comment: >
  
  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.
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