4 ms·

You're thinking all the money of both people has to go in the same join account, but that's not the case. You can have a "for the bills" join account, and then

You're thinking all the money of both people has to go in the same join account, but that's not the case. You can have a "for the bills" join account, and then each person has their own separate account. Every month each person transfer a certain amount to the joint account to cover the bills (50/50, 70/30, whatever split works for them). Any other money is spent in the person's own account and has nothing to do with the other, no need for controlling or justifying.

tw04 3y ago
> You're thinking all the money of both people has to go in the same join account, but that's not the case. That’s quite literally what the study is suggesting. All money in one account results in the most satisfaction. https://academic.oup.com/view-large/402916029?guestAccessKey=32d8dc66-db46-45ab-a360-57a401a01af9 https://academic.oup.com/view-large/402916029?guestAccessKey...
- moqmar 3y ago
  > All money in one account results in the most satisfaction. Does it though? It could also be seen the other way around as "If you're already satisfied and trust each other, you are more probable to use a join account".
  - throw0101a 3y ago
    The study thought of this: > Procedure [of Study 1]: Once both partners completed the intake survey (month 0), we randomly assigned couples to one of three bank account structure conditions. We informed couples via e- mail and provided condition-specific instructions. In the Separate Condition, we instructed couples to continue using separate checking and savings accounts and to not open joint checking and savings accounts, for the duration of the 2-year experiment. In the Joint Condition, we instructed couples to open joint checking and/or savings account(s) (within 1 month of them receiving these instruc- tions), use those joint account(s), and discontinue using their separate account(s) for the duration of the 2-year experiment. In the No-Intervention Condition, we told couples that they could manage their money however they liked for the duration of the 2-year experiment. * PDF: https://academic.oup.com/jcr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jcr/ucad020/7077142?utm_source=authortollfreelink&utm_campaign=jcr&utm_medium=email&guestAccessKey=32d8dc66-db46-45ab-a360-57a401a01af9 https://academic.oup.com/jcr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jcr... "randomly assigned couples to one of three bank account structure conditions"
scubbo 3y ago
> I don't understand couples that keep separate finances > You can have a "for the bills" join account, and then each person has their own separate account. If you keep your own separate account, in any way, shape, or form, you are keeping separate finances. Transferring money into a shared "staging" account to pay bills from is just a more convenient implementation of one person paying the bills and then requesting money from the other. Either way of doing this - shared account "pool", or transferring on a case-by-case basis - is fine. What people (including me) are reacting with suspicion to, is the structure of _fully_ joined finances, where neither party has sole control over any finances of their own whatsoever.

tw04 3y ago

> You're thinking all the money of both people has to go in the same join account, but that's not the case. That’s quite literally what the study is suggesting. All money in one account results in the most satisfaction. https://academic.oup.com/view-large/402916029?guestAccessKey=32d8dc66-db46-45ab-a360-57a401a01af9 https://academic.oup.com/view-large/402916029?guestAccessKey...

moqmar 3y ago
> All money in one account results in the most satisfaction. Does it though? It could also be seen the other way around as "If you're already satisfied and trust each other, you are more probable to use a join account".
- throw0101a 3y ago
  The study thought of this: > Procedure [of Study 1]: Once both partners completed the intake survey (month 0), we randomly assigned couples to one of three bank account structure conditions. We informed couples via e- mail and provided condition-specific instructions. In the Separate Condition, we instructed couples to continue using separate checking and savings accounts and to not open joint checking and savings accounts, for the duration of the 2-year experiment. In the Joint Condition, we instructed couples to open joint checking and/or savings account(s) (within 1 month of them receiving these instruc- tions), use those joint account(s), and discontinue using their separate account(s) for the duration of the 2-year experiment. In the No-Intervention Condition, we told couples that they could manage their money however they liked for the duration of the 2-year experiment. * PDF: https://academic.oup.com/jcr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jcr/ucad020/7077142?utm_source=authortollfreelink&utm_campaign=jcr&utm_medium=email&guestAccessKey=32d8dc66-db46-45ab-a360-57a401a01af9 https://academic.oup.com/jcr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jcr... "randomly assigned couples to one of three bank account structure conditions"

scubbo 3y ago

> I don't understand couples that keep separate finances > You can have a "for the bills" join account, and then each person has their own separate account. If you keep your own separate account, in any way, shape, or form, you are keeping separate finances. Transferring money into a shared "staging" account to pay bills from is just a more convenient implementation of one person paying the bills and then requesting money from the other. Either way of doing this - shared account "pool", or transferring on a case-by-case basis - is fine. What people (including me) are reacting with suspicion to, is the structure of _fully_ joined finances, where neither party has sole control over any finances of their own whatsoever.