Family Economies
Feb. 6th, 2010 08:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livingdebI'm finally writing about the interesting post on My Money Blog, Relationships and Money: Are You Communist, Socialist, or Capitalist?
You could describe family finances as:
* Communist: all the money goes into one account and decisions are shared
* Socialist: whoever earns more pays a higher percentage of the communal expenses
* Capitalist: each person pays their half and makes their own decisions
This way of looking at it turns things on their heads a bit, which is especially clear when watching an extremely conservative commenter trying to come to terms with the idea that the one obvious best way of dealing with family finances (one big pot) has the name of the worst way to deal with national finances (communism). Heh.
I've always known that families are like little communes that could actually work because you know and care about the other people, so you are less likely to take advantage of them or make stupid decisions that do not address what the people involved actually want. And in fact, the most successful communes have been small and voluntary rather than large national bureaucracies.
My parents started off communist but due to one spouse wanting to start a business and the other spouse not wanting to get ulcers, it has evolved into a much more capitalist system--each person is in charge of certain purchases although some of them are common purchases (one pays for housing; the other pays for utilities and food).
I know people who put most of the money in a one pot (communist) but they also each get an allowance (socialist if the allowances match; capitalist if the one who makes more gets a bigger allowance).
I have capitalist tendencies. These issues do come up even with dating. I prefer for each person to pay for themselves. But I have also been talked into a system that whoever does the asking does the paying (after warning the guy that I would only be asking about cheap things).
I have also enjoyed subsidies for when one person wants the other person to do something that the other person is unwilling (perhaps unable) to pay for. I have been taken to concerts and out to eat in this way and have helped a sibling go on a family vacation and a dance partner go to a dance competition. It's actually okay on both sides, though I feel a little more comfortable as the rich one.
But everyone knows that getting married is different. Two become one. When I imagine a communist set-up, I feel uncomfortable. I'm likely to marry someone richer (whew!), but I have this sense of fairness. I shouldn't benefit from someone else's wealth--I shouldn't get more than I deserve. And I also have this sense of independence. I shouldn't start depending on someone else's wealth--what if it disappears? And I am also selfish. I don't want to work as much as I am able, and I am more motivated to do the right thing when I know that I get all the rewards for that behavior.
This all means I am inclined to try to drag my partner down to my level. (Convince him that he wants to retire early, too, so he can sleep in every day if he wants. Convince him he wants to stay in my small house because when it's paid off it will be awesome that we each will only have to pay $150/month plus maintenance.) That doesn't seem quite right, either.
You could describe family finances as:
* Communist: all the money goes into one account and decisions are shared
* Socialist: whoever earns more pays a higher percentage of the communal expenses
* Capitalist: each person pays their half and makes their own decisions
This way of looking at it turns things on their heads a bit, which is especially clear when watching an extremely conservative commenter trying to come to terms with the idea that the one obvious best way of dealing with family finances (one big pot) has the name of the worst way to deal with national finances (communism). Heh.
I've always known that families are like little communes that could actually work because you know and care about the other people, so you are less likely to take advantage of them or make stupid decisions that do not address what the people involved actually want. And in fact, the most successful communes have been small and voluntary rather than large national bureaucracies.
My parents started off communist but due to one spouse wanting to start a business and the other spouse not wanting to get ulcers, it has evolved into a much more capitalist system--each person is in charge of certain purchases although some of them are common purchases (one pays for housing; the other pays for utilities and food).
I know people who put most of the money in a one pot (communist) but they also each get an allowance (socialist if the allowances match; capitalist if the one who makes more gets a bigger allowance).
I have capitalist tendencies. These issues do come up even with dating. I prefer for each person to pay for themselves. But I have also been talked into a system that whoever does the asking does the paying (after warning the guy that I would only be asking about cheap things).
I have also enjoyed subsidies for when one person wants the other person to do something that the other person is unwilling (perhaps unable) to pay for. I have been taken to concerts and out to eat in this way and have helped a sibling go on a family vacation and a dance partner go to a dance competition. It's actually okay on both sides, though I feel a little more comfortable as the rich one.
But everyone knows that getting married is different. Two become one. When I imagine a communist set-up, I feel uncomfortable. I'm likely to marry someone richer (whew!), but I have this sense of fairness. I shouldn't benefit from someone else's wealth--I shouldn't get more than I deserve. And I also have this sense of independence. I shouldn't start depending on someone else's wealth--what if it disappears? And I am also selfish. I don't want to work as much as I am able, and I am more motivated to do the right thing when I know that I get all the rewards for that behavior.
This all means I am inclined to try to drag my partner down to my level. (Convince him that he wants to retire early, too, so he can sleep in every day if he wants. Convince him he wants to stay in my small house because when it's paid off it will be awesome that we each will only have to pay $150/month plus maintenance.) That doesn't seem quite right, either.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2010-02-07 02:53 am (UTC)I used to think a lot more like you--didn't want anyone to give me anything I didn't deserve (gifts, compliments, etc) and it frustrated the h*** out of friends and family who genuinely cared for me. I still fight that tendency with T's family, who like to give gifts that I have no way of reciprocating (even though reciprocation is neither expected or wanted). But I try.
no subject
on 2010-02-07 02:54 am (UTC)no subject
on 2010-02-07 05:17 am (UTC)Currently we are in a sort-of socialist structure, as B hasn't found a high-paying job yet. He gives me what he can after paying for his own expenses.
My guess is that once he gets a better paying job we'll do more of a capitalist system, because I feel like you do about paying my own way, etc. I REALLY don't like owing anyone anything, and even if I were married to someone I fear that I will feel the same way.
I wouldn't make a good trophy wife, for any NUMBER of reasons! Damn it.
no subject
on 2010-02-18 04:13 am (UTC)no subject
on 2010-02-18 04:22 am (UTC)One thing about living together unmarried, without the lifetime commitment, most would agree that it's not wise to mix everything up.
And especially in my state, once you're married, legally you share everything but your credit rating (and anything you can keep totally separate--like I could keep my house if he never put a penny into it or spent a minute fixing it up--ha!), so that really does change everything. I also feel that once you're committed, his stuff is your stuff, so it's now safe to get rid of your crappy but serviceable duplicates, so even non-legal things change.
no subject
on 2010-02-18 03:50 pm (UTC)