OP hasn't been back, so I'm not going to feel bad for highjacking this thread. I had a little snit fit/ knee jerk reaction to this thread and thankfully deleted it, once I got over myself.
But now I honesty want to ask.
Why is pooling the "of course" and separate the "but why" choice? I've never seen separate as something to justify, or fix, or like we're doing something sub-optimal. I also don't see it as a choice that's about how we would divid things at the possible ending, but as the choice we made during the doing. But will pooling our money really make us a happier couple? My main goal for FIRE is to increase my happiness, so maybe I've been looking at this wrong?
We keep our finances totally separate. I like knowing that I'm doing this thing together, but also as individuals. I'm a big fan of the two trees in a forest thing, together but as individuals. (yes I've read the research on tree symbiosis, but the metaphor still works, lol)
My partner and I talk about money a lot, a lot a lot. I love to talk about my FIRE plans and go on and on. I convinced him that he had more than enough to FIRE 4ish years ago. He was grateful to have my support and to give him the push he needed to not OMY. I'll fire end of 2025.
What am I missing that we would get from pooling?
Pooling, to a certain degree, by default matches the laws as they apply to marriage.
If you want to keep things separate, your arrangement is in opposition to most jurisdiction's marriage laws, so you need to customize those laws with a prenup to make a separate finances situation safe and reasonable.
Otherwise, as I have said repeatedly in this thread, separate finances are INCREDIBLY dangerous, as it leaves each person totally blind to what's happening in half of the financial affairs of their own legal financial entity.
This would be like two business partners running different departments and acting like each is a separate company when in fact, they're one legal financial entity. One side can take both sides down.
If you want to operate as separate financial entities within a contract that is designed *not* to work that way, then you have to customize that contract.
That tends to be a lot more work and hassle. Hence why it's not the default.
Also, the VAST majority of people who keep separate finances do so to avoid talking about money. So the behaviour tends to correlate with poor financial relations while also dramatically raising risk.
It's GREAT that separate finances works for your marriage, but I don't think the generally judgement against it has anything to do with couples like you and your spouse.
It has to do with the overwhelming number of people out there who avoid talking about money at all costs, and who actively hide their personal finances from their partner, which is far, FAR more common than your situation.
I'm not sure about that. At least not where I live. I'm a tax professional and I've worked with many couples, married, unmarried, rich, poor, working class, middle class.
The vast majority of people that keep seperate finances in practice (as in - have seperate accounts that are used for more than just "pocket money" because pocket money bank accounts where each spouse gets €100 or €200 for spending seem to be pretty common here) also have seperate finances legally, as in, a pre-nup. Probably around 80%. And most have very good reasons other than "not wanting to talk about money" because drafting up the legal paperwork requires lots of conversations and is much harder than just getting married and accepting the terms and conditions set by the state. In most cases it has to do with inherited wealth or business ownerships, people who keep seperate finances out of principle like we do are much harder to find. Being a tax professional with a law degree, of course we have the necessary documents put in place.
The two most risky situations that I encounter far more often than "people having seperate finances in practice but not legally" are those two:
- people who are married and have legally combined finances, but one person pays all the bills and earns all or most of the income, where the other person (usually the wife) has no idea at all because "I'm not good with numbers". For many people this works out fine in the end. I have also encountered people whose spouse has spent all of the money and got them in massive debt without the other person knowing. I also know of a case where a husband was able to hide having fathered a child with his mistress that he was paying child support for out of their joint account, because his wife never checked the bank statements.
- people who are unmarried, have children and live as if they are married. Particularly if one party, usually the woman, gives up their job to look after the children. Legally you're nothing more than roommates and the only thing you're entitled to is child support. I have seen so many women in this situation
including a fellow female tax professional. People don't think it will happen to them. I know of a lady who had children with their partner, but in his will he still left the house that they lived in together in to his ex because he never changed it and I think the life insurance as well. People think it won't happen to them or their family will sort it out between themselves, but of course his ex wasn't going to let go of free money.
The first situation is typically a Boomer couple, but of course it can happen in other generations too. The second couple are usually Milennials who don't love the institute of marriage because their parents are divorced. I don't love the idea of marriage either, so I understand, my parents were divorced too. None of my friends have parents that are still in their first marriage. But at least in my country there are other legal options that are the similar or the same as marriage, like civil partnership. It's important to put some documents in place and talk about money and the financial future.
