Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    There's enough money involved consult a professional -- get a lawyer,
    one who knows his stuff.
    
    ed

    My soon-to-be wife and I bought a house a few months in advance of the
    ceremony. When we applied for our mortgage, the guy writing down the
    pertinent information asked "May I presume that you will be married?"
    and took some comfort in our affirmative reply. It may help you if you
    are willing to reply similarly.
    
    One legal issue is how the house is owned. I forget the expression,
    something like "tenants in common", which means that ownership moves
    automatically to the surviving owner in the event of a death. You may
    or may not want to do that, depending on how you feel about your SO
    versus other possible inheritors.
    
    Anticipating the potential for eventual dissolution of the partnership,
    the usual solution would be to sell the asset and divide the proceeds.
    A fair division is difficult if you don't contribute equally to the
    house. For example, you could compute total cost of home ownership
    (mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance) and divide that
    cost right down the middle. This works if you and your SO have similar
    levels of income. Another form of contribution is labor. If you're
    disposed to work on the house, and your SO is not, then you'll have to
    come up with some compensation scheme. This arises all the time: the
    house needs painting, and you can take two weeks of your vacation to do
    it, or you can hire it done for thousands of dollars. You could decide
    to paint the house yourself, paying yourself the amount that the
    lowest bidder would have charged, the payment being credit toward
    future house payments. Figure out what you want to do about taxes:
    you'd be paying the painting contractor in after-tax dollars, and you
    obviously (?!) would NOT declare the imputed income from painting it
    yourself... but then you cannot add the imputed cost of your painting
    the house to your basis for computing capital gains. Complicated, isn't
    it?! A general strategy for dealing with smaller repairs is an hourly
    rate: you get $15 (tax free) for being handy, and you and your SO make
    decisions about whether it's preferable to "pay" you to do it, or hire
    a third party, the decision turning on your skills and the relative
    cost.
    
    A multi-family makes fair division easier, by eliminating the
    requirement that both parties find new places to live. You buy a
    two-family, for example. You rent out half, and if you break up, then
    you turn the house into condos and you each own one, to dispose of how
    you will. You can define a process whereby three real-estate agents
    suggest prices for each unit as condos, then you negotiate prices such
    that either party is equally satisfied with either unit, at the agreed
    upon price. You can decide the ultimate outcome by flipping a coin. Or
    set the price by bidding: you and your SO offer prices for each unit,
    until you or your SO accepts. "I'll pay $30,000 for the second floor
    apartment, and you get the first floor apartment." "$40,000 and you
    have a deal." If you buy a three-family, treat the third floor unit as
    an asset to be sold and divided above, with each of your getting a
    condo to dispose of as you will.
    
    An unfortunate aspect of this is a considerable accounting overhead,
    all of which has the implicit message "this relationship is ephemeral."
    On the other hand, it explicitly recognizes each partner's
    contribution, e.g. I did 20 hours of work on the house, and you did
    only 5, which might REDUCE some aggravation, particularly if you're
    deducting the $15/hour from your monthly check toward housee expenses.
    And there's the theory that a relationship is more likely to last if
    both parties recognize that there are no guarantees... we have to work
    and cooperate and accomodate and contribute,... or we'll hang it up per
    the devices described in our contract.
    
    I think it's a good idea, particularly if you go for a multi-family.
    
    Lots of luck - Hoyt

.1> There's enough money involved consult a professional -- get a lawyer,
.1> one who knows his stuff.

The "legal" relationship will differ from state to state.  There *is* a
difference between "joint tenants" and "tenants in common".

I was a "tenant in common" with another  person in New Hampshire - went to
an attorney to have papers drawn up which defined profits (I must have been
on some good smokin' stuff!) from the sale, losses, etc ... he said that
he would be more than pleased to accept my business, but, if it ever
got to court it probably wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.

Jerry

>   How does mere sleeping with someone change a legal contract?

I'm pretty sure that it does change things.  I think that that big 
case in the Seventies (what was the name of that actor?  Lee Marvin?) 
set a precedent: you can be held accountable for verbal contracts, 
even if you aren't married.  In other words, if you say things like, 
"Honey, I wouldn't be in such a successful position if it weren't for 
you" or more explicitly "I owe you so much of my success," and if the 
other person can convince the judge or jury of its truth, then you 
lose.

The sexual component makes you vulnerable to these suits.  (Are they 
called "paternity" suits?)  And, for you folks out there who have 
same-sex partners, the courts are beginning to recognize the 
legitimacy of those relationships (see the Merv Griffin and Martina 
Navratalova cases).

If you are buying together, I would also recommend putting together a 
"partnership agreement," as well.  Like, "if we break up, blah blah."
The courts don't always pay attention to these agreements (especially 
if they are between same-sex partners), but chances are high that you 
will get royally screwed without them.

							--Gerry

    As pointed out, its tough enough getting any reasonable settlement if
    your divorced, never mind what your about to take on. GET some legal
    help. And make shure that the lawyer you pick speaks to you vs at you.
    Shop around! It wont hurt! Esp if you two decide to part ways and you
    wind up with the sharp side of that stick.

   Thanks for  the  help...  

   I would  definitely be seeking the advice of a lawyer as this whole "Boston
   Marriage"  arrangement is basically created by a lawyer and the whole thing
   only  consists of the legal contracts the both of you draw up together with
   the aid of a lawyer.

   Hoyt, you  gave  some  really  good ideas, especially about how to go about
   trying to divide things equally.  Gave some good food for thought about the
   inner workings of such a deal.

>    something like "tenants in common", which means that ownership moves
>    automatically to the surviving owner in the event of a death. You may
>    or may not want to do that, depending on how you feel about your SO
>    versus other possible inheritors.

	and

>If you are buying together, I would also recommend putting together a 
>"partnership agreement," as well.  Like, "if we break up, blah blah."
>The courts don't always pay attention to these agreements 

   OK, say you did these two things...  You had a super lawyer draw up a sound
   "Joint  tenants  in common" contract and a "partnership agreement." The two
   of you are now covered by a legal contract specifying how housing costs are
   maintained,  how the house will be sold (say 50%-50%), what happens in case
   of death, what happens in case you two split up, etc.

   My question is  -  is  that really secure? My anti-marriage/anti-women male
   buddies  I  mentioned  said  that  such contracts mean nothing, they can be
   easily  broken  nowadays  in  the  US  courts   (ie,  that today premarital
   agreements  mean  nothing in the courts).  I don't understand why.  Is this
   really true?

   For example, five years later can one party say "I believe the house should
   not  be  sold  50%-50%,  because I had to cut the grass more often than the
   other.  I'm suing for 60%-40%." 

   Is that  possible?  Is  that  common?  If  the terms are spelled out in the
   contract  and  good  accounting is kept, there is little reason for concern
   since the two of you covered yourselves with the two contracts.  Right?

   Has there really been no negative experiences here in doing this with a SO?
   (Hoyt,  sounds  like you had positive experiences with this before becoming
   married?) Hate to feel like I'd be walking on virgin territory here...

   -Erik

    Erik,
    
    In the case of death, if you do not leave a will to recieve your half
    to, it will default to either the state, which has first dibs, then to
    the survior. Make a will.
    
    If a divorce, heavens forbid, even or common law marriage, you stand
    either 50/50% or if you have an offspring 70/30% barring the fact that
    she will likely get custody. And if you gain custody, its 50/50%. What
    happened to that 20% if she gets it? Well thats the breaks for being a
    man. Even if like Gerry, your gay, and have a common lover for more
    than the time of common law marriage, and Gerry has bought the abode,
    his lover has a shot of 50/50% and the lover may not have contributed
    0% for the course of the relationship. Way it goes in the estate games.
    Way it goes if your a guy. No crying towells please.:)
    
    What do you do to protect yourself? Not much you can do. No pre-neps,
    no quick claim deeds, just death till yha part........ No, I am not
    sugesting a saturday night special nor a weekend rental of a wood
    chipper either.:)
    
    Good luck!!
    
    George

One can always sue for just about anything.  Whether or not you're successful
depends on a lot of things, including the whim of the judge.

Contracts are forced into renegotiation every day in professional sports,
and you can routinely read of private contracts declared void by a judge.
The only certainty is that nothing is certain.

I have heard it said that buying real estate together is a "stronger bond"
than marriage.  Certainly that bond can long outlast a marriage - I've seen
that happen all too often.  No matter what was signed, or what a court orders,
your partner may be able to make your life miserable by not cooperating.
It's something to think about.

				Steve

    My wife and I have been married seven years, and we *still* divide up
    expenses and handy-work along the lines I outlined in my previous
    reply. She and I each write checks of identical amounts to the house
    account each month, and that account is used to pay for anything to do
    with the house. The rest of our money is our own, to spend as we will.
    
    This is a *great* advantage to our marriage, I believe. One benefit is
    we can indulge our stupid consumer impulses without incurring the
    other's rage. For example, my wife thinks that it makes sense to spend
    $600 on a Burbury (sp?) raincoat. No, I'm not kidding!! On the other
    hand, she is somehow skeptical about my tendency to buy another
    personal computer about once a year. The fact that I'm spending my own
    money makes it easy for her to accept, and we more-or-less never fight
    about money. Another benefit is the capacity to act genuinely generous.
    If I give my wife an expensive birthday present or treat her to a
    pricey meal, it's MY money I'm spending, not some common pool.
    
    My experience with my wife supports my recommendations about charging
    off handy-work against the monthly "rent" check. She and I have agreed
    on a rate at which EITHER of us is reimbursed for working around the
    house. This rate kicks in after the first four hours per week. Each of
    us faces the decision to do it ourselves, or hire the work out. We each
    make a personally optimal trade-off. The next month, when rent is due,
    we deduct the amount "earned" by handy-work from the rent check, and
    are pleased with our savings. It is a *personal* savings, and may
    represent a HOUSE savings as well, if we do the work cheaper or better
    than our hirees would have (which is why we decide to do it ourselves).
    The result is cheerful dedication to being handy, with no resentment
    about our "role". Be sure to agree on a rate you'll be happy with,
    however. A friend (not in a marriage/SO deal, but another partnership)
    felt protected by the agreed-in-advance rate for unmatched work, then
    felt greatly abused when he ended up putting in the great bulk of the
    hours, and decided the rate was too low to make it worthwhile for him.
    
    I would guess that some years of dividing expenses down the middle,
    with compensation for disparate labor effort as you go, would lead the
    courts to the obvious decision of splitting assets equally. You're in
    danger, however, if the classic scenario occurs: she decides that she'd
    rather not work ("My job isn't self-actualizing"). What if she can't
    come up with her monthly "rent", or simply WON'T? In that case, you had
    better be prepared to take on the whole payment yourself, which means
    either or both of (1) keep your house expenses low and (2) save several
    months expenses, ideally in advance. If you can manage the cash-flow,
    then her failure to pay can be treated as a loan from the "house", with
    an agreed upon interest rate (e.g. the mortgage rate) charged until she
    can make up the arrears. If she can't catch up, then you dissolve the
    partnership and are paid back from the proceeds BEFORE dividing the
    remainder equally between you.
    
    I'd suggest a trial run in a rental situation. Rent an apartment, get
    used to splitting the costs, agree on rates of compensation for work,
    experience what happens when one or the other is unable to pay the
    rent. If she's going to complain that "You make more money than I do,
    so you should pay more!" (for example) then it's good to figure that
    out before you pass papers on a house. I think you could easily argue,
    by the way, that expenses should be split in proportion to after-tax
    income. My wife and I do NOT do this, but that's because she was making
    more than me at the outset of our marriage, and we've leapfrogged each
    other since then, so it's been fairly equal overall. The advantage of
    "equal checks" instead of "equal proportions" is that my wife gets to
    keep ALL of her raise, when she takes on a new, difficult job with 
    commensurate increase in salary. The incentives are right. If you do
    equal proportions, then set the proportion as a function of the
    previous tax return's income figures, so you get to keep all of any
    raise AT LEAST until next April 15.
    
    Finally (this is long!) seriously consider multi-family houses. You two
    will have more of a sense of enterprise about it -- you're really
    running a (very) small business. You will be allies in the quest to
    keep the tenants happy, instead of antagonists trying to keep each
    other busy. And it makes division of property much easier.
    
    - Hoyt

    Hoyt,
    
    My preconceived ideas were that some method of sharing costs wasn't a
    true "marriage", in the sense of what is mine is yours...  But, having
    just gone through a court's version of equality, and with pre-nups
    being so prevalant, and reading your account in -.1, I'm beginning to 
    wonder if perhaps this doesn't make a great deal of sense!
    
    I'm curious: what do you do about buying household appliances? going
    out to dinner?  gifts for relatives?  Unexpected household emergencies?
    When one drives, does the other pay gas money?  ;-) Just how far do you
    take this??  And do you ever feel like you've taken some of the 'romance' 
    out of your relationship, by replacing the historical "sharing marriage" 
    with one based on economic principles?
    
    Ready to learn something new,
    
    Dave
    

What do you do about buying household appliances? 

    Out of the house account, after agreeing that the purchase is necessary.

Out to dinner?  

    We alternate. I note in the back of my day-timer who bought last. The 
    buying party gets to decide where to go. This is how the "I get to 
    treat tonight" bit works. If I'm a cheapskate, I take her to the 
    Phoenix Room for some greasy tex-mex. If I'm feeling expansive, we
    get to eat the broiled fisherman's platter at Legal's. She gets to
    exercise the same generosity or not ("not" is usually characterized
    as "thriftiness" rather than stinginess :).

Gifts for relatives?  

    She buys gifts for those relatives she's moved to buy gifts for, me
    the same. In practice, I buy Xmas presents for all her siblings as well 
    as her parents, and she gets present for my parents, NOT my siblings.
    Since this is entirely voluntary, with no "expectations" regarding
    how we "should" behave (double-quoted words being amusing pathologies
    too common in our society, IMO), we neither harbor any resentment re
    disparities.

Unexpected household emergencies?

    Household expenses from the house account, personal expenses from our
    personal accounts. When my wife car died suddenly, and her personal
    savings wasn't up to replacing it, she borrowed from the house account,
    and paid it back over ensuing months just like she would have paid off
    a conventional loan. Only, she didn't have to pay outrageous auto loan
    rates. We do NOT charge interest on loans from the house account. By
    our principles, we should, I guess; it doesn't seem important.

When one drives, does the other pay gas money?  

    On trips together (NYC, England), we note all the common expenses, e.g.
    gasoline, meals, hotel, tips, etc. -- and upon arriving at home we 
    split the total cost down the middle. The general theme is to NEVER have
    to negotiate over who reaches for their wallet THIS time, hoping for
    fairness by luck. We KNOW that we'll come out even in the end.

And do you ever feel like you've taken some of the 'romance' out of your
relationship, by replacing the historical "sharing marriage" with one based on
economic principles? 
    
    I tend to think that what we've done is we've gotten traditional barriers
    to friendship out of the way. Like the famous real estate maxim, there
    are three main sources of marital discord: money, money, and money. She
    and I have next to none of that. This is due in part to the fact that we 
    are both doing quite well. We're also both content with a modest standard 
    of living, so there's always a bit of "extra" to smooth over the crises 
    (dead car!).

    The main benefit, however, is that NONE of the usual marital bargain
    pertains. It could be cynically expressed (in too-traditional terms)
    as "I'll have sex with you and feed and dress the results, if you
    go to work everyday and bring home your paycheck so I can go shopping."
    Instead of my treating her as a sex-object, and her treating me as
    an income-object, we are mutual in both these respects, simultaneous
    recursive sex-income-friendship-objects.

    In less didactic terms: My wife and I handle money matters in a clear,
    systematic, and most importantly FAIR manner which allows us to be
    good money managers and MINIMIZES RESENTMENT AND CRAZY-MAKING GAMES.

    The arrangement was my idea, and was largely inspired by the bizarre
    behavior of my older brother and his (now ex-) wife. Like 95% of first
    marriages, with their dedication to romance and the conviction that
    everything will magically work out fine... my brother and his wife had
    joint accounts and spent money from that common pool. They were always
    broke, always on the verge of losing the house, always under tremendous
    financial pressure which translated directly into unhappiness with 
    their marriage. The common pool led to what could be described as 
    retaliatory spending. She would be pissed for some reason, and to assert 
    her personhood or something she would go out and (this is literally true) 
    go out and buy an airplane, with the intention of learning to fly it. 
    My brother would SHOW HER by going out and buying a sailboat which 
    he would learn to sail someday! They competed to see who could be more
    irresponsible. Stranger than fiction...

    My wife and I go for moonlit walks around the Brookline Reservoir, 
    holding hands and talking about life, the mysteries, and the prospects
    for selling the old three-decker as condos. I don't know if you'd 
    call it romantic, but it suits us!

    What do you think? Could this be a self-help book? "The Microeconomist's
    Guide to Marital Bliss"? ;^) ;^) ;^) 

- Hoyt

    Hoyt, I like it!  Thanks for sharing this with us...
    
    And I've marked your note in case I'm still working at DEC when I've
    finished "sowing my wild oats" ;-)
    
>    What do you think? Could this be a self-help book? "The Microeconomist's
>    Guide to Marital Bliss"? ;^) ;^) ;^) 
    
    I'd say you definitely have a couple of chapters worked out...  I'll
    buy a copy ;-)
    
    Dave

    Thanks for thinking it's useful. I bet there are some folks out there
    thinking I'm a major loon.
    
    I had another thought after writing my previous reply. What happens in
    a traditional marriage when one party (classically the wife) starts to
    moan at the "bread-winner" about expensive consumption, e.g. "I want a
    bigger house" or "I want a new car"? Does it simply become a contest
    wills? Can she (classically) browbeat him sufficiently, or regularly
    disparage his manhood, until he agrees? Yuk.
    
    If my wife wants a new car, then she gets to face the decision about
    how much SHE can afford to pay. And if she pays a lot, then I'm the
    happy beneficiary, because I'll occasionally get to ride in it. No
    hassle, no pain.
    
    A couple years ago my wife wanted us to buy a new, larger house. We
    discussed how much we were each willing to kick toward the house
    expenses, since the mortgage payment would be split equally. We agreed
    on a monthly "rent", then went and found the best house we could (both)
    afford given that amount.
    
    Our generic response to the others wishes to consume is "Great, if you
    can afford it, go for it, and enjoy!" That seems SO much better than
    the traditional model.
    
    - Hoyt

Hoyt,

I like your model, too!

In your model, what would you do if one partner makes considerably 
more than another partner?  This happened in my last long-term 
relationship, and, although it didn't cause fights, it did cause 
anxiety. 

For example, there were times when I wanted to go on a vacation and I 
wanted him to go with me, but he couldn't afford it.  Or, I wanted to 
go to a movie or restaurant, and he couldn't afford it.  I usually 
ended up letting him borrow money, which he always payed back.  But 
both of us felt a little bit uncomfortable with this.

For small things, would you recommend "taking from the house account 
and then paying it back"?  For larger things (airfare), would you 
recommend that either the trip doesn't happen or that only one partner 
goes?  For large expenditures (a house), would you recommend a 60/40 
or 70/30 split?  Maybe even a 60/40 or 70/30 split for contributions 
to the house fund?  Or is it important for everything to be 50/50?

Summary: what do you do when a 50/50 split really, REALLY taxes one 
partner and not the other?

							--Gerry

    I'd go for proportional contributions to common expenses: house, food,
    vacations. That split would still leave you with considerably more
    discretionary income, however. What to do, what to do.
    
    One course would be to do things without him. If he can't afford a
    ticket to the ballet, then go by yourself or with another friend. I bet
    there are lots of activities which you'd do without him, because he's
    simply not interested. Do the ballet without him, too.
    
    Another alternative would be to "buy" the pleasure of his company by
    paying his way (or part of it, subsidizing his ballet ticket). Here
    you've made the explicit decision that seeing the ballet with HIM is
    worth the price of your ticket and half (say) of the price of his. You
    face the choice, you make the choice, you don't resent the choice
    because it's yours. This is much more workable for BOTH of you if BOTH
    of you are comfortable with the first course, i.e. your going with
    someone else. It's a compliment: his company is worth the extra
    expense. If you're not comfortable with the "leave him at home" choice,
    then you're laboring under a sense of obligation. Bad. Get comfortable
    with "if you can't afford it, that's OK, I'll go with someone else or
    by myself, no problem." Demonstrate your comfort by doing it regularly.
    
    This shouldn't come up that often. Cultivate cheap interests. Go to
    Fresh Pond and paint sunsets together. Attend the book discussion
    meetings at the library. Use your friend's penurious state as a means
    to do that great UnAmerican activity, SAVING MONEY! Get a nice fat
    savings account! That will make it easier to surprise him with generous
    gifts, occationally, too!
    
    Finally, and this is where push would come to shove for me, encourage
    your friend to make more money! Imagine the life-style you'd live if he
    made as much money as you, Gerry! Weekends in Aspen! Paris in the
    spring time! I don't know what the heck you'd use your money for, but
    it WOULD be wonderful!! Persuade him about that. Encourage him to get
    the training or make the career change or whatever it takes to bring
    home more shekels. Help pay for school! Make an investment in a higher
    consumption future!
    
    The benefits of making more money are really highlighted by the set-up
    I've described in my replies. I just went through the math with someone
    in a mail message, where he's making $30,000 and she's making $10,000,
    and they are splitting $24,000 in common expenses proportionately. That
    leaves her with $4,000 to spend on her personal agenda, compared to his
    $12,000. IF SHE DOUBLES HER INCOME, HER EXTRA INCOME *MORE* THAN
    DOUBLES TO $10,600. The mechanics of dividing expenses makes this very
    clear to the participants.
    
    If your friend looks at the arrangement, and STILL chooses to pursue
    his career as a town cryer (say) because it's self-actualizing, then
    more credit to him, and both of you accept the deal as it stands. He
    has no call on your extra discretionary income. You should feel no need
    to share beyond paying the higher proportion of common expenses. The
    rules about money in your relationship are clear and do not generate
    trouble.
    
    I'd like to point out that, while my pay-your-share philosophy DOES
    encourage people to earn more money, it's mostly by the device of
    removing the alternative route of BITCHING at partners to GIVE them more.
    The goal isn't income maximization; it's bitching-minimization. It's an
    attempt to eliminate the resentment, nagging, and fighting that money
    too often engenders. If someone elects to NOT maximize their income,
    that's a respectable choice. Just don't ask me to pay for it.
    
    - Hoyt

    re: .4
    
    > set a precedent: you can be held accountable for verbal contracts, 
                                                       ------
    Hey, Gerry, don't you mean oral contract?  This is the perfect example
                               ----
    of unfortunate English usage that really diminishes our ability to
    communicate effectively.  "Verbal" means "written" or "oral". If verbal
    elbows aside oral, and comes to mean oral (as well as its full
    meaning), we no longer have a means to distinguish between "written"
    and "oral", which is central to the point you are making.
    
    Sigh.
    
    Kit
    
    (Who does not want to appear pedantic, but will risk it to
    preserve the full range of meaning of words. Next on the list:
    disinterested and uninterested -- which would you prefer for the judge
    in your trial?)

>    > set a precedent: you can be held accountable for verbal contracts, 
>                                                       ------
>    Hey, Gerry, don't you mean oral contract?  

Yes, I meant "oral."

It wasn't that misfortunate.  It got cleared up in the second draft.  
;-)

						--Gerry

General comment:

It seems as if my notes lately have been followed by comments about 
sexual abuse, sexual harassment, oral sex, and venereal disease.  
Maybe it's just coincidence.  Maybe not.

But it seems as if stereotypes are being preyed upon.


							--Gerry

    
    	Thanks for the replies Hoyt.
    
    	There was some good excellent stuff in there. I'll respond here
    	(and other notes) when I get the chance. Right now it's too 
    	(wonderfully) hot in here to think about anything more serious
    	than going to beach or for a bike ride... :-)
    
    	You expressed my views on relationships (the type that work for me
    	anyway) better than I could have, it was nice to know that I'm
    	not alone in those relationship views.
    
    	Thanks!
    
    	-Erik

    Hoyt, I enjoyed reading your notes.  In my relationship we
    handle our finances almost the same as you have described.
    We have been doing this for a number of years and I believe
    it eliminates a potential hot spot of discussion.
    
    When I was married we had a common pool.  It lead us into a 
    financial nightmare.  I could not comprehend spending $100
    on a blouse, my wife could not comprehend me spending $20
    on a case of beer.  For some reason a common pool prods you
    to spend money, I'm not sure why, but thats the way it
    effected us.
    
    The only thing I do different than what you described is to
    split expenses in a manner that leaves us both with the
    identicle disposable income, even though we do not make
    similar salaries.  As we are both trying our best I feel
    this is fair.
    
    GB
      

    Well, thank-you for not thinking I'm a loon! It's nice to hear that
    these ideas have some currency elsewhere.
    
    Re splitting to have equal disposable income: I'm interested in how
    that effects your incentives to earn more money. Under the "equal
    disposable" strategy, if you made three times your SO's earnings, and
    20% of your joint earnings is "disposable," then your SO is keep 40% of
    her earnings and you're keeping a bit less than 15%. Does that rankle?
    
    If you get some consulting work and make an extra $1000, how is that
    divvied up? Since it's extra income, then is it all disposable income,
    so you and she would split it down the middle? You work three
    consecutive weekends and she receives exactly the same additional
    income? SHE gets $500 for watching TV for three weekends, while you're
    slaving away?! Excuse me, my rankle is showing :).
    
    My wife and I each encounter occasions to take on consulting
    assignments. Under our scheme of "equal absolute dollars toward
    expenses in common" she gets to keep 100% of her extra earnings. I
    think that's the right incentive.
    
    Do you observe the two of you taking on the extra work, signing up for
    the professional-advancement training, etc.? If it ain't broke...

    The only solution I've found is to contribute equal amounts of money
    to a joint account to be used for whatever you deem should be paid
    mutually.  Bills, vacation, dogs vet bill, etc.
    
    The rest of what each individual earns is theirs to do with as they
    please with no recriminations from either party.
    
    
    
                                     L.J.

    re 607.25
    
    With regard to a lack of incentive to earn more
    money.  I can see where the potential of an issue
    would exist.  We are, however, quite comfortable
    in our belief that we are both doing our best, and
    that includes maximizing our income.
    
    With regard to extra work.  We are both fairly busy
    with our family and hobbies etc., so we don't
    really have activities outside work that pay us
    financially.  In addition we are not eligible for
    overtime pay on the job.  So your scenario isn't
    really pertinent in our situation.  I could see
    where it would be though.  My suggestion would be 
    that the individual that earns the extra money be
    allowed to spend it in any way they choose.
    
    GB