OT - Couples and buying stuff together

DonDaddyD

See it's all about perspective...

NGale wrote:

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.

Fair enough, the difference from me I suppose is that while I am the bread winner its not a huge amount of difference as to mean we live different lifestyles.

Say for example I earned double what Ms DDD wanted, I'd still expect her to contribute and pay half the bills but not pay half for a TV lets say.

The TV would also be something we could both afford. For example I was looking at a 40inch Samsung I Currys yesterday for about £400. Then a 46inch caught my eye as did a lovely 40inch LED Samsung TV, both were around the £600. Now if Ms DDD and I agreed a price (£400) and I suddenly wanted bigger or bettter than, I would personally pay the £200 difference that my desire demands.

I eat more food so I pay more food money, which is fair.

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

It does suck.

I think being in London has its positives and negatives.

NGale

DonDaddyD wrote:

See it's all about perspective...


I eat more food so I pay more food money, which is fair.

Damn I need to get Jake to do that, he eats all the food I pay for it.

rhext

DonDaddyD wrote:

Say for example I earned double what Ms DDD wanted, I'd still expect her to contribute and pay half the bills but not pay half for a TV lets say.

Dear me, is this a relationship or are you just renting the poor lady a room?

CiB

DonDaddyD wrote:

See it's all about perspective...

Say for example I earned double what Ms DDD wanted, I'd still expect her to contribute and pay half the bills but not pay half for a TV lets say.

The TV would also be something we could both afford. For example I was looking at a 40inch Samsung I Currys yesterday for about £400. Then a 46inch caught my eye as did a lovely 40inch LED Samsung TV, both were around the £600. Now if Ms DDD and I agreed a price (£400) and I suddenly wanted bigger or bettter than, I would personally pay the £200 difference that my desire demands.

You're still not seeing it though DDD. Over time it balances up, but it doesn't matter anyway. The reality is that you'll both probably end up paying a roughly equivalent proportion of your income on life. Asking her to contribute to the TV is a bit mean. Who pays for the bed? Whoever sleeps longest on a Sunday morning? It's not about being fair, or fairer, it's about being a couple, not two people sharing a lifestyle.

BTW, look at the Panasonic range. Well worth a look and come with built in FV + Freesat HD tuners some of em, v good they are too.

DonDaddyD

I have lost complete control over the food.

She cooks the majority of it (cooking is her hobby) and does the food shopping so I simply hand over the money. Recently she told me it wasn't enough, so I gave her a bit more.

I've also placed her in charge of the joint account. Halifax are quite simply the most evil bank in this Country.

The utility bills and Council Tax I take care of.

Rent, tax and bills are divided equally. I think I pay a little more for food (that may not be exactly true she'll buy in addition to the weekly shop).

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

See it's all about perspective...

NGale wrote:

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.

Fair enough, the difference from me I suppose is that while I am the bread winner its not a huge amount of difference as to mean we live different lifestyles.

Say for example I earned double what Ms DDD wanted, I'd still expect her to contribute and pay half the bills but not pay half for a TV lets say.

The TV would also be something we could both afford. For example I was looking at a 40inch Samsung I Currys yesterday for about £400. Then a 46inch caught my eye as did a lovely 40inch LED Samsung TV, both were around the £600. Now if Ms DDD and I agreed a price (£400) and I suddenly wanted bigger or bettter than, I would personally pay the £200 difference that my desire demands.

I eat more food so I pay more food money, which is fair.

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

It does suck.

I think being in London has its positives and negatives.

Whilst you're both working, that might work fine, but assuming the longer term plan all comes to pass and some mini-DDDs arrive, Ms/Mrs DDD is not going to be able to contribute an equal share financially unless she has some amazing maternity pay package. I think it helps to not think in purely financial terms - it's possible to make a huge contribution to a family without bringing in any money at all. Similarly, focusing on the money side of things can tend one to think, "Hey, I bring in all the money, I've done my bit. Where's my dinner?", which is never going to end well.

asprilla

I pay for everything day to day, Mrs A saves for rainy days and big ticket items.

Works at the moment, particularly as Mrs A has been on statutory maternity pay for 6 months (less than minimum wage) so she's been using her savings rather than asking for pocket month.

rjsterry

Thinking about it some more, a joint account that you both put everything into might be a good idea for you DDD. the money immediately becomes 'ours', so there's no argument about who is spending too much or not enough on luxuries or bills respectively; it's all your (plural) money.

As others have said, you seem to be applying an argument that might apply if you were just flat sharing, but you're a couple, not flatmates.

DonDaddyD

CiB wrote:

You're still not seeing it though DDD. Over time it balances up, but it doesn't matter anyway. The reality is that you'll both probably end up paying a roughly equivalent proportion of your income on life.

I do get, it's swings and roundabouts, I bought us ribs the other night, she paid for the three bottles of wine on bank holiday Monday. You can't put enjoyment and time spent enjoying each other down to a fraction.

But,

A lot of people my age or of my 'have now save later' generation have insecurities around wealth, bills, who pays for what. I suppose its because the vast majority of us are debt ridden and so why we are so willing guard what we have. Example: LiT and the pre-relationship prenump. To me (and I think her, maybe Sewingman, IlPrince, Clever Pun as well ) putting all our money in a single pot to be used between us and our significant other is just unthinkable, it leaves no security or hardfought independence. Thus is the social conscience of my generation.

Asking her to contribute to the TV is a bit mean. Who pays for the bed? Whoever sleeps longest on a Sunday morning? It's not about being fair, or fairer, it's about being a couple, not two people sharing a lifestyle.

We go 50/50 on the bills and because our money doesn't just go into a single pot, any large purchases TV, Bed etc do take a concious sharing of the costs. Deciding what those items are however is an ongoing debate.

BTW, look at the Panasonic range. Well worth a look and come with built in FV + Freesat HD tuners some of em, v good they are too.

Will take a look.

asprilla

Oh yeah, the Samsungs suck badly compated to the Panasonics. Panny inherited a lot of Pioneer's technology when they (to much wailing and nashing of teeth by me) exited the market.

tailwindhome

I sometimes wonder how this all relates to 'feminism' and 'consumerism'

My grandfather worked every day as a bricklayer while my grandmother stayed at home in the traditional wife role.

His role in the family was to bring home his wage packet which he would literally hand over to her on a Friday so the bills etc could be paid, he would not see it again, save for a couple of pounds for green fees and the odd flutter on the horses

She did everything around the house, that was her role in the family, the kitchen her domain and was a virtual no go area for him. From the day she got married she never worked a day outside the home.

The were blissfully happy for 50 years until she passed away.


I can't help thinking that due to a combination of feminism and the consumerist desire for more stuff we have lost something

Is any women balancing career & family really happier than my grandmother was?

Do we need big screen TVs that much?

DDD wrote:

She cooks the majority of it (cooking is her hobby) and does the food shopping so I simply hand over the money. Recently she told me it wasn't enough, so I gave her a bit more.

She is sooo lucky.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

Thinking about it some more, a joint account that you both put everything into might be a good idea for you DDD. the money immediately becomes 'ours', so there's no argument about who is spending too much or not enough on luxuries or bills respectively; it's all your (plural) money.

As others have said, you seem to be applying an argument that might apply if you were just flat sharing, but you're a couple, not flatmates.

But if I was sharing a flat I would buy everything myself and it would clearly be mine.

For it to both be 'ours' surely we would need to pay for the item together?

We won't have a single joint account* so to pay for things jointly we go into our own accounts and contribute either 50/50 or by the amount that we can feasibly give.

That's the system I'm just wondering on how you decide what to share the expensive of and what you don't. Example: I would happily jointly pay for a new oven. I wouldn't expect her to jointly pay with me for a new amplifier.

*Ms DDD does family law, defends parents from social services, custody battles etc. She sees daily the problems when splitting assets. I simply don't want to combine our salaries in that way, but rather have a joint account that pays bills and share the expense of other items.

CiB

TailWindHome wrote:

DDD wrote:

She cooks the majority of it (cooking is her hobby) and does the food shopping so I simply hand over the money. Recently she told me it wasn't enough, so I gave her a bit more.

She is sooo lucky.

I missed that bit. Do we laugh, smile knowingly, or just send condolonces to DDD when she's filtered enough money away to buy the Harley to ride away into the sunset sans DDD?

TailWindHome wrote:

Do we need big screen TVs that much?

Course not. We don't need anything over& above the basics, allowing for the Pyramid Of Needs that has wide-screen HD TVs at the top (or bottom if you prefer). Not needing something isn't the same as not wanting it, except for my elder son who never wants anything, but absolutely needs everything. Last one was a bigger TV to play his X-Box through. Want? Need? He needs his ears boxing that's what he needs. Or wants.

rjsterry

The consumerism bit, I'd agree with (massive TVs just look desperate to me). As or feminism, I think it's about having the choice. TWH's grandmother was happy, but I'm sure plenty weren't, or were happyish at best. Also professions entirely dominated by men aren't really the better for it.

CiB

rjsterry wrote:

massive TVs just look desperate to me

I used to think that too but then bought one for the World Cup. It sometimes looks a bit embarassing being seen to own big TV, but I used to spend vastly much higher amounts on bits of hi-fi and no-one ever told me that the quest for decent audio was a bad thing, but the quest for a decent picture somehow is. That Gorillas thing last night is vastly better as a bigger HD picture than on a small SD TV. But lets not go down that path. Each to their own.

NGale

Thankfully my TVs cost me nothing, it's for sure I would have never spent out on something like that otherwise. It would have been cheapest model avaliable othrwise.

Somethings are just more important than others and fancy TVs arn't one of them.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Thinking about it some more, a joint account that you both put everything into might be a good idea for you DDD. the money immediately becomes 'ours', so there's no argument about who is spending too much or not enough on luxuries or bills respectively; it's all your (plural) money.

As others have said, you seem to be applying an argument that might apply if you were just flat sharing, but you're a couple, not flatmates.

But if I was sharing a flat I would buy everything myself and it would clearly be mine.

For it to both be 'ours' surely we would need to pay for the item together?

We won't have a single joint account* so to pay for things jointly we go into our own accounts and contribute either 50/50 or by the amount that we can feasibly give.

That's the system I'm just wondering on how you decide what to share the expensive of and what you don't. Example: I would happily jointly pay for a new oven. I wouldn't expect her to jointly pay with me for a new amplifier.

*Ms DDD does family law, defends parents from social services, custody battles etc. She sees daily the problems when splitting assets. I simply don't want to combine our salaries in that way, but rather have a joint account that pays bills and share the expense of other items.

Ms DDD obviously knows far more about this than I do, but if you are getting married (which I think was her plan at least, but I may be scaring you off ) and having children, the fact that some money is in separate personal accounts rather than the Joint Bills Account won't make too much difference if it comes to splitting assets. I don't know if you'd be going for a church wedding, but the C of E standard wedding vows include the following.

...all that I am I give to you,
and all that I have I share with you...

I would guess that there is something similar in a secular wedding. Those are the terms of the contract.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

I sometimes wonder how this all relates to 'feminism' and 'consumerism'

My grandfather worked every day as a bricklayer while my grandmother stayed at home in the traditional wife role.

His role in the family was to bring home his wage packet which he would literally hand over to her on a Friday so the bills etc could be paid, he would not see it again, save for a couple of pounds for green fees and the odd flutter on the horses

She did everything around the house, that was her role in the family, the kitchen her domain and was a virtual no go area for him. From the day she got married she never worked a day outside the home.

The were blissfully happy for 50 years until she passed away.


I can't help thinking that due to a combination of feminism and the consumerist desire for more stuff we have lost something

Yes! That's it! It's the fault of the bloody women!

Tell you what - I'll build the pyre, while you round 'em up. Snap to it though - time is money!

soundninjauk

To be honest, I think you're overthinking this a little, and making it more complicated than it needs to be. I've found that part of living with my gf is a definite blurring of the line of where mine stops, and hers begins.

Our joint account is there for rent/food/council tax etc, and while I put a significant amount of my salary in there every month, a significant part of it I also keep to do with what I want, and it's exactly the same for her. She certainly doesn't fund her mild clothes shopping habit out of 'our' money, just the same as I don't buy new bike parts out of it. Even things like TVs are up in the air, as she sees precisely no need for an HD TV, whereas I see a definite need for HD TV and all the related bits and pieces...

She actually earns more than I do (as someone who is clawing their way up the ladder in the wonderful world of film/tv post production, my salary is not huge), but we still pay half and half for the big/important things in life.

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

Yes! That's it! It's the fault of the bloody women!

Now we both know that's not what I was (attempting) to say. Don't we?

Tell you what - I'll build the pyre, while you round 'em up

Who's going to make my dinner?


ETA I was going to edit my original post. Feminism was a clumsy choice of word.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

For it to both be 'ours' surely we would need to pay for the item together?

There's your trouble right there.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Yes! That's it! It's the fault of the bloody women!

Now we both know that's not what I was (attempting) to say. Don't we?

Maybe. Perhaps.

Who wants to know?

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Tell you what - I'll build the pyre, while you round 'em up

Who's going to make my dinner?

Oh, come on! You're never going to collect them all on the first pass.

Are you? :shock:

rjsterry

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

For it to both be 'ours' surely we would need to pay for the item together?

There's your trouble right there.

Indeed.

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Tell you what - I'll build the pyre, while you round 'em up

Who's going to make my dinner?

Oh, come on! You're never going to collect them all on the first pass.

Are you? :shock:

Maybe we could convince them to cook stuff in advance and freeze in portions.

It would take a lot of Tupperware but it just might work.

Wait, what am I thinking, we could just eat BBQ instead, that I can do.

That reminds me, I had a good hair removal tip for ITB.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Tell you what - I'll build the pyre, while you round 'em up

Who's going to make my dinner?

Oh, come on! You're never going to collect them all on the first pass.

Are you? :shock:

Maybe we could convince them to cook stuff in advance and freeze in portions.

It would take a lot of Tupperware but it just might work.

Wait, what am I thinking, we could just eat BBQ instead, that I can do.

That reminds me, I had a good hair removal tip for ITB.

I reckon he could adapt it to cauterize some of his suppurating sores and boils too.

rjsterry

Nah, we'd all kill ourselves off through food poisoning, from the undercooked meat.

It is odd that men tend to just do 'special' cooking - BBQs, Sunday roasts, etc. And then there's the whole carving the joint thing.

NGale

Jake has had to deal with the fact that I am rubbish at cooking, if he wants a proper meal he will eat in the wardroom and on a sunday if I'm not working I can just about rustle up a roast chicken. I'm also not bad at cottage pie and lasange. Anything else and I just can't be doing with it.

Beef no longer enters the house as I can't stand the stuff, so if he wants a steak then we eat out.

lost_in_thought

@DDD

You know it's a 'pre-nup' not a 'pre-nump', right? I don't know what numptials are exactly...

And actually I think there's a real element of truth in the 'it's the feminists' fault' line. Women can't have it both ways.

asprilla

lost_in_thought wrote:

@DDD

You know it's a 'pre-nup' not a 'pre-nump', right? I don't know what numptials are exactly...

And actually I think there's a real element of truth in the 'it's the feminists' fault' line. Women can't have it both ways.

They can, I've seen it on the internet.

Mrs Asprilla has been on maternity leave for 9 months and is going back to work tomorrow. She can't wait as she's been climbing the walls with boredom. If she had to stay at home and look after house and kids she'd go out of her mind.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Asprilla wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Women can't have it both ways.

They can, I've seen it on the internet.

Ooooowww! That's a LiT rolled up newspaper thumping offence, and no mistake...