Moving in Together Doesn’t Match the Financial Benefits of Marriage, but Why? | Hacker News Reader

Moving in Together Doesn’t Match the Financial Benefits of Marriage, but Why?

wsj.com

32 pointsjbredeche28 comments

Some of the answers from the article:

> “Married people may be much more likely to have these conversations around what goals they have for their financial future,” she said. “There seems to be something very special and unique about deciding to share finances.”

> Unmarried couples may be less willing to commingle their money, said Prof. Garbinsky.

The number one cause of divorce in America is money fights and money problems ( per https://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/jul13/predictingd... )

Couples who pool their finances increase relationship satisfaction - especially in low income families - per https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-42962-001

Combining accounts is something my wife and I decided to do right away when we got married. It's way less complicated than the alternative. We don't have fights about money. We talk about big purchases before we make them. Since she's more of a free spirit to my money nerd, sometimes I have a little trouble bringing her to family budget reviews, but eventually she finds some time to talk.

Reviewing our budget/financial health gives us an opportunity to talk about our future financial plans, what we want to be able to afford, our hopes and dreams. And we never have to think about who's going to pay for what out of what account. The money earned in the family isn't "her money" and "my money", it's our money.

Wouldn't your lack of bad conflict regarding money be less about the fact that you combined finances, and more about you yielding to the conflict and accepting its presence in a different way? Based on your choice of words, it seems like budgeting is a option rather than critical, so if that's the case, how would you approach things if both of you needed to have the same relationship with spending?

It would seem to me like combining finances would only lead to less actual conflict (good or bad) if you've both already synchronized your relationship to the money coming in, rather than a solution in itself.

> Wouldn't your lack of bad conflict regarding money be less about the fact that you combined finances, and more about you yielding to the conflict and accepting its presence in a different way?

A simpler way to put it is we communicate with each other our plans for the use of our money, especially when it concerns larger amounts.

And it's easier to think of it being "our money" when it's pooled in shared accounts.

> Based on your choice of words, it seems like budgeting is a option rather than critical, so if that's the case, how would you approach things if both of you needed to have the same relationship with spending?

What do you mean by "needed to have the same relationship with spending"? Whether we budget or not depends on our financial circumstances. In leaner times, budgets become critical. Most of all, it's a monthly opportunity to talk about the family's financial health and spending/saving/giving priorities. If somebody is spending too much or conversely, being too thrifty, we talk about it.

> It would seem to me like combining finances would only lead to less actual conflict (good or bad) if you've both already synchronized your relationship to the money coming in, rather than a solution in itself.

I don't fully understand what you mean by "synchronizing your relationship to the money coming in". If it's a fancy way of saying "we talk about the money we earn and how we spend/save/give it", then yes, we do.

I agree that pooling finances is not the whole solution. The main solution/bad conflict preventer is thoughtful communication and trust. To use a git/coding analogy, studies have shown the act of combining finances is a small (but important) commit on the trunk of your overall commitment to each other in marriage.

I think your first clarification answered my question. It just seemed like you were saying something along the lines of "I'm interested in being diligent about the finances, and she pays less attention but occasionally agrees to talk about it" which would indicate there's some level of disagreement in spending patterns from the same pool of cash. But I think that was just a misinterpretation of how you initially phrased your comment and I'd agree with your last paragraph.

In most (but definitely not all) relationships, one person is more diligent about finances, and the other person is a bit of a free spirit ("budgets are boring").
Is there disagreement? Sure. But not at budget reviews - we agree on shared goals. More at the level of "I'm thinking of buying a ..." We check each other. Sometimes we convince the other to not to buy something, other times it's totally OK, and in a few, we compromise/disagree and commit. Each person understands the financial + practical consequences in that last case. The important thing is there's easygoing communication happening before big money actually gets spent (or not spent).
There's no hiding purchases (or accounts) from the other person. Everything is out in the open. There's also "blow money" / "fun money" - a sum allocated to each spouse that they can spend or save on whatever they want - no discussion necessary.
-----

(I have relatives that are both free spirits, and in that case, it's tough to see so much money flying out the window. But they keep their income up, and they also automate a lot of their savings so they don't have to think about it.)

Regular check ins, whether or not there is an "issue", is a good way to keep a big issue from arising.

and a budget

That’s stupid. We don’t combine anything and my wife asks for permission each time she needs to buy something. Works flawlessly.

That's stupid. We combine everything, neither of us asks permission for anything. Works flawlessly.

Marriages have an expectation of permanence. This allows for long range planning.

On flip side. Divorce is really, really expensive for exactly the same reason. You’re breaking apart an organization that assumed it would never be broken apart.

Lots of people described Brexit as a divorce for this reason.

https://archive.ph/VFp4P

Only passing mention of filing taxes jointly (which isn't always a plus, but certainly can be), joint accounts and greater ease of getting a mortgage, etc. Clearly there are already economies of scale from living with roommates, but it doesn't seem too shocking that being married gives a lot of people a leg up. The better question to ask would be "does it continue to be in the interest of society to incentivize marriage by offering these benefits" - which may or may not be true.

"Married people have higher net worths and are more likely to be homeowners" - homesless men are more likely to live in a tent, so the first step to get out of poverty is to stop living in a tent.

This general reasoning error (or purposeful trick? always hard to tell) is in almost every single news article I come across. Almost every car accident happens close to home between sober drivers, so I always make sure to be far from home and very drunk when I drive

And the chance of finding two bombs on the same plane is next to zero. Therefore, I always carry a bomb on the plane when i board!

I don't get what you're saying here. Of course married individuals are more likely to be homeowners because they are far more likely to be dual income.

Or they are married because they were rich enough to get married

Could be value system. Traditional people get married before moving in. That already proves a huge ability to wait for rewards.

Same people are Probably more likely to plan for financial success then people drawn to instant gratification.

It's simple self selection, showing the class divide in the US. Marriage is an intentional act. Cohabitation is, more often than not, out of necessity.

Not sure why you’re downvoted.

Causation can always be argued, but I think correlation between education level, income level and propensity to marry (and stay married) is pretty high.

My gf and I share finances this way:

I gave her a credit card out of one of my accounts, the one with the best cash back. We use that anytime we are together. Restaurants, groceries, dog, flights, hotels, etc. the cash back goes back into the account.

For everything else, we use our own cards and if there are any balance differences, like when I pay rent from my account, she just pays more on the CC than I do.

This way we avoid sending money back and forth and we can track everything in one place. There is no burden when buying something knowing it’s fair for both without having to keep track of it later and ask for money from the other, etc.

Because American law was written by a deeply conservative Christian society and never updated.

My own country spent the last 40 years liberalising the shit out of tax laws.

Which country? what did they do and what was the impact?

Less access to the one true leveraged instrument: home ownership.

[archive.ph/VFp4P](https://archive.ph/VFp4P)

Woman more likely to hard commit to wealthy catches would be my guess.

Divorce doesn't seem to be discussed (caveat paywalled).

That's a big hit to net worth what with legal fees and maintaining two households.

It could be that married couples get large financial gifts/boosts from their parents more often than unmarried couples. If this is the case, then the involvement of the parents in the marriage ceremony may be a major factor in this outcome.

I wish! Though, there might actually be a correlation here, since parental stability, income levels and education affect marriage/divorce rates, and parents with their act together would have more money to give, and more of a chance of a meaningful estate to bequeath.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com