3 ms·

This might seem antagonist, I don’t mean it to be so, but does your proposal not assume both parties make well over 150k a year in salary to contribute such a l

This might seem antagonist, I don’t mean it to be so, but does your proposal not assume both parties make well over 150k a year in salary to contribute such a large sum on a monthly basis with anything to spare?

saulpw 3y ago
From each according to their ability. If you make $50k and your spouse makes $150k, and your monthly expenses are $10k, then it seems quite reasonable for you to put in $2500 and your spouse to contribute $7500. The nice thing about the joint spending account is that you can set up this arrangement and then subsequently ignore it for everything else. All communal bills just get paid, and you are free to spend your excess how you like. If either person takes issue with how the money is spent, then you break it down into what they're missing. If it's nothing, then what's the problem? And if there is something missing, then you can agree to increase what counts as communal bills, including vacations, retirement, etc. All the way to everyone contributing 100% of their income, which is just a traditional joint account (but I would strongly recommend against that; 80-90% should be the max).
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  I do actually agree with the merit of this scheme, now that you’ve laid it out. I still thing the example values you use are extraordinarily high (“10k” / month) but I take your point. Cheers
balderdash 3y ago
Don’t you meant more like $80k a year?
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  $80k/yr wouldn’t now be enough for each spouse to contribute $5k a month, unless I’m misreading and GP meant a cumulative value of both partners combined.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - balderdash 3y ago
    Sorry, you’re saying that a salary of $150k ($12.5k/mo) works out out to only $5k/mo in take home pay? How does that math work?
    - bradlys 3y ago
      You don’t put your entire take home pay into the joint account - is the point. You put in whatever is agreed upon and then keep the rest of your earned money to yourself.

saulpw 3y ago

From each according to their ability. If you make $50k and your spouse makes $150k, and your monthly expenses are $10k, then it seems quite reasonable for you to put in $2500 and your spouse to contribute $7500. The nice thing about the joint spending account is that you can set up this arrangement and then subsequently ignore it for everything else. All communal bills just get paid, and you are free to spend your excess how you like. If either person takes issue with how the money is spent, then you break it down into what they're missing. If it's nothing, then what's the problem? And if there is something missing, then you can agree to increase what counts as communal bills, including vacations, retirement, etc. All the way to everyone contributing 100% of their income, which is just a traditional joint account (but I would strongly recommend against that; 80-90% should be the max).

DiggyJohnson 3y ago
I do actually agree with the merit of this scheme, now that you’ve laid it out. I still thing the example values you use are extraordinarily high (“10k” / month) but I take your point. Cheers

balderdash 3y ago

Don’t you meant more like $80k a year?

DiggyJohnson 3y ago
$80k/yr wouldn’t now be enough for each spouse to contribute $5k a month, unless I’m misreading and GP meant a cumulative value of both partners combined.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- balderdash 3y ago
  Sorry, you’re saying that a salary of $150k ($12.5k/mo) works out out to only $5k/mo in take home pay? How does that math work?
  - bradlys 3y ago
    You don’t put your entire take home pay into the joint account - is the point. You put in whatever is agreed upon and then keep the rest of your earned money to yourself.