Wednesday, 11 September 2013

The good, the bad, the ugly: Finances of cohabitation

The good, the bad, the ugly: Finances of cohabitation

Sasha Taskier and Tyler Felous
Sasha Taskier and Tyler Felous moved in together last month and have combined their finances. (Tyler Felous)
You fell in love, moved in together … now, who should pay for what? Navigating finances as a cohabitating unmarried couple is one of the biggest strains on a relationship, but doing it correctly can be a predictor of whether it’ll last.
Couples are notoriously poor about discussing their individual finances. Instead, they save those conversations for after they’ve moved in together. That means they keep separate bank accounts and have little knowledge of each other’s debt.
“People tend not to think about their finances as a couple, but think about them in individual terms,” said Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia.
That may make sense short term, he said, but long term it can become problematic — especially since more and more couples share a home, but don’t tie the knot. Over the past two decades, the number of couples who live together, unmarried, has nearly doubled in many countries including the US, United Kingdom and other European nations. In Sweden, the majority of couples cohabitate, marrying only after they have children.
Someone has to be the treasurer of your relationship. — Jamie Seaman
“Many couples slide into a cohabiting relationship without discussing what it means” to them financially, says Galena Rhoades, a marriage researcher and associate professor at the University of Denver in Colorado.
To split costs or not
Most cohabitating couples divide expenses down the middle, Wilcox said. But that can be a problem when one half of the couple earns more than the other. The lower wage earner may feel the need to spend more to keep up with their partner and, as a result, save less or repeatedly dip into savings accounts to keep up. Not addressing a wage discrepancy “can create resentment,” Wilcox said.
To keep finances fair, Jamie Seaman, a New York-based medical device sales representative, said she and her boyfriend split rent, utilities and big purchases based on their earnings. Seaman pays 40% of expenses, she said. The couple uses a spreadsheet to track purchases over $100. The system, managed by Seaman’s boyfriend, offers the couple transparency when it comes to who owes what.
“Someone has to be the treasurer of your relationship,” she said.
For most people, Wilcox recommends maintaining separate bank accounts while also opening a joint account used to pay common bills. That creates “a shared liability and a private zone,” Wilcox said. The higher wage earner should pay a larger share of the bills. Over time, cohabitating couples should start to naturally pool more of their money together to save for things like vacations or furniture.
Dealing with ghosts of money past
Being forthright about debt from previous purchases, loans or credit cards can be the biggest hurdle when couples first start to mingle finances. Setting clear expectations is also important. For example, will paying rent mean part ownership if you move in with your partner and he holds a mortgage on the house you now both live in?
“If, for the next five to seven years, you [fund] the mortgage and you have no equity, that’s something that would concern me,” said Gary Shor, a vice president of financial and estate planning at AEPG Wealth Strategies in Warren, New Jersey.
Disclose any big debts you have, too. Be honest about your obligations.
Get it in writing
Financial experts suggest a “no-nup” or pre-cohabitation agreement for those in the UK, US and most parts of Europe. These function in the same way as a prenuptial agreement and can be drawn up by a lawyer for about $1500. A customisable template is available for free at sites including rocketlawyer.com.
If a no-nup isn’t appealing, attorney Frederick Hertz, author of Living Together: A Legal Guide for Unmarried Couples, recommends getting everything in writing, even a simple email, which is then agreed to by both partners in emailed responses.
“In an absence of an agreement, neither will have any rights if they break up,” Hertz said.
Keep evidence of leases, investments and large purchases, whether they’re purchased by one person or both. While it can take weeks to draft a contract or even an email agreement, “the process should strengthen your relationship,” said Hertz. “Lack of clarity is harmful.”
Common finances mean happiness?
Studies show that combining finances before marriage can be a positive for the relationship, said Rhoades — although perhaps not for the most romantic reasons. When you don’t intermingle funds, it is far easier for one person to simply leave the relationship without as much thought about what disentanglement could mean, she said.
“They have already set up that exit plan,” Rhoades said.
But there’s also a happy medium for some couples — a shared budgeting process. Tyler Felous, a co-founder of a financial start-up, said he and his girlfriend have come up with a joint budget that they manage together. It helps them understand each other’s financial goals. To keep costs down, the Ann Arbor, Michigan, couple agree to spend no more than $300 on dining out and $600 on groceries per month. Felous, 25, and his girlfriend also keep a monthly tally sheet to make sure they are on track with their spending.
“It’s helped us understand how we will coexist once we get married,” he said.
If you would like to comment on this story or anything else you have seen on BBC Capital, head over to our Facebook page or message us on Twitter.

Syria crisis: Obama vows to keep pressure on Assad

Syria crisis: Obama vows to keep pressure on Assad

President Obama says he will pursue diplomatic efforts to remove Syria's chemical weapons but has ordered the US military to "be in a position to respond" if such measures fail.
In a televised address, he said he had asked Congress to postpone a vote authorising the use of force.
The US has threatened air strikes after a chemical weapons attack killed hundreds in Damascus last month.
Russia has proposed such weapons be placed under international control.
Although Syrian officials have agreed in principle, the US and its allies remain sceptical.
The Russian plan triggered a day of diplomatic wrangling at the UN on Tuesday.
Diplomats at the UN would appear to be in a holding pattern until a critical meeting takes place in Geneva between John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov.
If there is to be an agreement, it will be hammered out between the US and Russia. They are the key players. News of the meeting emerged shortly after Russia cancelled a closed-door session of the UN Security Council that it had requested only hours before. It was a tacit acknowledgment that the real diplomacy will take place there.
Public attention may have been on Barack Obama as he delivered his nationwide televised address.
But diplomats' eyes will be on what happens behind closed doors in Geneva, and also on the private discussions that President Obama may end up having with Vladimir Putin. If there is to be a breakthrough this week, it will come during those talks rather than in New York.
Speaking from the White House, President Obama said his administration had long resisted calls for military action in Syria because he did not believe that force could solve the civil war.
But he said he changed his mind after the chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on 21 August.
"The images from this massacre are sickening," he said.
"On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off limits, a crime against humanity and a violation of the laws of war."
The Syrian government has strongly denied carrying out the attack and instead blamed rebels trying to oust President Bashar al-Assad.
But Mr Obama said the US "knew" the Assad regime was to blame.
"We know that Assad's chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas," he said.
"They distributed gas masks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighbourhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces."
Mr Obama said that such an attack was not only a violation of international law it was also a danger to US national security.
Americans in Washington react to the speech
"As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them," he said.
Chemical weapons plan timeline 5-6 Sep: Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama discuss idea of placing Syria's chemical weapons under international control on sidelines of G20 summit
9 Sep: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says he has urged Syria to hand in chemical weapons and have the destroyed; Syria welcomes plan
10 Sep: Barack Obama postpones Congress vote on military action and says he will give Russian plan a chance
He said that "after careful deliberation" he had decided to respond to the use of chemical weapons through "a targeted military strike".
"The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime's ability to use them and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. That's my judgment as commander in chief."
However, he said he would not "put American boots on the ground in Syria" or pursue open-ended action such as that in Iraq or Afghanistan.
He added: "Others have asked whether it's worth acting if we don't take out Assad. As some members of Congress have said, there's no point in simply doing a pinprick strike in Syria. Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn't do pinpricks."
President Obama said he welcomed Russia's proposal as an alternative to military action, but added: "It's too early to tell whether this offer will succeed.
"Any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force."
"Hunting down banned chemical weapons in a secretive Middle Eastern dictatorship is not easy," as Frank Gardner reports
President Obama said he had therefore asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorise the use of force "while we pursue this diplomatic path".
He confirmed earlier reports that US Secretary of State John Kerry would meet his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Geneva on Thursday, adding: "I will continue my own discussions with President (Vladimir) Putin."
"I've spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom. And we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the UN Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control."
He added: "Meanwhile, I've ordered our military to maintain their current posture, to keep the pressure on Assad and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails."
The BBC's North America Editor Mark Mardell said the president's address was clear but almost entirely lacking in passion and devoid of new arguments.
The arguments at the UN continued on Tuesday with the UK, US and France calling for a timetable and the consequences of a Syrian failure to comply with any resolution spelt out. Washington has warned it will "not fall for stalling tactics".
Russia - an ally of President Assad - said any draft resolution putting the blame on the Syrian government was unacceptable and urged a declaration backing its initiative.
UK government sources have told the BBC that the exact wording of the joint US, French and British resolution on Syria's chemical weapons is still to be agreed.

Jaguar goes big with C-X17 in Frankfurt

Jaguar goes big with C-X17 in Frankfurt