comment: >
  
  We both still know who brought in what and we each spend our own money however we like for the most part. We put our heads together for big purchases and at the end of the day we have the same goals for the kids, house, cars and life in general. It probably helps that we make pretty similar amounts of money so neither of us feel slighted. Overall, yes we work as “ours”. Daily, we spend as “his/mine/savings”. Transparently.
context: /u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  One nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.
  Combine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.
  Different spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage.  If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.
  every partnership is going to be different.  Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples.  
  Maybe your partnership isn't one of those.  But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful >
  
  
  Different spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage.  If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.
  
  If there is that level of coordination, I think I would regard that as merged / joint finances. You're just proposing using multiple accounts for efficiency; but not for "individuality" - so that seems like Exception 2 in OP.
  Am I missing something ? >
  
  if one partner gets extra income or a raise, does that go to the joint account (with maybe a discussed increase to the individual account) or does that go to the individual account (with maybe a discussed increase in contribution to the shared account)?
  If the former, maybe that falls under (2).  if the latter, it sounds more like separate finances with shared expenses to me. >
  
  It seems a bit backward that one of your stipulations is about gambling addiction. You’re basically saying relationships involving an addiction get more freedom than other relationships. You’re functionally rewarding addiction.
  To take this a step further, if you’re saying it works for couples involving addiction, why can’t it work for others? Does addiction somehow give those couples more ability to be healthy without combining finances? >
  
  Your objection seems to be based on a misunderstanding of my stipulation.
  I'm not saying a gambling problem (etc) leads to a reward. Rather, I'm saying it's a valid reason to exclude the compromised spouse from having fully equal authority over shared assets
  Does that clarification help ? >
  
  Not quite. I’m saying that, if it can work for people in that situation, why can’t it work for others? >
  
  But I think we're inadvertently 180 degrees off.
  I'm advocating for joint assets and joint management.
  In the case of gambling problem (etc), I'm allowing for joint assets but UNEQUAL management (so you can't gamble your house at the poker table).
  You seem to be confusing that with two spouses having separate financial lives.
  So I think you misunderstood.
  TLDR: In my system, the gambler has a short leash of an allowance; otherwise, I'd promote joint management of finances. So a short leash (eg allowance) is not a reward foe gambling. It's a firewall. >
  
  So in your situation, finances would be combined but only the non gambler would make financial decisions? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view. >
  
  Combined = Yes
  Decisions = Ideally still joint, but in the eyes of the bank (etc) only the non-gambler can actually execute a decision.
  You don't want the gambler being able to drain the 401(k) or college fund or whatever while on a spree in Vegas ... so their cards and name can't access all the accounts ... but in the normal course of things I would still expect they'd collaborate and set their financial strategy together >
  
  So basically, you’ve pointed out a scenario that deviates from the norm. That’s the whole dispute to your argument. One relationship is so different from the next that we can’t really generalize. If you want to say that the average relationship is best off with combined finances, that may be right. But relationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. I’m a couples therapist so I’ve seen tons of different types of relationships. There’s really no one size fits all approach. There are just so many variations of marriages that I think your overall view is too prescriptive and general even if it applies to a good amount of relationships. >
  
  
  relationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. ... There’s really no one size fits all approach.
  
  So I don't know that it's called but this must be some kind of logical fallacy.  You're saying "there are exceptions to the rule" and "there's great diversity among relationships."
  Well there are exceptions and diversity among individuals' health and fitness. But we still say things like "you should drink water every day" and "don't smoke a pack of cigarettes" and "you should exercise 4 times each week" 
  ...
  Now, I'm sure we could think of exceptions to these rules and point to ranges on the spectrum of diverse biological situations such that one or more of these or a number of similar boilerplate pieces of health / fitness / lifestyle advice do NOT fit.
  ...
  But we still all recognize and accept that - on the whole - these are good pieces of advice to promulgate and follow.
  //
  So I have a hard time with the structure of your argument that I ought not or validly cannot promote a general principle about couples merging finances as part of married life just as I should promote a general principle about eating right and getting enough exercise. >
  
  But you said never aside from certain exceptions. By your own criteria, there shouldn’t be all these exceptions, yet tons of them exist. I suppose you’ve given yourself an out since you can chalk any counter example up to being an exception, but surely at some point, your point is just wrong.
  Where you see exceptions, I see relationships that don’t ascribe to a completely rigid and white, hetereonormative structure of relationships. Your view is extremely privileged and rigid, and instead of accepting that others may structure relationships in a different way, you just dismiss them as exceptions.
  Honestly, comparing people with separate finances (outside of gambling addictions or other exceptions) to people who think smoking is not unhealthy or that exercise doesn’t contribute to health is offensive. >
  
  Well thank you for your time and contribution. >
  
  
  (a) they're failing to fully commit to a comprehensive, lifelong bond - so their prioritization of individuality is intrinsically at odds with the mindsets and strategies that are conducive to a healthy and fulfilling marriage.
  
  Perhaps others have a different interpretation of what needs to happen in order to maintain a lifelong bond. I think its foolhardy to claim that every lifelong bond is predicated on shared finances. I've had lifelong friends but we don't have joint bank accounts. I'd argue that not allowing individuality into a relationship is a recipe for failure. Couples need space to also be themselves. Having a secure attachment is predicated upon this. 
  
  (b) they're making it easier to divorce, which creates a psychological propensity and self-fulfilling prophecy that they actually will divorce.
  
  And likewise if I don't psychologically abuse my wife and gaslight her into thinking I'm all she has I'm making it easier for her to divorce. You really shouldn't focus your relationship on making it harder for your spouse to leave you. Makes it seem like you're not a good spouse.
  Edit: OP pwease wespond. Also ayy lmao someone in these comments has me blocked for some reason
  Edit 2: still awaiting OP, the light is fading
  Edit 3: alas, I have yet to be blessed with a response from OP. OP left me but a tease, I yearn for OP's attention. >
  
  
  OP pwease wespond
  
  I'm coming.  Lots of comments. Be right there >
  
  You're good haha, take your time >
  
  Did none of the arguments from the post you linked that were awarded deltas convince you? >
  
  
  (2) Although a couple functionally pools their resources and jointly manage their finances, they each maintain a separate checking or small line of credit for petty, discretionary spending (that is accounted for in their joint budget but handled separately).
  
  Maybe this isn't what you were looking for, but I don't think this is as narrow an exception as you think. I think this in some way pretty standard, but with the (important) differentiating factor of how good they are at maintaining the joint budget. If a family has a detailed budget, they clearly fall into the "exception", but if they have a more informal budget, they're basically in the spirit of this exception, but are just kind of bad at budgeting, which is obviously not great, but not really bad in the way you describe.
  I think the other exception that you should probably include here that includes a pretty big swath of people is couples where there aren't really enough finances for it to matter. If one spouse makes all the income and controls the bank account, and the other spouse just has a credit card which the first spouse pays down, I wouldn't really call this "joint finances", but ultimately the credit card statement ends up serving as a defacto "budget" for better or for worse, and this ends up being functionally pretty similar to your second exception. If they're just bad at money or the spouse with the bank account just chooses not to pay off the cards or the other spouse maintains secret cards, that's obviously bad, but again for kind of different reasons.
  On the flip side, if both spouses make a ton of money, it might just never really occur to them to combine finances, because they both can meet their own financial needs and it just isn't really that important. Budgeting is still a plus, but one reason why these couples might get lazy with their budget is because they have so much money that it just doesn't really matter. But yes, they should still be talking frankly about stuff like mortgages and child college savings plans, but again, this starts to become pretty close to your exception #2.
  
  (b) they're making it easier to divorce, which creates a psychological propensity and self-fulfilling prophecy that they actually will divorce.
  
  Similarly, I don't think this actually makes it any easier to divorce. Might vary a bit by state and country, but usually unless a prenup was signed, any "separate" finances are still going to get carved up in divorce, and keeping them separately probably actually makes sorting everything out harder.
  tl;dr I think your exception #2 is a lot broader and fuzzier than you make it out to be, and there are a lot of normal financial situations that end up getting pretty close to it, and most of the problematic scenarios that you're worried about are just bad financial management regardless of joint vs separate finances. In other words, I think a lot of your instincts are broadly correct, but I think you're misattributing them to the way the finances are split or not split. >
  
  My partner and I have separate accounts that work really well for us. I take care of bills, food expenditure etc.. while my partner has the main savings account. We have maintained this ever since she was at uni and not really working, and I already had a full-time position earning enough to support us both. It works so we dont change it because there isn't a foreseeable benefit to having joint accounts >
  
  How do you avoid scorekeeping, negotiating, resentment, etc ? >
  
  Because we're not petty, so why would there be score keeping? Also, what resentment? We live together and have done so for a long time. Everything we have is still both of ours, and this just works for us. I dont know what you mean by negotiating. >
  
  Well, actually, it doesn't sound like you have "separate finances" - because you're still jointly allocating and benefiting from your assets. You're simply choosing to execute the joint management of your assets by way of a system of separately-handled accounts.
  But it ISN'T the case that there's "your money versus my money" ... it's rather "OUR money" some of which happens to be in "my account" and other money happens to be in "your account"
  Am I missing something ? >
  
  But this would be considered "moving goal posts" as you never stipulated this as an exemption to your view.
  We still have our own finances, and we'll both still spend money on things we might like for ourselves, and we dont need to consult each on these purchases >
  
  Well \~ I'm sorry, I'll re read and reconsider ... but this seems like Exception 2 ? >
  
  I'm not sure what you consider petty cash spending, but if I decide to go and buy a $2000 or $3000 item, I will, and the same goes for my partner. We share and have separate finances. >
  
  My spouse and I have small “his and hers” accounts with 75-80% or so of our main finances going to the “ours” account for a couple of reasons….
  
  
  By having some of our cash not be in the main “ours” account where most of the bills, mortgage, taxes, car payments, groceries etc come out of.  It helps maintain discipline.  We are basically operating our household with only say 75% or our income and the rest can be held back as “bonus” or “rainy day”.
  
  
  We maintain the ability to “treat” each other.  On a date night with my wife, I pay out of the “his” account to make it feel like I’m “treating” with my portion of the funds.  Likewise if she treats or it’s my birthday she will pay with “her” account.  
  
  
  There are some expenses that are just “mine” like I use a PlayStation and my wife never touches it.  So I keep PlayStation online account charges or game purchases on the “his” account.  Or if I have fantasy football league dues and such it comes from “his”.   Any of my wife’s exclusive hobbies also come from “her” account.  If i get a beer with the fellas, or she meets her girlfriends for happy hour.  Those drinks come from the his or hers accounts, not the “ours”.  And I tend to also put the optional entertainment subscriptions like Netflix/Disney+ etc on the “his” account (even though the whole family uses it)
  
  
  Now if the his or hers accounts starts to grow past a certain threshold.  That’s generally a sign that we will transfer to the main or put a contribution to our kids 529 account from the his and her accounts if there is excess there. >
  
  I love all of this.
  I think we agree.
  My wife and I did something very similar for a long time - now it's all just joint.
  But even your system is really not separate finances - it's just multiple accounts for convenience like my Exception 2.
  Am I missing something important ? >
  
  So my partner and I deciding we just want to separate our finances isn't a good enough reason for you?
  EDIT: Before responding with "you've missed the point of the sub" or something similar please see my responses to other people saying the exact same thing, and then also consider not responding if all you're going to do is backseat mod me and just report the comment instead if it bothers you so much, thanks! >
  
  I'd be curious what led you to that decision. >
  
  It doesn't matter. It's what we want to do, it works for us, it hurts no one. Should we be allowed to do it, or not? >
  
  I think you misunderstand OP's view. OP is saying that married couples should never choose to separate their finances. OP is not saying that married people should never be allowed to separate their finances.
  That's why OP is asking you what led you to your choice of separating finances. >
  
  They hadn't clarified that when I wrote this, but you can read my "allowed" there as morally rather than legally and I feel like my point stands. >
  
  Even so, OP is trying to go deeper into the reasoning why someone would make that choice. Not just that they made the choice. >
  
  My argument is that it's an unreasonable thing to expect me to morally justify. OP clearly has a view of what marriage is supposed to be that they haven't actually argued for and is the implicit underpinning of everything they're saying here. I had thought trying to open up the "why is it your business though" line of thought would get us to thinking about what the basis of his view actually is, but he has evidently chosen not to engage me further.
  It's certainly possible that was the wrong way for me to approach it. >
  
  I think I get your point of view now. You're not really trying to change OP's opinion on separate finances... you're trying to change his mind on whether he should have an opinion on separate finances at all. >
  
  Yes. Apparently that was either the wrong move or I wasn't clear enough, judging by the responses I've gotten, which is my bad. >
  
  For my part, I would say you're still within bounds. It was just that your comment early on was just a shade too oblique for that point - a good, valid, worthwhile point - to be loud and clear.  It was there - it wasn't muddied. It was just a bit tenuous. And, again, I think you caught more slack than you deserved for that - I think it's a worthwhile line of discussion, as I've indicated in parallel threads. >
  
  I am, frankly, irresponsible with money and my fiance isn't. I make sure my half the bills are paid and I keep an amount is savings and stocks. But I am awful about buying whatever I want and honestly wouldn't trust myself with their money and I'm glad they don't either.
  And I'm not wasting it on drugs or alcohol or something crazy that would cause strain while also working on my habits and not buying as much as fast. Maybe we'll set up a joint savings account for vacations or something, but there is no need to share an account. Why would we? We both work and it'd be a hassle to change direct deposits for nothing. >
  
  I think most of what you said falls under Exception (1)
  I'm not sure we're substantively disagreeing(?) >
  
  Relationships involve compromise. Things you do (or refrain from doing) to keep your partner happy and your interaction positive. Maybe Sarah doesn't bring alcohol into the house to support her recovering alcoholic wife, or Dana watches TV with headphones while their partner is trying to concentrate. People have interests and hangups and preferences that conflict with their partners'. And altering your own behavior to prevent those conflicts from escalating into fights is not "failing to fully commit." 
  Sarah doesn't say "I like beer and you have to get used to it." Dana doesn't say "I like the volume up. Suck it up or leave; this is who I am." They fully commit by making accommodations for their partner's individual preferences instead of insisting on sharing everything. (And since there is a conflict, insisting on sharing everything would just be a compromise from the other side.)
  Anyway, you're probably on board with all that. It's fairly unobjectionable. So now let's move back to shared finances:
  Why is this not the same sort of compromise? Separate finances, while still discussing major purchases with your partner, is just an accommodation for a partner who's uncomfortable with altering their spending habits. What if one is a rigorous planner, with a fixed monthly budget they strictly adhere to, while the other just kind of spends according to their gut feeling about what's a reasonable expense? You cannot merge their accounts without forcing major compromises from one or the other. But if you keep separate accounts, both can be exactly who they are without seriously stressing their partner. >
  
  What about your view do you think you might be able to change? 
  This to me seem more like a personal opinion and a personal criteria you’re looking for in a life long partner. 
  What about if you earn substantially more than the other person? Just because your in love doesn’t mean the other person is suddenly entitled to your money. 
  About A
  Again I feel like that’s what marriage mean to you. there are many other things that people would consider fully committing to a relationship/lifelong bond. Such as moving in together, having children together or meeting the parents. or things others may consider smaller like getting a hamster together or giving them a spare key. Everyone if different and different steps in relationships mean different things to different people. And people usually have personal boundaries that they don’t want anyone crossing even their spouse. 
  About B
  Well around 40-50% of marriages do end in divorce so I mean that’s a pretty high chance. So then it’s seems reasonable to prepare for it. But let’s ignore that fact. Just because you don’t share funds doesn’t mean that you are preparing for failure in your marriage. It could be numerous reasons, like mentioned above just because you love someone doesn’t make them entitled to your money and nor you theirs. Maybe one person makes way more? Or like you mentioned maybe one of them isn’t the smartest with their money. Or maybe they just want some level of privacy and don’t want to have to worry about a charge showing on the the bank statement. There’s many other reason beyond those they are just off the top of my head. >
  
  
  (a) they're failing to fully commit to a comprehensive, lifelong bond - so their prioritization of individuality is intrinsically at odds with the mindsets and strategies that are conducive to a healthy and fulfilling marriage.
  
  This of itself I would say is unhealthy. This is as unhealthy as signing up working for a company in some kind of contract that says one can never leave, or make a promise with a friend and actually sticking to it that the friendship will never fade, or other such things.
  Lifelong deals with no expiry date are unhealthy and people who make them are fools. — Which is by the way why perpetual employment contracts are not enforceable in about any jurisdiction.
  This is why under virtually all cases adults should never join their finances, or marry to begin with, but when marrying separate finances are a lesser evil.
  Marriage, is something people do out of sentimental foolishness believing in perpetual love. — The biggest problem is furthermore that people marry while being in love, for the sake of that, romantic love is a mind-altering, addictive drug; it is as though one sign a contract drunk. And that it has these effects on one's capacity to form correct strategic plans is the only reason why people even get married to begin with. — Marriage is such a foolish decision that indeed, one has to be in love to do it. Especially as the person in marriage with more wealth than the other.
  Sharing finances only makes this worse. >
  
  While I agree with everything you said. You didn’t necessarily make your case. You just named mostly why marriage is a bad idea with some mentions regarding shared accounts/finances. >
  
  The millions of married couples who maintain separate finances quickly and easily dispell your CMV. >
  
  How so ? >
  
  Because if there are millions of married couples, say in the colonies alone, there are good odds that a few million may have separate bank accounts. Just for safe measure, we could say on the higher end of hundreds of thousands of married couples.
  There’s a good possibility that a lot of them have been together for a long time, happily, and have separate bank accounts. >
  
  Well I think we would need some actual figures to evaluate these claims. >
  
  Perhaps but couples having their own bank accounts are probably as common as women keeping their maiden name after marriage. It’s not a rare occurrence so even without actual figures, I can believe it’s absolutely possible for couples to be happy and healthy marriages while keeping separate accounts. >
  
  Well, according to your view on marriage, you're right.
  But your view on marriage seems to me as two people trying to merge into one entity mind and soul. That's not how healthy love works but resembles codependency, and slowly leads to problems like self depreciation and repressed -sometimes open when it's too late- resentment. It also leads to physical and psychological violence and self harm. 
  As soon as you agree to trust one another and stop believing in a romanticised "true love" you find yourself in a position where self confidence and trust are at the core of your relationship and will be able to grow inside of the relationship.
  Of course sharing finances or at least a bank account on the side is a good idea in many cases (household expenses, children, other shared expenses like restaurants or travels...), but it can transform into a trap in abusive relationships or (as you said) when one of the two wants to leave. More often than not in those circumstances it becomes a tool for the one with the upper hand to either pressure or to spy on the other. 
  I don't know for the rest of the world, but here in France the right for women to open a bank account was restricted to the good will of the husband until the 50s or 60s. The mere idea of women being able to have financial independence was seen as a promotion of divorce for exactly this reason : because it was the main tool for a lot of abusive husbands who feared to lose their power. >
  
  
  More often than not in those circumstances it becomes a tool for the one with the upper hand to either pressure or to spy on the other.
  
  Please quantify "often"
  ... are you saying joint finances leads to abuse 
  80% of the time ?
  66% of the time ?
  51% of the time ?
  33% of the time ?
  10% of the time ? >
  
  No, I say that when abuses arise, not having a personal account is a problem and joint accounts end up being used as a way of bargain or a threat. 
  What I don't say is that joining finances leads to abuse.
  That's not a matter of causality, but a matter of opportunity and aggravating factors. >
  
  Ok. Fair enough. So as a risk management issue, we would need to determine the probability of that hazard occurring (the probability of abuse) ... then identify mitigation strategies (e.g. maintaining separate financial lives) - and assign collateral-costs and risk-reduction-benefits to each of those mitigation strategies.
  ​
  Do you have any idea how to estimate
  (a) risk of abuse
  (b) collateral-costs of maintaining separate financial lives, or
  (c) risk-reduction-benefits of maintaining separate financial lives ? >
  
  No, and that's not my job pal. I think every country has its own datas on the two firsts, and associations for victims of domestic violence may have the rest for this is one of their main fights (women's financial autonomy). >
  
  Well I wouldn't expect you to have stats on your back pocket, but it would help to have something more than un-scaled intuition (?) >
  
  In the event both spouses have vibrant careers that do not end upon marriage, it's a sign of respect to keep separate finances. This particular union is not about supporting each other financially- it's about supporting emotionally and sacrificing time to be together, which is the most precious resource in this case. One partner doesn't deserve or care about the others earnings, they only want the person. If one falls upon hard times of course the other will be there to help, and since their resources aren't pooled, the generosity of this aid is more pronounced. All of this ensures that they never take one another for granted and are obliged to contribute more or less equally within their means. They stay together because they love being with each other, not because they financially depend on it. >
  
  Oh my gosh, yes! I concur! >
  
  This is just asking for financial abuse. The spouse that makes more often uses money as a weapon against the lesser or no income spouse. This is often what keeps people in abusive relationships. If there was no blending of finances, you ensure financial abuse and staying in abusive relationships for money happen far less. >
  
  Please quantify "often"
  ... are you saying joint finances leads to abuse 
  80% of the time ?
  66% of the time ?
  51% of the time ?
  33% of the time ?
  10% of the time ? >
  
  99% of abusive relationships involve financial abuse - for discussion, I'll stipulate to that
  //
  ?? % of relationships with pooled resources involve financial abuse ?
  ^ that is the key question >
  
  A relationship that involves financial abuse and no other abuse is still classed as abusive. Every woman I know who had joint finances experienced some form of financial abuse at some point. There are no good stats because only people who have escaped abusive relationships talk about it. >
  
  
  Every woman I know who had joint finances experienced some form of financial abuse at some point.
  
  This is potentially very concerning. 
  I'm not sure how to rationally and fairly evaluate this claim
  LittleHelp ? >
  
  Financial Abuse Actions:
  
  Preventing victim from going to work
  Sabotaging a victim's employment
  Interfering with a victim's work performance through harassing activities such as frequent phone calls or unannounced visits
  Demanding that the victim quits her/his job
  Preventing the victim from looking for jobs or attending job interviews
  Deciding when/how victim can use cash, bank accounts, or credit/debit cards
  Forcing victim to give abuser money, ATM cards, or credit cards
  Demanding that the lease/mortgage or assets be in the abuser's name
  Using victim's checkbook, ATM card, or credit/debit cards without the victim's knowledge
  Preventing victim's access to bank account(s)
  Applying for credit cards, obtaining loans, or opening other financial accounts in a victim's name
  Forcing victim to obtain loans
  Forcing victim to sign financial documents
  Use of threats or physical force to convince victims to make credit-related transactions
  Refinancing a home mortgage or car loan without a victim's knowledge
  Intentionally withholding necessities such as food, clothing, shelter, personal hygiene products and/or medication
  Refusing to pay court-ordered child or spousal support
  Stealing and/or destroying the victim's belongings
  Requiring justification for any money spent and punishing the victim with physical, sexual or emotional abuse
  
  Also, between 2005 and 2006, 130,000 stalking victims/survivors were asked to leave their jobs as a result of their victimization.
  Repeatedly filing costly lawsuits >
  
  What this exchange is missing is (a) any sense of scale; and (b) any claim of a causal relationship.
  //
  Are you saying that IF a couple merges their finances, THEN that action increases their risk of financial abuse ?
  And, if so, from what rate to what rate ? >
  
  We don’t have scale because those studies have not been done, specifically. However, 1 in 3 women and 1 in four men have experienced abusive relationships. 99% of abusive relationships include financial abuse
  Nearly 20% of marriages and intimate partnerships will experience physical violence, according to the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy. Emotional abuse is even more common.
  Domestic violence is cited as the reason for 23.5% of divorces. 
  However, of the 158 women in my life who merged finances with their spouses, all of them experienced financial abuse. 
  I wish we had better statistics, but with what we do know, I believe merging finances is stupid. Why would you risk it? >
  
  
  I would love your sources - because I'd like to read them and study them and comment on them and validate them and revise my views based on them.
  
  ...
  ​
  I'm gonna think more about this and circle back >
  
  While I pretty much agree with you, it seems to me that a key reason why is missing, which is how the state views marriage. For the most part, in most US states, when a couple gets married, all of their assets are considered by the law to be the joint property of both partners.
  The only time this legal consideration comes into play is when a couple divorces, but should that happen even in a circumstance where each partner kept purely separate finances and deposited every penny of “their” money into “their” account, the other partner could make a strong case for being entitled to half of whatever the couple made, even if they earned less during the marriage. I can’t remember which US states don’t work that way, but I do know they’re the minority. 
  So to me, the case against keeping separate finances is that your finances aren’t ever “really” separate anyway. Your imaginary independence from your partner is really just an agreement you’ve made between the two of you, and it sets you up to have lots of fights about whose money is whose when no one outside the marriage views their money that way. 
  That being said, I think others have mentioned circumstances that should be additional exceptions, like prior children, and prior assets, and so on. >
  
  Communism. But make it personal! 
  It makes total sense for anyone who already has assets or children/dependents to keep their finances separate. >
  
  Can you please elaborate on each of these scenarios separately: (a) prior dependents, (b) prior assets ?? >
  
  Bud, do you not know what a child is? Do you not know what assets, such as property or a business, are? >
  
  I would honestly be interested in understanding your substantive reasoning under each of these scenarios, please. >
  
  But it isn’t complicated. It’s literally just protecting your children and your assets…all of which existed prior to the marriage. >
  
  One of my friends is in a complex semi international relationship. He only has Canadian citizenship. His wife has permanent residency in Canada but is an American citizen. Because of this, her tax rates are dramatically different and her finances are very complicated and international. They keep mostly seperate finances because it makes the tax situation much much simpler and because it means that his taxes are considerably lower. >
  
  Interesting.
  Do they regard this as an acceptable model for perpetuity; or a necessary, temporary evil ? >
  
  I'm not certain. I know that she wants to maintain citizenship for now because it makes staying in contact with her family easier and because they want any potential kids to have dual citizenship. The tax problems would actually be solved relatively easily if the US had tax laws that were more compatible with the rest of the world. (Due to some weirdness about how the US does taxes, it's very possible for a family that has combined finances and makes too much money to be liable to be taxed twice, once in the US and once in the country where they actually live.) Either way, they don't seem to be in a huge hurry. It's not a big deal for them. The big deal was actually one of them getting a greencard/permanent residence in the other's country so that they could live together full time. That was a difficulty and a half. >
  
  Δ
  This comment thread has educated me on some important and potentially determinative considerations in the case of particular fiduciary, legally-enforceable arrangement for how households manage their finances. >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Sagasujin (214∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  How about laziness? >
  
  What about it ? >
  
  We have been too lazy to merge all of our accounts.  We did open a joint one last year's but it took a few years to do so.  Also, our different accounts have some different benefits that come in handy sometimes. >
  
  Well I think by your own admission, you're not optimizing the financial dimension of your married life. So, no - in general, I don't think laziness is a "good reason."
  Just for clarity, if I said my view is everyone should exercise 4x per week ... and you said "well what if we're just lazy?" ... then my answer would be the same: you should stop being lazy and start exercising 4x times per week.
  Am I saying that well? >
  
  Ah, I misunderstood your take as being "if their are separate finances the marriage is not good". >
  
  If one partner owns a business before the marriage, in your opinion does the spouse need to become a co-owner of the business? >
  
  It would depend upon the legal structure of the business. >
  
  So you agree there are certain situations where due to the legal structure of the business it would be advisable for the spouse not to become a co-owner? >
  
  Yes. >
  
  Then I believe that's one more exception to add to your list of exceptions. >
  
  Well maybe. Let's just validate that.
  I don't conceptualize a person's ownership interest in a small business as part of their personal / individual finances.
  If they get paid a salary by the business, that salary should be pooled within the marriage
  If they own stock or sell the business, those proceeds should be pooled within the marriage.
  Any assets of the business are not the owner's assets, per se ... so they don't have to share those with the spouse (because they aren't theirs to share - they are the business's)
  ...
  It would be the same if they were an executive in a publicly traded company,  right?
  ...
  Tell me if I've got something wrong >
  
  What about my investment portfolio, which consists of shares that I own in a number of different companies?
  Would you recommend a similar deal where I remain the sole owner of the account and only share with my spouse money that I withdraw from it? >
  
  Maybe I'm misunderstanding but I don't think if a business the way I think of an investment portfolio... businesses are governed by incorporation agreements and regulations... investment portfolios are just personal financial resources in less fungible, less liquid forms ...
  Am I missing it ? >
  
  I'm just trying to feel out where the line is between those two things. Businesses aren't necessarily governed by formal incorporation agreements.
  Ultimately what I'm getting at is that there are things people might be doing with their money, whether it's a business or an investment or a rental property or whatever, where it makes sense to keep it separated from their spouse.  And not because they're planning to get divorced or don't love their spouse. >
  
  I guess I'm drawing the line at fiduciary responsibilities to third parties.
  Individual financial pursuits can't be the line - because then everything except splitting the mortgage / rent and groceries would be on one side of the line. 
  I'm advocating for an exhaustive(*) merging and joint management of finances (* with some exceptions).
  Are we zero-ing in on a clear line drawing or am I just pushing food around the plate inadvertently ?  :-) >
  
  You're asserting that x is unhealthy because it shows a lack of commitment towards a relationship. I don't see how this follows. Different people like having different living arrangements. Different couples have different dynamics and some people view money differently than others. Having a single fund can lead towards people arguing and creating tension about the spending habits of others. I've seen it happen with my parents: Dad's the breadwinner and the money he earns is "our money," while the money Mom earns often turns into "her money." They are doing fine, but I don't really like the idea of this dynamic. So, I can definitely see how a couple would choose to have separate finances to help avoid these types of situations and promote healthy dialogue about finances between the couple. You are still expected to help pay for one another, but what exactly is spent where and who earns what is easily understood.
  To put another way outside of a romantic relationship, consider that you want to start a business venture with two of your closest friends. Is it a dumb idea to clearly state out who owns what and what everyone's roles are, insomuch as possible, inside the business? Does this mean that you don't trust your friends? Are you being psychologically primed to abandon your friends by treating the business venture as a business venture legally speaking? >
  
  I've done it both ways. First partner was reckless. I tried to keep us afloat but he'd quit jobs and I'd be back to pleading with creditors. Current husband and I have our own kids. We're senior citizens. Both of us are responsible and financially independent.  We don't touch each other's $ but I know and he knows we would share everything if necessary. >
  
  You don’t include “financial incompatibility” as a comprehensive item.
  I’ve seen people say “if we paid off my credit card I’d just max it out again”, when their spouse was very fiscally responsible.
  Obviously the preference would be that they get on the same page, but what if that’s not possible in the short or medium term?
  To be clear I personally believe your post is the best course and that’s what I personally practice.
  I do have friends who are less compatible with their spouses, financially, that my marriage is. >
  
  How would you suggest revising my Exception 1 to incorporate your thoughts ? >
  
  Why does tying finances signify a strengthening of a relationship? >
  
  Because tying = strengthening >
  
  I don’t think that’s necessarily true. >
  
  Strong parts make a strong whole would you agree?
  When you merge finances you are making the individual parts weaker. 
  The person with more money will have less incentive to work because he will not get to spend as much. The person with less money will also have less incentive to work because she will  be able to spend from the collective pot anyway. Both will have more incentive to spend because they’re spending the others money. 
  Separate finances encourage promotions at work, doing over time, saving, budgeting and being frugal with money.
  Of course you can still have a joint bank account and make joint decisions over money. But negotiation is better and easier if you have some degree of separateness from which to start the negotiation. >
  
  I think you're doing a good job demonstrating why separate finances and overemphasis on individuality lead to weaker marriages. >
  
  I do not like the idea of being someone else's dependent. While it may just be my mental hangup, I would feel that way if I was the lesser financial contributor to a marriage, regardless of what else I contributed. 
  I would also never want to impose that feeling one someone else.
  This means that in all situations, it makes sense to me to have the accounts. My partners account, which they use for whatever they want and which includes all monies said partner earns not included in the joint account, my account which includes all of my earnings which are not part of the join account, and a joint account which includes monies from each of use based on whatever we agreed upon, but which is meant to cover all normal household expenses.
  Why is this a problem? >
  
  It's a problem because you're formalizing an arrangement that emphasizes and calcifies your individuality at the expense of your union. By your own admission, you have a mental block related to feeling dependent - but marriage does involve dependence and vulnerability. So contorting a marriage to avoid or obscure dependence and vulnerability is to do violence to the marriage. >
  
  Ok, so is your opinion that there is no room for the individual in the relationship? To me, the degree to which the individual must confirm to the join identity is up to the couple and only up to them. If both people feel the same way on this issue.... What is your response? Those two just can't be a couple because the arrangement which would make them happy is outside of your personal preference? Seems a bit twisted. >
  
  Well let's work that from the other angle:
  ​
  Is there any arrangement that consenting adults might reach that you believe would NOT be conducive to a healthy marriage, family life, or individual fulfillment and self-actualization ? >
  
  Sure, they both agree that one should eat the other. It is not possible that this arrangement lasts.
  The fact that negative examples of consent exist does not negate the idea that mutual consent is the key factor in a marriage.
  What I am asking about, is why it a situation which makes both partners happy by removing an uncomfortable situation for both of them is a problem. I know several couples that are in this arrangement as we debate the topic, one of which has been together for a couple decades. What is wrong with that? >
  
  What do you say to people that value individuality in their marriage? Your whole view is basically just you projecting what a 'healthy' marriage looks like. To you healthy, by definition, includes sharing bank accounts so you end up with a circular view. >
  
  
  What do you say to people that value individuality in their marriage? 
  
  I think I would need you to elaborate on what you mean by this >
  
  It's the same phrasing you use, but just imagine a couple where both people value their independence. They are both more comfortable with separate bank accounts for that reason. >
  
  Your post seems to be rooted in your concepts about marriage. Perhaps if you listened to some of the objections others have stated, you might expand your vision. >
  
  What about a second marriage with a blended family where Spouse A wants to ensure that they save appropriately for their children? >
  
  I guess there's an intervening question about the attitude spouses should take toward children from a previous marriage (?) >
  
  So you would agree that providing for children in a blended family, and taking consideration of the child’s other parent is a reason not to combine finances? >
  
  I don't agree yet - because I don't think I follow the logic - but I'd like to understand what you're suggesting >
  
  Okay, let me give you an example. 
  Sarah has a daughter with Nick. They have been divorced. Nick is paying Sarah child support for their daughter., Laura. That money is only for their daughter.
  Sarah marries Joe. Joe has a son, Tom, with his ex, Keri. He pays Keri child support.
  If Sarah and Joe get married, what assurances does Nick have that the child support isn’t going to Joe or Tom, if it is in a joint account? 
  Or, to look at AITA cases. Sarah has a money set aside for Laura. She combines finances and five years later, Joe demands half the college fund for Joe, because they’re a family and money should be shared fairly between them. >
  
  Wait- what ?!?!?!
  I need some schooling here
  Does Nick have a right to know / to audit how Sarah spends the money that Nick has to pay her ???
  I thought they just calculated a value that he had to pay
  I didn't think Sarah had to show receipts for how she spent it 
  ... because money is "fungible" ... (?)
  [[ Who has two thumbs and has not lived this scenario? ... THIS guy ]] >
  
  Yes. Child support money legally in the US must be spent on the child, not on others in the home. If he suspects it is not, he can take her back to court for improper use and attempt to change custody agreements. >
  
  . . . .  How is this enforced?
  If Nick's child and a new baby share a room, and Sarah buys bunk beds and a dresser they share ...
  ... what about utilities and groceries... ?
  My head is spinning
  Seems like divorced couples should just have to establish a trust ..
  ...
  I don't even know >
  
  If a person is suspicious, they go to the court and demand an audit. The court then goes through the money usage to determine if the child support is being abused.
  Nick may trust Sarah, but Nick may not trust Joe not to take Laura’s money. >
  
  So are you saying I should add an exception for child support ?
  And, if so, how would that solve the problem- keeping a separate account for kid(s) from prior marriage(s) doesn't solve the problem of allegations that the money is being abused ... it would still be subject to audit/ justification just the same ... 
  ? >
  
  My husband and I have separate accounts. I don't think we fall under #2 though. We divided expenses by income and alternate paying for dinner out. 
  I suppose if we divorce dividing income will be fairly easy. The kid will be much harder to divide. But honestly I had combined finances with my first husband and that definitely wasn't the hardest part of divorcing. Probably one of the easier ones. >
  
  
  (*) = Some exceptions apply:
  
  You could add a variety of exceptions for coerced, sham or opportunistic marriages. Say, if you're getting married for citizenship, tax breaks, had a "shotgun wedding", pensions, health insurance, higher pay in the military and so on. >
  
  What if I said those simply aren't marriages ? They're deceptions meant to look like marriages ... so my theory doesn't have to account for them ... 
  ​
  ? >
  
  
  What if I said those simply aren't marriages ? They're deceptions meant to look like marriages ... so my theory doesn't have to account for them ...
  
  Coerced marriages aren't deceptions. If we're looking at tradition, marriage for love is a modern invention.
  Anyway, I'm tired of the "not what I mean" games that happen on the internet all the time. You said marriage, so you mean marriage as far as I'm concerned. If you want to come up with a new definition of marriage then I'm not really sure why you even said it in the first place. >
  
  Are you really saying it's moving the goalposts that when I say "marriage" I don't mean to include coerced or sham marriages ?
  Would it shock you to know I also meant to exclude human trafficking, cults, and child brides ? >
  
  They’re still marriages. To even describe the idea of child brides is to say they are in a marriage. That you and I find them disgusting doesn’t change that. 
  Would you say a trafficking victim should share their finances with their trafficker? I don’t think so. 
  Besides, is staying married for health insurance or higher pay a sham? Is marrying someone earlier than you otherwise would to prevent deportation a scam? I don’t think so. >
  
  I would like to invite any third parties reading this thread to weigh in on whether or not I am moving the goalposts. I genuinely want to know if my conduct is contrary to healthy, productive discourse. >
  
  Doesn’t mean you’re acting in bad faith. 
  I think other posters have brought similar points about toxic or abusive relationships. If you’re going to talk about marriages, particularly handing over the keys to your bank account, you need to see them for what they are. It’s hard to do that when you feel strongly in a certain way. Happens all the time. >
  
  I have a business that my wife has minimal part in running. My wife has zero understanding of how to handle the kind of money flowing through my business, and we both know it is less stressful for her to just accept that I bought a new F450/F600/tracked skid steer/mini excavator/grader/compactor than for her to actually understand my finances. A lot of people get way too stressed when they see that their husband just dropped 120k over a 15 minute phone call. Last time I had her see the kind of money I was spending was when I went to go buy a gravel truck and had her drive the pickup home, and seeing the 40k in cash was too much for her.
  I have sole access to the main funds that are vital to our financial health >
  
  Would you agree that the business's finances are separate from your personal finances ?
  ​
  You don't buy excavators out of the same checking account you buy milk and eggs, do you ? >
  
  I only take out ~5k a month. My business is our sole source of income.
  And we mainly use cash for personal finances, it prevents impulses.
  So, this is a valid reason to maintain separate finances from my wife. >
  
  I think most couples should keep their finances separate and have a few joint accounts for building wealth together. It removes a certain level of tension and control from the equation making for a potentially healthier relationship. Marriage isn’t a melding of two people into one, finances should be no different. >
  
  We used to argue over money a lot. We’d spend too much and end up over drafting bc we didn’t know what the other had spent and this was during the age of debit cards but before mobile apps to check balances immediately. 
  Once we opened separate checking accounts and decided who paid what bills based on income, we didn’t overdraft anymore and our arguments diminished to almost nothing. We have a joint savings. We have both have individual savings. We talk about our goals. It’s all very transparent, we can both see all of the accounts, and it’s the system that we’ve found works for us. And we just celebrated 15 years married so we’re doing a few things right I suppose. 
  Separate but together for sanity’s sake. >
  
  Would it be fair to say that your finances are merged in the sense that it isn't "your money -vs- my money" but rather it's all "our money" ... you just split up who manages which accounts and streams of cash ?