TOPIC: Should married couples share one bank account?
I preface this installment with, despite my modern outlook viewing marriage as an archaic institution (at least concerning the union's interlinking with legal aspects), I am, most assuredly, a hopeless romantic; however, logic and reason govern my mind, body, and soul (just used for emphasis).
With this sentiment shared, I transition to the specific topic for this post.
When the construction of legal (or religious) marriage occurred, because the origins of marriage predate legalities and religious institutions, one of its main purposes was to provide a financially secure life for women. As everyone remembers, women were neither considered legal citizens, nor possessed civil rights (and sadly they are still treated in this fashion in certain areas of the world), so they required an “occupation” per say to provide for themselves and their families. Enter marriage.
This construction of marriage lasted for many centuries, continuing into our era and the Twentieth Century, simply because women were expected to get married and stay home with the children; however, in recent modern times great strides have occurred within the arena of women’s rights: women can vote, hold jobs, choose careers, basically, they can independently financially support themselves.
Now, this is not a discussion on fair pay for women (another discussion altogether) or a cry for Feminists to silence themselves (because even longer strides need to occur and because this issue does not only concern opposite-sex couples), it is a little piece of advice (or argument) for couples and their relationship bliss. I simply introduced the above details to prepare you for my argument, because my advice (argument) lends itself to same-sex couples as well.
Keep separate bank accounts.
Besides which way to hang the toilet paper, financial issues are the number one cause of marital chaos (aside from straying, which most likely leads to divorce). So why endure countless arguments about money when both of you can easily avoid them?
It is quite simple; here is the breakdown:
Calculate the total cost of shared expenses; each person pays half (sure, one person might have a lower income than the other, but the person with the higher income should not suffer penalization.)
Done.
In this way, if your partner wants to spend his/her money on a month’s supply of bottled water (which I think is a downright ridiculous purchase), he/she can do so without upsetting or allowing you to even possess a right to voice dissent. It is that simple.
Now, I discussed this topic with friends of mine and they have brought to my attention certain scenarios which may cause my wonderful advice to snag:
FINANCIAL HARDSHIP: If one partner loses his/her job and cannot afford his/her half of the shared expenses, then the other person pays both halves until the other person regains employment and can pay back the other person (without interest, of course). Done.
LARGE PURCHASES: If one partner desires a certain item they cannot afford by themselves, if the other person wants to buy the same item, the cost is split. If the other person does not want to purchase the item, the other person should not be forced to fork over the cash, but if desirable, should incorporate the system for financial hardship above. Done.
UNAVOIDABLE PURCHASES: If one person desires to purchase an item, such as digital cable or internet services, and the other person does not want the item(s), but will unavoidably utilize the said item(s), the other person must pay half of the cost.
If you would like to chime in on this topic, I would greatly appreciate it. This topic has been a fun and lively discussion for me for some time, and I welcome scenarios I have not thought of yet; however, I believe if logic and reason is applied, an acceptable answer using this system will present itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment