented any money or time I spent on things that I enjoyed. That sucked, and I don't recommend it. I have to say that if the instinct of both in a relationship is to deprive the other, then how to choose a freezer is the least of your worries. Just wait til you haven't slept for a week, and you're trying to decide who will get up and settle the baby.


It also strikes me that our approach to "stuff" is very different to many of you. The cooker came with the missus, but replaced one that was £20 from Freeads. The dishwasher and fridge/freezer came from Freecycle, so did one of the sofas (leather, beautiful, stylish, lovely condition, and being given away by someone who just wanted a newer one). The other sofa, a leather chesterfield, was £20 from the tip! The car cost £500, and we have a Merc 508 minibus which I've converted to a campervan, also £500. I got rid of my own car, which justifies my Brompton on Cyclescheme, but I wouldn't ordinarily spring £1000 on a bike (anyway, I can still skin you on my £20 80's 531 Gazelle from eBay). The amount of money people spend on stuff, I'd prefer to work half as much, and spend the time on doing things I love.

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

And you voted Labour? :P

Lib dem actually :shock:

I don't want to be Tory, but I think I am.

Truth is, you really voted Tory this time.

Wasn't so bad, was it? :twisted:

Nothing wrong with voting Tory

Unless you're a middle management health/public sector type with a vague job title and a job role which seems remarkably hard to pin down but has something to do with marketing and 'policy'

Then you're into turkey/christmas territory

Oooh I think that was a dig.

Actually, I'm senior management.

I'm not a ward manager or service manager, though some do excellent and worthwhile jobs. My remit, while marketing-esque (and no longer policy) is written into the Foundation Trust Consititution. Foundation Trust's (a new type of NHS Trust) are right up the Tory street; they can a make a surplus and keep it to reinvest in services whereas in the old system they had to give it back to central Government.

Basically, the Government - PCTs - now soon to be Doctors - can keep reducing the amount of money they give each Trust and the Trust (as has been the case) can still make a surplus (it's not a profit) because with less control from Central Government they can compete for services against other NHS Trusts and private healthcare providers. The surplus isn't used to give bonuses or increase salaries. Whether anyone agrees with the salaries or not that is what the powers that be have agreed.

While some hate the concept of a competitive public sector and believe it is a step too close to privatisation, I admire it. IMO it injects some private sector professionalism and competitiveness into a sector that can suffer from growing stagnant. Suddenly (for example) IT systems (and by this I mean upgrades to XP, Office 2003, live bespoke databases and having a network as oppose to standalone PCs i.e. pretty standard stuff) have to be upgraded to be able to work alongside the private sector and to ensure that the NHS doesn't go too corporate, the Directors are held to account by the Governors, who are inturn voted in by the public established as a membership. In short I think it works.

Right now, for me, things are good as long as the Tories stop at the current Healthcare changes and reforms before it simply becomes an ideological war against 13yrs of Labour.

They have frozen salaries but it doesn't affect me much. I believe in career progression and at 28 I'm still chasing my career. I'm not planing to earn more than what I do in this job, I do this job for experience, to utilise my skills because I believe it helps to make a difference and because I like it. They pay me against a predetermined scale, which in itself is determined by level of responsibility and the skills the job demands.

In most public sector jobs there is a pay band and in each band is a increasing scale. Meet the criteria and you go up the scale (I think one increment each year). Get to the top of the scale and want more money, then you really should be looking for another job. As it should be. I don't truly admire people who work in the public sector (lets say a PA) get £25,000pa and complain about wanting more money because they've worked there for 20yrs. Get another better paying job. Yes, I'm in a good position so it might seem easy for me to say but I was saying that when I first started working in the public full time and was earning £17,500pa and was the lowest paid person in the office (possible in the building).

I think teachers should be paid more. (Level of responsibility and skills the job demands)

NGale

It's a bit scary, myself and Jake are seriously considering buying a house together at the moment, and this coming from the man who won't get married again :?

Can't get much bigger than the house thing I don't think.

Oh and DDD, when I started working in the public sector I was on just under £13k pa as a graduate, so for you to start on £17k pa is damned lucky. I'm still on just a little over £16k now.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

And you voted Labour? :P

Lib dem actually :shock:

I don't want to be Tory, but I think I am.

Truth is, you really voted Tory this time.

Wasn't so bad, was it? :twisted:

Nothing wrong with voting Tory

Unless you're a middle management health/public sector type with a vague job title and a job role which seems remarkably hard to pin down but has something to do with marketing and 'policy'

Then you're into turkey/christmas territory

Oooh I think that was a dig.

Actually, I'm senior management.

.....

Right now, for me, things are good as long as the Tories stop at the current Healthcare changes and reforms before it simply becomes an ideological war against 13yrs of Labour.

I was a dig, but in fun rather than with malicious intent. 300 odd words later and I still don't know what you actually do. Not that it's any of my business and to be frank I probably already know far far to much about you.

The Tories won't stop, it'll be a feeding frenzy.

rjsterry

I was thinking the same on DDD's starting salary, even allowing for London-weighting.

I have heard it said that getting out of a marriage is easier than getting out of a mortgage, but thankfully I've never had to try either. Not to try to put the wind up you NGale, but the key phrase is 'jointly and severally liable'*. Scary stuff, but all the best things are. Nothing quite beats having your own place.


* Please feel free to correct this i you know more about the subject than me.

DonDaddyD

NGale,

Ms DDD and I decided to buy a house ages ago. Ideally we'll be paying half each and equally for the things that go into the house. If I have more money to contribute and that results in a nicer house with nicer things then I will pay more.

On salary:

There is always someone who earns more or earns less.

To be fair I live in London the perspective is different.

It was my first job after Uni. The job actually paid £14,000 (or £15,000 I forget) and was benefitted by the addition of London weighting. In my early - mid 20s, living in London I don't personally think it was that good a salary. I felt lucky to have the job and I made the most of it irrespective of my opinion of the salary.

But then the perspective is different. I'm sure LiTs uses that sort of money to stuff her duvet for added insulation in the winter months and Greg uses it (in a pile) as a TV stand...

DonDaddyD

I was a dig, but in fun rather than with malicious intent. 300 odd words later and I still don't know what you actually do. Not that it's any of my business and to be frank I probably already know far far to much about you.

The Tories won't stop, it'll be a feeding frenzy.

I know it wasn't malicious 'Never answer the question, only answer the question you want to answer'. My first full time job manager taught me that

In truth, with so much criticism aimed at the NHS sector I'd rather not say. There is bound to be someone on here who would complain.

I wrote the 300 words because I did some work, at home, over the weekend and forgot my every cruicial notepad so can't do the work now but need to sound like I'm typing away....

The Tories can only go so far, they've got no present opposition at the moment so they are acting hard and fast. Once 2012 Olympics gets out of the way (the money, investment and public appreciation generated), Labour leader establishes himself/persona then Clegg will either have to grow a pair or get a vote of no cofidence from his own party (especially when the Unions galvanize and the proper working class/hippy lefties come out from the trenches).

All it needs is a catayst then Lib dems or Clegg (who in my view is no longer a Lib Dem) will pull the rug from under the Conservatives (four years into the coalition or approaching the general election) and the next election might be one of the most exciting ever.

NGale

DonDaddyD wrote:

NGale,

Ms DDD and I decided to buy a house ages ago. Ideally we'll be paying half each and equally for the things that go into the house. If I have more money to contribute and that results in a nicer house with nicer things then I will pay more.

On salary:

There is always someone who earns more or earns less.

To be fair I live in London the perspective is different.

It was my first job after Uni. The job actually paid £14,000 (or £15,000 I forget) and was benefitted by the addition of London weighting. In my early - mid 20s, living in London I don't personally think it was that good a salary. I felt lucky to have the job and I made the most of it irrespective of my opinion of the salary.

But then the perspective is different. I'm sure LiTs uses that sort of money to stuff her duvet for added insulation in the winter months and Greg uses it (in a pile) as a TV stand...

In an ideal world I would contribute half to the household, in reality that isn't and won't happen. Even with my planned career change I will still be earning significantly less.

Being in London you are kind of luck. London weighting on wages makes all the difference, here in Devon we have London costs of living only without the wages to cover it