His, Hers, Ours

[Ima saver]

Well my husband does most of the housework and cooking cause he does it better than I do. I handle the money cause I am good at finances.

[maat55]

Now maat, if you want to say the more financially responsible person, THEN i might agree. BUT (I'm lazy and don't want to use the quote), in your OP you specifically said

I get last say because I am the head of the household according to the bible. And someone needs final authority.

Why does someone need final authority? It's not a dictatorship, it's a partnership.

I hear what your saying and I agree that that couples should discuss all situations. But, I don't take my responsibility as a father and provider lightly. I wish I didn't have to take final authority at times but if I didn't, my kids would be wearing black, earings everywhere and we would be pennyless. My wife is a little liberal.

And I would like to point out, how would you feel if you had a daughter and she takes on a role like your wife of being submissive to the head of the household (her husband) who is financially incompetent but feels that the man runs the finances?

I have grilled my girls to pick their husbands based on compatibility with finances, religion, fathering material and providership. I have no further say in their affairs.

FWIW, my DH used to do all of the cooking. I didn't cook for almost 7 years. Now I do because he's busy. Instead I had to clean the house while he cooked. Female work? Nah. He just is a better cook and prefers not to eat my grub. He also grocery shopped and made menus. I always did laundry, vaccum, dust, etc.

I cook, vacuum and am the only one who cleans the bathrooms. I'm not one of those guy's who comes home and say's: where's my food. I don't believe in that kinda crap.

[maat55]

the tittle of this thread is interesting his, hers, ours


OURS= his/hers

my husband would never put himself first

I think you are misunderstanding me. I do not put myself first and everything we have is ours.(Except my golf clubs) This title is based on the fact that many here believe in separation while being combined. ( which seems to be an oxy moron, IMO)

I am the head of my household, because my wife say's I am. We just honor our christian beliefs. It's not an beat my chest thing. There are christians and non christians who do not honor any final authority and more power to them. My question has always been:

When both partners, couples, whatever do not agree on something that has to be decided, HOW DO YOU GET IT SOLVED?

[maat55]

Matt55,

First of all, if you only have $12K cash on hand, you wouldn't be shopping around to every car dealership looking for a car that fits your budget. You need to first do your own research, online and start comparing cars that meets you and your wife requirements (family need small car vs bigger car) You talk about the options plus tax, license, docs, and fees to determine "True Cost". Once you have narrow down the 2 cars with your wife in agreement, that's when you should go visit the dealership. This will eliminate any quabbles you and your wife might have. Perhaps your wife will realize, i need to be with my husband on this.

It's not a matter saying, "$12K Thats it...i'm the boss", but the way you and how approach you and your wife car buying experience will lead to less of disagreement and perhaps less resentments towards each other.

I agree 100% and that is exactly what I do. But anytime my wife gets involved in a shopping event, it can get out of hand. Thus I to make a call. When we are shopping for her car, she can get what she wants as long as we pay cash and it will last a while. You don't understand, if I gave my wife 12k and sent her out to buy a car, she would come back with the best looking piece of crap BMW she can find.

I will not borrow money to buy a car period. If she wishes to that, she can marry anyone else she wants.

[maat55]

Well my husband does most of the housework and cooking cause he does it better than I do. I handle the money cause I am good at finances.

Like you, we have found our groove.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

We solve the $12k car argument like normal people. Research and agree first. I don't think your situation is normal maat. Who goes to a dealership looking at cars?

I would sit with my DH like tripod and discuss what we need and why. Then list specifics and why we are considering certain cars. Look at Consumer Reports and Edmunds true cost to own. There would be very little disagreement over we need 4 doors, room for a carseat, etc.

And then we would discuss price. Each point has validation. If my DH said $12k and that's it I would be pissed.

If he said we should aim for $12k and this is why...
1. We have that much cash
2. We should not finance because we will need it for our next car
3. We don't have $12k, we only have $8k and will have to already finance $4k.

I will listen. But here's a rebuttal.
1. The car we both want is $14k. Is it worth walking away for $2k we don't have?
2. We don't need the second car now and shouldn't we have saved more?
3. If we're financing $4k why not just buy an $8k car?

Those are reasonable answers and questions that might go back and forth.

Now what is unreasonable? Final decision. It's gotta make us both feel satisfied or else what is the point of making a decision?

My DH might reply.
1. Okay I'm willing to do $2k finance if we pay it off in 4 months.
2. Okay we can consider the other car a seperate purpose/
3. We can wait for 1 year and buy with $12k cash

My reply would be.
1. Fair compromise, I can live with that
2. We should consider the second car as an independent purchase and discuss it seperately.
3. I agree, we can wait for 1 year, but if we save the $4k cash faster we can buy it in 6 months, provided that the car we want is available.

DH would say.
1. Okay we can buy a more expensive car.
2. Sure we'll talk later and do more research
3. I am willing to buy it sooner if we save it faster.

So why does there have to be a final decision?

[disneysteve]

When both partners, couples, whatever do not agree on something that has to be decided, HOW DO YOU GET IT SOLVED?

I think it varies on a case by case basis. We all know that sometimes you just have to choose your battles. So first I have to decide if my opposition is that strong that I really want to fight about it. And she has to decide the same thing. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we both feel very strongly about the issue. In those cases, one or the other of us, whichever seems to feel less strongly, will generally concede. Issue resolved. And there is always the little perk that if I'm the one that gave in and things don't turn out well, I get to say, "I told you so."

I can't really think of an example when we both were adamantly opposed to the other's view so I can't say how we handled it. If I think of one, I'll post it.

[maat55]

We solve the $12k car argument like normal people. Research and agree first. I don't think your situation is normal maat. Who goes to a dealership looking at cars?

Research and thought is what I do. Financing is not an option. I search graigslist and autotrader, thats how we found the car she has.

And then we would discuss price. Each point has validation. If my DH said $12k and that's it I would be pissed.

Here's where the trouble would be. Now we don't have this problem because DW leaves the financial decissions to me. We have agreed to save and pay cash for cars, we have established an monthly amount and the time frame is negotiable, thus establishing the amount we spend.

If he said we should aim for $12k and this is why...
1. We have that much cash
2. We should not finance because we will need it for our next car
3. We don't have $12k, we only have $8k and will have to already finance $4k.

I will listen. But here's a rebuttal.
1. The car we both want is $14k. Is it worth walking away for $2k we don't have?

Setting a boundry is setting a boundry. Compromising can become an addiction. Sticking to a plan involves dicsipline. We would just wait longer.

So why does there have to be a final decision?

I'm not really saying there is. Just that we have an established plan to go by. DW would have no problem financing, I would. DW would retire broke, I refuse too. I'm the only one dedicated to a financial plan, so I have to monitor everything. It sucks.

[skydivingchic]

It seems to me that financial issues on which there is strong disagreement between a couple are much easier solved when finances are seperate. Using the car purchase as an example, if she wants to purchase a $15k car instead of a $12k and therefore has to finance $3k, thats the way things will be. He has no say in the matter - that's the whole point of seperate finances.

DBF and I have seperate finances and split household bills 50/50. I pay for my own cars, he pays for his - whether or not any of the purchase is financed is up to the party doing the buying. I paid my student loans, he paid his - we each chose to take out the loans, we each paid back the debt. I pay for my share of vacation, he pays his. If I want to get my nails done and take ice skating lessons, there is no need to check with him - my money, my decision. If he wants to get a dirt bike, there is no reason for him to clear it with me - his money, his decision.

As DS has mentioned on several occasions, this system works very well for us because we are financially compatible. We both save substantially for retirement, we both have healthy reserve funds, we both pay bills on time and in full, we both have many of the same types of goals in life. If one of us was a big spender and one a saver, it wouldn't work. But then neither would combined finances if that was the case. Finances are one of those things that are (or at least should be, IMO) deal breakers in a relationship. Having one spender and one saver in a relationship spells nothing but trouble.

I also agree with DS on the "who is it more important to?" idea. When a conflict comes up, most of the time one person will feel more strongly about the issue than the other and that person should get the final say in that matter. On the rare occasion that you both feel passionately about an issue, well, you just have to come to a compromise or resolution sooner or later. But at least in our household, neither of us asserts "final authority" as some kind of blanket rule (and I for one would run far and fast from any man who tried to assert that kind of authority over me). I can't think of a single issue that has come up in more than 12 years that we couldn't either come to a compromise on or agree to disagree about.

[disneysteve]

It seems to me that financial issues on which there is strong disagreement between a couple are much easier solved when finances are seperate. Using the car purchase as an example, if she wants to purchase a $15k car instead of a $12k and therefore has to finance $3k, thats the way things will be. He has no say in the matter - that's the whole point of seperate finances.

Here's the problem with this, though. Even though you keep your finances separate, you are still married and legally still responsible for each other's debts. So is you want to take out a car loan and your husband doesn't, that's a problem because you would be doing something that could negatively impact him down the line. That isn't exactly fair.

I pay for my share of vacation, he pays his.

How does that play out in reality? What if you want to take a $3,000 cruise and he only wants to spend $1,000 on vacation this year? What if you want to go to Florida and he doesn't? Do you take your money and go on the cruise or the trip to Florida or do you work out some compromise so that you can vacation together. I know couples who take separate vacations but I can't imagine living that way.

As DS has mentioned on several occasions, this system works very well for us because we are financially compatible. We both save substantially for retirement, we both have healthy reserve funds, we both pay bills on time and in full, we both have many of the same types of goals in life.

That being the case, why do you keep separate finances? Why not just simplify matters and keep everything joint. You could each have a set amount that you were free to spend as you wished, an allowance if you want to call it that.

You say you split things 50/50. Are your incomes the same? You paid your loans and he paid his. Were they for the same amounts? What happens if one of you sees a significant rise (or fall) in income? Would you refigure how much each of you paid into the pot?

I'm not asking this stuff to be difficult but rather to try and understand the whole 'separate finances' thing which, I admit, still is a very foreign concept to me.

[skydivingchic]

Here's the problem with this, though. Even though you keep your finances separate, you are still married and legally still responsible for each other's debts. So is you want to take out a car loan and your husband doesn't, that's a problem because you would be doing something that could negatively impact him down the line. That isn't exactly fair.

In my case, we are not married, so we are not responsible for each other's debts. But even in the case of a married couple with seperate finances, I would have to say that it is the whole premise of having seperate finances in the first place. Again though, I believe that in order for a relationship to work out long term, a couple has to be on the same page financially to begin with.

How does that play out in reality? What if you want to take a $3,000 cruise and he only wants to spend $1,000 on vacation this year? What if you want to go to Florida and he doesn't? Do you take your money and go on the cruise or the trip to Florida or do you work out some compromise so that you can vacation together. I know couples who take separate vacations but I can't imagine living that way.

We generally have very similar ideas about where we want to go and what we want to do. We both enjoy outdoor activity and generally choose places where we can hike, snorkel, explore, see wildlife, etc. When we first started taking trips together, I said "I'm going here. Would you like to join me?" I was serious - I would have gone whether he chose to come or not. He had never gotten to travel much and so was not yet struck with the wanderlust that I am. He also would never take the initiative to plan a trip and expressed surprise at how much time and money some things cost. But after a few trips, he is now completely sold. The only real compromises we have to make on joint vacations have to do with prioritizing the list of destinations. And there again we are not very far apart on our priorities. And yes, we would travel seperately if we completely disagreed on a trip/destination/price. In fact, he is currently planning a motorcycle trip to Alaska with a friend, which I am not interested in and so will not be going. I am planning a trip to South America to do a Spanish immersion program. He will not be joining me as he is not interested. If that seems strange, well, I guess we are weird. But we are weird and happy.

That being the case, why do you keep separate finances? Why not just simplify matters and keep everything joint. You could each have a set amount that you were free to spend as you wished, an allowance if you want to call it that.

Because we are both fiercely independant. The mere thought of someone else having control of my money makes me . I believe strongly in pulling my own weight and being financially independant of other people. I would not feel independant if we had joint finances, even if our financial picture was exactly the same as it is today.

You say you split things 50/50. Are your incomes the same? You paid your loans and he paid his. Were they for the same amounts? What happens if one of you sees a significant rise (or fall) in income? Would you refigure how much each of you paid into the pot?.

Our incomes are not the same - his is higher and always has been. His income has consistently been around 20-30% higher than mine, though there were time periods where it was nearly 50% above mine.

Our loans were not for the same amount at all - my loans were very minimal, his were probably 10X more.

Significant rises in income on either end do not call for a refigure of percent split (this has happened several times over the years and the idea of refiguring the split has never even been brought up). The only instance I could think of that would have an affect on the 50/50 split would be if one of us were to become disabled, have a major extended job loss, or some other major catastrophe.

[maat55]

You say you split things 50/50. Are your incomes the same? You paid your loans and he paid his. Were they for the same amounts? What happens if one of you sees a significant rise (or fall) in income? Would you refigure how much each of you paid into the pot?

I'm not asking this stuff to be difficult but rather to try and understand the whole 'separate finances' thing which, I admit, still is a very foreign concept to me.

[/QUOTE]

This is why I started this thread. I wanted to know how people who separate their finances, find agreement when their are completely opposed on an situation.

[moneybags]

I have no arguement with your position and 999 times out of a thousand, thats how decissions get settled. But, there will very occationally be those times when a compromise cannot be found. Who settles the conflict?

Whoever it is most important to. Example: We had to make a decision on an elite sport opportunity for our son. DH was pro, I was anti. We discussed it and couldn't agree. At that point, I deferred to him to make the ultimate decision, but it has worked the other way where he defers to me. Luckily we are compatible on most financial decisions. I don't think we've ever not found a compromise. (In the end, he decided to pass on the elite sport.)

[Well Spent]

Skydivingchic, that's great you and your partner found a good method. I just don't think it's feasible for families to nickel and dime so much. And I think it would be a logistical pain in the bum to put plane tickets/hotel expenses on my credit card and ask to be reimbursed by my spouse.

It seems like scorekeeping. And how roomates and friends approach money, not life mates.

[PrincessPerky]

Specifically on the car example...if you find buying a car is inevitable, such as Ima savers husband, financing even if you have the money to outright buy might make sense. from what I gather Ima and husband have a one car financed at a time agreement, so if he wants a new one he waits a bit. if your wife wants to finance with bells, maybe finance 8K, pay 8K and have 4 to pay, 4 to sit.

Maybe she wants to finance a 20K car, so you two look at the budget and see where the 300 or so a month will come from. Maybe giving up on some eating out is ok with her, maybe retiring on a bit less is ok, maybe golfing a bit less, whatever, the money has to come from somewhere. and it is highly unlikely any truly in love couple will not be able to come to a solution eventually, it just wont be exactly what one person originally set out to get. I fI got to make all the decisions in our life, it wouldn't be the same, and in some cases would be worse.

I can think of only one big money conflict we have had... I want to donate to the church, he doesn't...when it came down to it, he decided my happiness was worth the money. (plus his kids take advantage of many church activities so some money compensation he was ok with)

You might find being right is less important than a happy wife sometimes.