Financial Principles in Marriages

I would like to discuss principles to follow in regard to spending and who should fork out the money for what. Assuming that both people work and receive money.

These are what I think of.

Spending is not sacrificial, but for individual self interest. This is the basis of the rest.

It means that each person pays for their own personal items such as makeup, books, music.

It means for shared items, the cost is shared, for example groceries, house bills, utilities.

Fairness comes to mind.

This is probably derived from not being sacrificial. It means that one person can't loaf off the other.

Post 1

Friday, December 17, 2004 - 11:21am

I agree in principle, thought there is probably more leeway
in the matter of personal items. Say, if my other is a little short, and I had the money, I might spring for it, with no expectation of being payed back. Not out of sacrifice, but because I would want to. Love is exception making...

Post 2

Friday, December 17, 2004 - 11:28am

I wrote an article related to this topic.

http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Rowlands/Valentines_Gifts.shtml

Post 3

Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 5:02am

I say, let couples decide for themselves.

We have one couple that we know, in which they each pay for their own things. However, when it comes to shared expenses (bills, rent, etc.), they split the bill. Because she makes more than he does (as he's still working on his Ph. D.), they split it on a ratio. I don't know their exact salaries, but if you assume that she makes twice as much as he does, she pays 2/3 of their bills, and he pays the other 1/3.

Not only that, but suppose you have a couple that has a stay-at-home parent (perhaps homeschooling). That parent isn't providing economically to the family, but is creating a situation that his/her spouse may be more than willing to financially support, even if that means paying for food, rent, bills, etc.

Post 4

Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 6:33am

Joe T.,

I was actually composing a similar post in my head when I read yours. You've said pretty much all I meant to say.

The problem with laying down hard and fast rules for marital finances is that each marriage is different, different participants, situations, expectations, etc. Even within a single marriage, things change, jobs are lost, promotions are earned, there may be children for awhile. Context is definitely important. As William suggests, what's important is that each person feels he (or she) is getting a fair deal.

Take care,

Tenya

Post 5

Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 2:00pm

Let me add my voice to Trusnik's and Tenya's words of advice. Each couple has to come up with money rules that suit their situation. I don't think there is any overriding principle when it comes to money other than trust is implicit in the arrangement. I would suggest that if any money rule a couple agrees upon is predicated upon a lack of trust in one or another, maybe that couple isn't ready for marriage.

R. Pukszta

Post 6

Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 2:16pm

Rowlands,

Thank you for the link to your article. There are women like you describe who can turn a gift from her husband into an argument over money. I'm not sure how I would make financial arrangements with such a woman, but then I wouldn't marry such a creature. Fighting over money would drive me nuts. If property needs to be delineated within a marriage, that is a marriage I could do without.

I do recognize there are circumstances in which it is prudent to keep property separate within a marriage, like great fortunes or second marriages, but I'm not sure what you advocate is really a general principle applicable to all couples. I certainly don't see how Objectivism mandates it. In fact, my "joint property" arrangements with my wife have worked well without any sense of sacrifice on my part or hers. I done many foolish things in my life, but this isn't one of them.

Pukszta

Post 7

Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 7:58pm

Money is not trivial. How a person relates to money reflects their primary nature. Falling in love with someone whose values are not your own is a fact of life. If these are "chocolate vs. vanilla" choices, then the disagreement is not derived from a fundamental difference.

I always believed in separting the expenses that were not inherently shared. After about ten years of marriage, we finally agreed. In the mean time, we worked out several modes of balancing the money. Some worked better than others. This works best.

There is a philosophical principle that applies: independence. Glossing it over with questions of "trust" does not address that. In The Basic Princples of Objectivism course, this came up in another context. When Nathaniel Branden asked, rhetorically, "Don't you trust me?" The answer that he was illuminating was the more basic question: If the trust were there, the blank check would not be required. Why would that sanction be needed?

I agree that above that level, yes, when two people do have an implicit relationship, questions of who picks up the check and who leaves the tip are details that should not lead to other issues. When they do, then those other topics must be worked out explicitly. In order for that to occur successfully, you must share the same basic values.

Clearly, marriage -- or any kind of emotional partnership -- is deeper than tallying who put the quarter in the parking meter last time. If each person is individually committed to the principle of independence, then such issues seldom come up -- and when they do, they are quickly resolved. However, if one partner feels that the other is either taking more or giving less, then there is a basic disconnect. If it comes up in trivial matters, it will be multipled and magnified when the problem involves getting a mortgage.

Giving gifts is in the same class of problems. The worst case is O. Henry's "Gift of the Magi": he sells his watch to buy her a comb; she sells her hair to buy him a fob. Self-sacrifice is a bad -- in the words of Sam Spade: "bad for business, bad for everybody, bad all the way around." If you can afford the gift and you expect that it will be appreciated, then nothing more needs to be said.

It can be said that by the nature of reality, financial independence must work better than financial inter-dependence. If collectivism is a failure mode for nations, it must also works less well for married couples than would the application of individualism.

.

Post 8

Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 8:43pm

William Egge wrote: Fairness comes to mind. This is probably derived from not being sacrificial. It means that one person can't loaf off the other.

I put myself first, so I would restate that as: I do not loaf off others. How you relate to accepting the unearned depends on your relationship with yourself. In marriage, the question of "earned" gets complicated. In marriage you often have to feel your way through a problem. If you feel that your relationship is "fair" then it probably is -- and if you feel that it is "unfair," then it probably is. Feelings, however, are the result of ideas. I am not one to moosh through on feelings as if they were primaries. Money is very tangible, very computable. About ten years ago, my wife and I were separated; she had moved out. Then, she had minor surgery and needed someone to care for her for a few days. So, I did. Somehow, I forgot to send her the bill for that.

Joe Maurone wrote: Love is exception making...

My wife gets coffee in bed almost every morning and breakfast in bed many mornings. I don't run a catering service for strangers. On the other hand, she buys all the groceries -- even the ones that I eat that she does not. Maybe I'm getting my money's worth out of all that service after all.

There is another way to make "exceptions." This past summer, my wife and I visited Falling Water. We could have gone with a larger tour group, but we paid more, and -- more to the point -- we went with each other. Each of us expected the other to see "the whole picture." We learned details from the guides, but we put them into a context that included not only our shared appreciation of nice lines surrounded by trees but also our shared education in civil engineering. We could not have reasonably expected all of that from other people. We hold each other to a higher standard.

Post 9

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 12:40am

Rooster,

Communists used to argue (and probably still do) that communism as a system is great in itself, but of course the people aren't good enough for it. They would always point to some problem and argue that it was the people's fault. If the system created incentives not to do any work (you'd get punished if you were productive by having to do more) or gave no incentive to work, they would argue that when the people stopped working it was their fault, not the system. Human nature was corrupt.

When you have something like the tragedy of the commons, where everyone can use it and nobody is responsible for it, it provides every incentive for people to get us much as they can out of it and not maintain it. The system itself is corrupt, not the people. The system rewards bad behavior, and discourages good behavior. I can remember growing up with three siblings and we were given a bag of chips to eat. If you stopped to savor it, you'd miss out. Whoever ate the fastest got the most. Saying the children were evil misses the whole point.

Now to marriage. You say "but then I wouldn't marry such a creature". And this is blaming the people for the problem. Joint property.

As I said in the article, it's a fact that people are going to have differing values. When you have joint property, it pits your values against one another. If you want something and they don't, someone loses. Of course, there's often a winner who thinks the system is working out great. And when the other person leaves him or her, they're taken by surprise.

So instead of creating a system where you create a conflict of interests between two people, and where vice is rewarded and virtue is punished, why not choose an alternative? The cure to the tragedy of the commons is private property. Why is it that some Objectivists can see how important this is in society in general, but think that it's not necessary in the most influential part of their lives?

You've assumed that private property in a relationship is a bad thing that denotes mistrust or something. "If property needs to be delineated within a marriage, that is a marriage I could do without." But that's viewing it from a conservative lense, starting with whatever is the tradition. But why assume private property rights is bad in this case? Why is it that the obvious strengths of private property are so abundantly clear except when it comes to traditional marriages? Why is it that public property still has some appeal to people?

Post 10

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 6:20am