This sounds basically like have one pot of money, but allow both people to blow some of it every month on unnecessary stuff. Which is the opposite of what a saver personality would like to do. I don't see how it would work in a relationship where one person is blowing the "fun money" every month while the other person saves it. There would still be resentment.
My wife and I do this, and while we're both savers by nature, I'm more of a saver, so I end up piling up the fun money while she tends to spend hers (I think. Mostly. I don't actually know how much she has in her personal account because I don't care)
There's no resentment because we already agreed that fun money isn't part of savings or long-term planning. And the fun money is a small enough part of our overall budget that it doesn't impact important goals.
From a "resentment" point of view, it's much better for me to have pre-agreed on $x a month that's going to be spent frivolously than it is to have a conversation about each frivolous purchase as it comes.
And I do still spend my fun money, I just spend it in larger chunks. She's more likely to spend regularly on things like lunch and events with friends, I'm more likely to save up for a while then buy a new power tool, or rent a cabin for a weekend ski trip.
> I don't actually know how much she has in her personal account because I don't care
I feel like this is a useful thing to do for people who feel like they might feel resentment (or guilt) at their partner for spending too much (or for spending more than their partner) on fun stuff. As long as neither partner goes over the fun-stuff spending limits, it just doesn't matter, and there's no reason to even know.
> And I do still spend my fun money, I just spend it in larger chunks. ... I'm more likely to save up for a while then ... rent a cabin for a weekend ski trip.
Out of curiosity, what happens if your wife wants to come with you on the ski trip, but because she spends her fun money regularly and doesn't save for larger purchases, she doesn't have enough to cover her share of the cost? Or is that just not an issue, because you'd plan it far enough in advance that she'd have time to save? Or would you just say screw it, and call it a gift to her?
Not the GP but in my relationship if both of us are doing a thing and it isn’t already a gift of some sort it’s going through the joint accounts, not the fun money accounts.
The point of 'fun money' is that it isn't money that goes into savings. There's money allocated into savings before any 'fun money' allocations. Anything you have in your 'fun money' account isn't part of your savings, and can (and should) be spent guilt free.
This works as an individual as well, and is the mechanism I used to get myself out of debt. The vast majority of my remaining income after essentials went into paying down debt, or into my savings account. A small amount went into a discretionary spending ('fun money') account. Anything I didn't spend that month simply rolled over to the next month. It never went into my savings, and eventually got spent (usually after several months of 'saving' in the 'fun money' account, in order to buy a new phone / other gadget)
> > > > And I do still spend my fun money, I just spend it in larger chunks. She's more likely to spend regularly on things like lunch and events with friends, I'm more likely to save up for a while then buy a new power tool, or rent a cabin for a weekend ski trip.
> > It never went into my savings, and eventually got spent (usually after several months of 'saving' in the 'fun money' account, in order to buy a new phone / other gadget)
> This is wrong since they specifically talked about saving their fun money.
Saving multiple months of fun money to blow on something frivolous should probably not be the same as a savings account. That's not what the article (nor myself, nor I suspect the GGGGP) was talking about. Savings are for long term planning, for long term investments, for large scale purchases. If you need to save >12 months of 'fun money' for a purchase, then this might not be the correct approach for you, as you're right, and that's effectively a savings account at that point.
>That's not what the article (nor myself, nor I suspect the GGGGP) was talking about.
It was exactly what I was talking about actually.
I'm not going to blow money period, so I'd end up saving the >12 months of 'fun money' not for a purchase at all.
> blow some of it every month on unnecessary stuff.
Sounds like you are a saver. I'd like to point out that resentment can go both ways.
They addressed this in the article. A conversation needs to be had to decide as a couple how much (non-zero amount of) money is to be spent. It can easily be a low number, if that's what the couple agrees on. As long as the couple comes together in that conversation, there should not be any resentment.
If there is resentment after that conversation (as long as the agreement is followed), the "resenter" is in the wrong.
The best system seems to be to communicate honestly and openly, to be accepting of your partner's differences, to establish and allow personal boundaries, and to negotiate when boundaries seem to interfere with each other. So basically to have a healthy relationship.
I guess it depends on what happens with the saver's extra saved money. If it just gets used for larger fun purchases less frequently, there's no problem. If the saver uses the extra cash to invest and it's understood that it's still the saver's fun money, even when it comes time to withdraw that money during retirement, that's fine.
If it goes into the shared retirement accounts, then that might cause problems.
Then again, it just depends on attitudes. If you're a saver, but recognize that your partner's happiness in part depends on spending more, then perhaps you just won't care.
At the end of the day, you've jointly agreed on what the monthly allowance of fun money is, so there shouldn't be resentment. If there is, then you agreed to something you shouldn't have. If your partner can't agree to a lower amount, then you just have to accept that your financial/spending compatibility is low, and decide that the rest of the relationship overcomes that incompatibility. Or not, and then you break up.
That's the beauty of the system...each one should not care what the other does with their 'allowance'. If one wants to save, or invest, or what have you, while the other one buys gifts for your neighbor's aunt because they like giving gifts to everyone...well, so be it. It is not from the centrally held account so it is perfectly fine.
Meanwhile, that central account and the rules of expenditure are rock solid and it will remain unmolested with wild gift giving, or extravagant lunches, or a risky investment, or the burning desire to save every penny under a mattress.It is resentment free.
> each one should not care what the other does with their 'allowance'.
This is impossible in any legal system where all money saved are seen as a joint asset. This means that if one person saves their allowance and the other spends it, then in the case of a divorce all of that money will be split.
An easy hack around this is to not know what the balance is in the other persons fun money account. If you treat the 'fun money' as gone as soon as it is paid out, then there is no resentment.
We save some of our “fun money” for things like buying gadgets or that extra monitor I might not “really” need, don’t see why there would be resentment?
