The foundation for most marriages is not financial but love, respect, honor, trust, etc... Having separate finances does not in any way change that foundation. Nor does having separate finances mean you are not VERY aligned financially. Most can be just as aligned as those with joint finances. It's just a different way of doing things that works for some, and doesn't work for others, not a reflection on the character or strength of one's marriage.
You make a great point. And I think my response was unclear - I didn't mean to imply that separate finances means you're not aligned financially with your partner. That was more in reference to many people's statements that they don't want to see their partner spending money on X (some expense they think is stupid/unnecessary/stresses them out), and my perspective of not having this expense X that is contentious or so troubling as to be better out of sight. (Which is the impression I'm getting from some of the separate-accounts folks.) I was pointing out that for some people, the separate finances work well because it prevents conflicts due to different values. So my point was that I am aligned (including financially) with my spouse, and I was referencing that difference.
If you're unfamiliar with the term "income splitting" it essentially means pooling your incomes together and being taxed at a combined rate. It doesn't exist here, so, if one person earns 400k in Canada, and their spouse earns 10k, they are each taxed at their own individual income tax rates. If the person earning 400k has 500k in taxable investments, income from these investments will be taxed at the rate of their own income. If the person earning 10k has 500k in taxable investments, then they'll be taxed at their much lower rate. The higher earner can't just give the lower earner money to invest for themselves. If they do that, then attribution rules kick in and the higher earner still has to pay tax at their own higher rate.
I'm only explaining all this because people seem very quick to judge on this forum, without taking into consideration that people have different backgrounds, cultures and situations.
Ah, very interesting. That does make sense - I'm approaching things from the perspective of a US citizen (and our tax code), so thanks for the clarification, wasn't aware.
I think this aspect of finances is definitely one of personal comfort levels. For instance, my partner and I are very affectionate - no gross PDA like making out in public, but lots of physical affection like holding hands, quick kisses on the cheek, hands around the waist, hugs, etc. I have plenty of friends that don't like to have any physical affection in public with their partners (or sometimes generally with anyone). I don't think they should change (assuming both partners are happy), I love them as they are, I understand they are different from me. But in the back of my mind, I think about how glad I made that my relationship operates differently, and I know I would be unhappy being in a relationship with those parameters. So I don't care what other people do in their own relationships (it doesn't affect me), I'm not trying to get them to change. But I also fundamentally don't really relate.
So that's where I'm coming from - not trying to judge, but also having a hard time understanding why especially people in the same position as me (married young, similar assets, similar financial attitude and values, both income earners) would make the choice to have separate assets. Since marriage, while giving many financial and other benefits, does obligate you to your spouse in financial ways too, I wonder whether someone people create a false sense of independence when obligation is actually there. If your spouse has CC debt, doesn't matter to an extent whether you didn't contribute and don't approve, if you're on the hook.
I think this conversation is skirting the lines of what marriage means to different people, which is fascinating. I for one might be more inclined to live together unmarried, and draw up legal documents on my own with a lawyer (to get some of the same benefits marriage provides) than to get married, if ultimately autonomy is of major importance. In reality it's not too realistic - there are cultural benefits being married provides, that you couldn't get with self0contracts. I just find that a lot of the separate finance folks have views that are identical to what mine were in the committed-but-not-married stage, and that fascinates me.