My significant other is complaining that she doesn't have enough weekly spending money. This weekly spending money does not include bills/fuel/food/mortgage/car or anything like that, it's spare cash she can use for any purpose she wants. What do you think is a fair weekly amount?
Adult Pocket Money - How Much Is Enough?
[Deactivated] on 05/03/2017 - 13:28
Comments
Our household budget became much more manageable when we moved to a system like yours where each adult gets a spending money allowance.
This covers personal grooming expenses, eating out, alcohol and items bought for individual use (so the little white satchels arriving from China with flashlight or usb cables etc), clothing, gifts and luxuries.
The house pays for housing, groceries, utilities, holidays, kids expenses and $20 a month toward a mobile.This approach keeps everything under control. Some months I save a lot but then buy a laptop or whatever later on.
It caused everyone to re-examine their spending for value. So for example, I almost always bring my lunch from home so its costs get attributed to groceries, saving me money but also substantially lowering the total expenditure on food compared to buying it at work.
And my partner's changed from getting her hair dyed at a salon to doing it herself, for similar savings.So I reckon you are doing things in a good way. Setting the amount for the adult's allowance is trickier. Consider the Newstart allowance is about $260 a week, and recipients need to cover all their expenses from it, so I reckon anything above that is a bit excessive for pocket money.
In my family we set the rate initially at $50 a week, but the house paid for more things. That didn't work well so we upped it to $150, but with almost all personal expenses included.My view is if you are currently struggling with expenses at $250 a week, you both need to spend some time looking at where the big ticket savings can be made. You might be able to use your frugality skills to help your wife find areas she can make big savings without it making much impact on her lifestyle.
We have basically the same system, currently budgeted at $500 a month.
Our breakdown is almost identical to yours except phones are included because I get a free work phone. It works well for us for most things. Anything that can't be covered under that budget gets discussed and agreed on. The only problem with this system is kids stuff, naturally it isn't fair for Kids things to come out of my wifes money. But we have very different levels of expectation of what is essential and what is spoiling/turning the kids into a fashion accessory.
Money will always be a tough point, especially when you're on a single income and a budget. Its hard to watch your financially irresponsible friends continually buying new toys, when you're saving $200 a month towards hopefully getting a newer motorbike in 2 years time….
I feel your pain. Here I am trying to explain to my young one the concept of money, and how putting in $2 per roll at strike bowling to redeem useless paper tickets for rubbish is silly, and frankly even more silly than playing 5 dragons at 2c all reel bets. I've been trying hard to point out the wealthy people around his family and how they all have passive income from investments, but frankly I feel I'm talking to a brick wall. If an adult can't agree on spending money, what hope do kids have?
OzBargain should be part of the school curriculum.
How old is your young one if he's still playing the $2 per roll strike bowling game, but also knows about the dragon reel bets and passive investments?
He's 8.5, and I've been trying to tell him it's better to run $10 into the pokies as opposed to those useless ticket winning wheel things. You lose your money either way, but one might net you a feature or even a jackpot.
He's starting to understand the concept of investing money, but still wants to spend money on useless shit.
I don't agree that putting $10 into pokies is better than having fun with friends at the arcade. Guess I'm just old fashioned.
Give her Aldi gift card
I cringe everytime I read similar posts. You both work. Your wealth is her wealth. Her wealth is your wealth. Why the restrictions/ Control? Me and my wife have joint account and use whatever money we like. What's the point of marrying each other if you cant trust each other with money.
As someone who's seen a lot of divorces, couples who completely share finances tend to have very messy splits. If one partner falls into gambling/ substance abuse/ business debts, then both spouses can end up broke. Which is really tragic if there are kids in the family.
So by that logic you are going into marriage already expecting to break up?
I'm in the same boat as you but it seems 'reasonable' if you have a fiscally irresponsible/retarded SO. Personally I would ditch such a person in a heartbeat irrespective of how "nice/sweet/kind" a person is because a nice idiot is still an idiot.
All to his/her own I guess.Marriages break down and once that has happened you can't trust each other with money.
Just because one gets married, doesn't mean giving up being an independent person as well. All the couples I know that have a joint account for house, household expenses etc and separate accounts for themselves have little to no fights about money while the couples who have the "your wealth is my wealth" attitude fight very often.
Having and keeping separate accounts and savings also ensures financial independence in case the marriage breaks down.
How does this system work out when one of you stays home to look after children? (if that's the road your life takes)
Then the carer gets paid a regular salary by the earner and that money is then theirs. In fact many countries recognise home care for the purpose of pension rights and eligibility.
@Lysander: In practice it's probably the same. After bills etc my wife and I share what small amount of left over spending money on whatever we want. We discuss any big purchases etc. But it seems unusual to me to have some formal agreement in place to pay your partners 'home care salary'. Either way, people should go with what works for them. (FYI I didn't neg you).
All good. Negs don't concern me really. And I agree with you: people should go with what works for them. By the way, I do not have or need a formal agreement as I believe that in most cases people pick partners with similar values and attitudes. However, these days when the divorce rate is 50% and rising it is prudent to have a formal agreement in place in case the marriage does not work out. It is not about mistrust or not trying hard enough - it is about protecting each partner and avoiding dependence on the other partner or unfortunately in many cases ex-partner.
Even getting a divorce can be tricky if one partner is totally dependent on the other as where is such a partner supposed to get the money to consult a divorce lawyer?
In any case, thanks for your input and wise conclusion with which I fully agree.where is such a partner supposed to get the money to consult a divorce lawyer?
As pessimistic as it may be, this is a great point.
@Lysander: I agree your point, but just to call out out on the state, the divorce rate is actually falling (and has been for quite a while) - http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3310.0 (see table 1.2, crude divorce rate, has dropped from 2.8/1000 population to 2.0/1000 population since 1995).
But not all 1000 population is married.
Also, let's include de facto as well as there is no gay marriage yet and the situation is exactly the same.
Do a financial arrangement as 1 out of 2 marriages/de facto relationships will statistically fail.Does the 'worker' get more play money than the 'carer'
They way I would like to look at that situation as that both are contributing to the family in different ways. One is bringing home the money needed to live, while the other is facilitating that living.
If I was in that situation, all money would be spread into appropriate accounts (Bills, provisions, good health savings etc) and then both would get "play money" to do whatever they want.
I think positioning it as "the carer gets paid a regular salary by the earner" is totaly BS as that would make this an unequal relationship. Not going to last.
I disagree. It works absolutely fine, especially as if treated that way the work done at home is properly recognised as a job done rather than just as a contribution.
Salary is what you would pay to a stranger for the same work - that way it is fair and unbiased. In such a situation, then the carer also has rights and is not dependent on the goodwill and discretion of the earner.
Sorry, but too much randomness and possibility for arbitrary decisions by the earner in your scenario. Imagine what would happen if the earner was cross with the carer and consequently withheld money and did not pay into the account. Nothing you can do but if treated as a job then that would not be possible - hence some countries recognise such work as a job without the need to have a formal employment contract (as that would be too artificial in a marriage).@chriise:by requesting the court provide them access to the family money, which happens all the time afaik
@elyobo: i bet there is also a contingent of people that marry multiple times that skews figures. Someone can have 4 divorces compared to some ok me else who only has one marriage
@Jules_d1: it is total BS, if a person was getting a divorce, then people are entitled to give or take half if they aren't working. If their Si is making a million a year, he/she better be paying up or the person will be fiscally better of divorcing them
@Lysander:sorry but this opinion is fanciful and has no basis in law. If one person earns a buttload then the SO is entitled to live to a certain standard regardless of if they are raising children and cleaning toilets, and that standard is not simply the cost of what a live in carer would earn.
Married couples are I'm the eyes of the law a single unit. If one is out earning and the other isn't it's seen as that the other has supported that person to be who they are.
You are wrong but you are entitled to have your opinion. While in some respects they are considered as one unit, in other situations they are not. Also, in other countries what I have stated is the basis prescribed by law to determine entitlement to pocket money or in the case of a divorce alimony.
If you live on $3000 a month happily, then marry, and still earn that but because your partner also earns $6000 a month you can live in a bigger house rather than you single unit or smaller house, why should you then be entitled to that standard if the divorce breaks down - both partners will have to downsize in the case of a divorce and possibly go back to the pre-marriage standards. Neither partner is worse off then.
To avoid the 50/50 situation is exactly why one should prepare a financial arrangement or prenup.By the way, you are forgetting something: in most other countries only people who have worked have an entitlement to a pension. As the state recognises child care as a job and uses as a basis what a properly employed carer would be paid, then the stay at home, child-caring partner also gets an entitlement to a pension.
Without such construction, no pension entitlement. Also, I believe that such construction actually officially ascribes real, tangible value for all to see to what the stay at home partner does on a daily basis.Again, my friend that is not correct. I work in that field and you are very much oversimplifying the situation there.
@Jackson: It's the only valid point i've heard. Understand maybe they want a little discretion to get things moving. Lysander's comment just made me realise that if my wife wanted to seek legal advice she wouldn't be able to pay for it without me noticing something was up. That does seem a little unfair.
@Lysander: i am only referring to Australian law as that's where I expect the OP to be living and married.
There are of course all sorts of nuanced cases and ways to argue, but if a person met the partner at uni, then one went on to be a neurosurgeon and the other a stay at home parent, they are well entitled. They are also entitled to money made through their investments. If I am wrong about that please do correct me, I am no expert.
LOL fight very often. Me and wife have been happily married for 8 years. I can happily report we have never ever had a fight about money. Just incase you think its because we have never had financial struggle then I should let you know we got married when we were in Uni. We moved together and lived in a granny flat because that's all we could afford. Even then we didnt restrict each other because we wanted to see each other happy. Once we graduated, our careers progressed and now we have our own property and are doing well financially.
If you are planning for marriage breakdowns then mate you married the wrong person. Why did you even bother proposing?I couldn't even count how many people who used to put forward this argument come through the firm's door every week regretting that sought and now having to pay a lot of money to get their mess sorted.
One does not agree to turn off being smart and pragmatic when one gets married.
If it works for you great. I did not say it doesn't work for anybody but for most. My firm's and friends' firm's statistics certainly back that up I am afraid.@Lysander:
i think you are just seeing confirmation bias. you work in an area where you see people splitting up and a number of those splits will be money based.in my group of friends and family those who share funds have less money fights and those who keep split accounts seem to complain about the others spending more etc. i think theres other things at play rather than joint bank accounts. probably an imbalance in their spending habits (so those with split accounts do it so one parry cant spent all the savings)
my wife and i have very similar, poorer upbringings but now have a lot of money so we have similar ideas about spending….therefore a joint account works well for us. we also agree on the way to raise kids, politics, social values etc etc…. that type of relationship is going to be less problematic. we also have huge wage differences as well so its not like there isnt the same pressure others talk about, we just view all the funds as ours, not mine and hers.
horses for courses. i wouldnt say either is better or worse. i couldnt imagine having split accounts but couldnt imagine being with someone where i might need to either.
The problem is: one can only ever see the outside of a head, never the inside if you get what I mean.
People change and sometimes it can take years to find out the truth.
@Lysander:
very true. what do they say 'a woman marries a man expecting she can change him, a man marries a woman expecting that she won't'Very true and wise words of yours - I agree fully and hence close my contributions for tonight. ;-)
I wish you a very lovely and pleasant night.
Having and keeping separate accounts and savings also ensures financial independence in case the marriage breaks down.
Probably works against the lower earning spouse, if they intend to claim spousal support payments
That's why you have what is commonly called a "prenup" and that is only valid if the partners have received independent legal advice each beforehand. That is supposed to make it fair and balanced and avoid undue influence and pressure.
That's why you have what is commonly called a "prenup" and that is only valid if the partners have received independent legal advice each beforehand.
Dude, you've seen too many Hollywood movies…
I honestly can't see any self-respecting low(er) income earning partner signing one, where they walk away with nothing. I suspect most pre-nup agreements are quite generous towards the lower income earner, as an incentive to sign it.
Regardless of whether you are a low income earner or not, marriage is not about financial gain. Why should you suddenly be better of financially just because you marry. If that is your incentive to get married, namely to be provided for, don't get married.If someone needs a financial incentive to marry me, then she can go and find some other idiot. Sorry but that's my opinion.
OP says wife can't save and is bad with money so your advice is not good. your advice is marry someone you can trust with money. OP is not in that position. Too late for the OP
Out of interest, do you both have a common savings target?
In my experience, there's no need to set limits / provide an allowance if you both have common goals and a mutual understanding of your expenses.
If you're still unhappy with what your Mrs is spending, it can also help to identify how much you've each contributed to the savings target. In this way, it's more positive reinforcement (ie > I've saved $250 to your $200) than negative reinforcement (ie > You've spent $250 and I've only spent $200 - not fair!).
If anything, the former actually helps spur your partner on rather than belittle them for spending.
If she wants money from you, you get a say in what she spends it on.
If the situation was reversed. It'd be exactly the same thing.
It is not about who earns more. It is justifying why you need to pay your partner.What I can think of
1) Gender roles
2) Moral/self duty of wealth redistribution (feeling bad)
3) Social duty of wealth redistribution (gender roles or duty as a married couple)
4) Shared responsibility as a couple (not this from what I gather since bills/fuel/food/mortgage/car is completely covered )
5) Exchange of goods or services
6) To keep the peace/make her happy (exchange of goods or services again)All of which are not good reasons as a couple in 2017 (I am assuming you two are married)
My opinion is if the expenditure is not including bills/fuel/food/mortgage/car, and one works, the partner should not be complaining that there is not enough spending money.
Do you have kids?Edit : Ok I might have misunderstood the situation. Just to clarify how much money is she putting into the household account? How much can she reduce that amount by?
Not to sure about the proportions in this situation.What is your SO needing to spend money on every month that is requiring more spending money ?
Adults don't get pocket money that's for children, Adults work contribute to the household 50/50 and keep whats left over for their personal use
if SO wants more tell her to get 2nd job or leave and move on
What if one partner is working full-time while the other is spending more time raising children?
Also:
Many divorces are caused by financial disagreements: each person assumes the other will spend in a way that they think is sensible. So they don't budget at all. But then their partner always surprises them, since everyone is different. ("Why did she buy a $400 handbag? Doesn't she know we're saving for a 4k TV!?!"). They always know their own reasons (or justifications) for their own purchases, and don't understand why the partner is making theirs.
If they instead agree up front to put all their pay in a joint account for all the main bills, then each have $X a month for spending on whatever they want - their partner is not allowed any say in it - that can avoid such problems.
I agree that if you have kids and one looking after them/one working the situation is different. I'm not sure if that is the situation in OPs question.
Our situation: All income goes into joint accounts all unavoidable bills get paid from there (this includes things like parking, groceries etc). We both have $300 a fortnight for "personal expenses", which we also call pocket money; so I think $150 is a fair weekly amount. You could up it to $200, but I think anything more than that is probably getting unreasonable unless you guys are earning $200k + a year combined.
Then she needs to go out and earn more spending money.
Shouldn't you be working as a team? Saving together and striving toward the same goals? Once you've paid all the bills and met your monthly savings target, enjoy the rest 50/50. How is this difficult? You're not children.
Not everyone has the same frugal/ozbargain mentality.
At the end of the day couples just need to find a balance to what is a reasonable amount for "personal spending". I can imagine it may be a difficult conversation to have but better now than never and see your joint money dwindle away.
What does she want to spend it on? Do you find those spends excessive? It's not about a fixed number. It's about what you are both comfortable with.
if you are controlling money and saying its pocket money for your SO then you treating the person as not your significant other I think.
Maybe you should read the OP's other comments before getting all righteous and jumping to conclusions. The wife has control over her own money.
She works, she gets paid, she transfers some money to our household account and she keeps some spending money for herself in her account. Her own spending money is currently $250 a week.
So either she wants to reduce her contribution to the household, or wants some of OP's spending money instead.
What's the situation? Why are they receiving pocket money? Are they working?
My husband and I put an agreed equal amount 50/50 into the household account. The rest we get to keep as our own savings. I think $250 a week is more than enough. I have a similar amount left over after contributing to the family account and have managed to accumulate a decent nest egg. This includes buying lunch when I work and the occasional online shopping. Ozbargain has helped me save with some of the purchases.
I think you may need to be transparent with your spendings with her in order to encourage her to be a bit more frugal. E.g. If she's spending $30 a day on lunch & coffees there's truly something wrong with that picture.
Simple, make a budget, then split all the money that doesn't go on bills expenses etc in half, then you both do whatever you want with that "spending money", try to nudge her in the direction of saving a portion of the money for future significant purchases or a rainy day fund etc, its so important to get in the habit of living within your means, personally I live be the philosophy of "A poor man pays interest, a rich man earns it"
Don't get why this is an issue. She has an income, so she can spend however much she wants after she's paid her share of common expenses.
I've seen so many marriages and relationships destroyed over the issue of money - so I believe in a very liberal approach. Each person in charge of their own finances - separate bank accounts, individual decisions on what to spend…etc. In terms of common expenses, keep a record and every half year or so settle the difference.
I've never gotten the whole shared bank account thing, I just think it's quite stupid.
100% agree. Shared bank accounts are archaic and a relic of the past. It's pretty damn stupid to use them these days.
Each person with their own income and own bank accounts makes sense.
i think that idea isnt a marriage. i make far more than my wife so should i get far more to do with as i please?
we are a team, we both work, we both do house/kid chores, we both spend money as we want/need (and have very similar attitudes on what that is).
but to each their own. joint bank accounts is hardly archaic. in fact given we use an offset as our only account it is the most fiscally responsible and sensible or else our 'pocket money' wouldnt be working for us in offset.
i think that idea isnt a marriage. i make far more than my wife so should i get far more to do with as i please?
Well that's a personal decision between members of your family. If one member earns significantly less than the other, then perhaps they can get a pass on utility bills or otherwise. There are plenty of ways of resolving that situation without resorting to joint bank accounts.
I don't disagree with the notion of helping each other out, but in today's day and age where there are employment opportunities abound, everybody should be self-sufficient and live within their means. The whole idea of joint bank accounts is obviously a relic from the days where most families had a single income supplemented by a substantially smaller (or perhaps no) additional income. The only way to live was to ration the primary income amongst family members.
These days, with the advent of equal opportunity, that situation doesn't exist anywhere near as often (though of course, there are special cases). Most families have dual incomes these days and I believe that with a substantial income comes responsibility. Everybody works hard for their own personal interests, joint interests are shared. Easy.
@psterio:
except offset accounts mean they arent a relic. they are actually the best use of you funds (ive never seen a lender have multiple offset accounts but i guess they easily could if they wanted to, so they might exist).i would also argue all our interests are joint interests. we are a family unit with the same goals (hopefully) and if not its probably better discussing that than worrying about if accounts should be shred or not.
This works in a relationship - where both earn roughly the same amount and you both hold similar values and behaviours about how money is spent. In the situation where one person is say working part time; been made redundant or earning just low to average money but the other person is earning more than average up to a very high salary. There is often difficulty in balancing the amount saved, spent and shared. For the person who is earning significantly less - asking for money from the other who earns more is a "power play" that can often negatively affect the relationship or the individual's self esteem. $250 a week personal spending money is quite a lot unless she has a need to buy things to make her feel better; she feels that she deserves to spend it on herself; spending and what she buys makes her feel more important; and she feels that she is projecting to the outside world her wealth, expensive taste in clothes, being able to go out for coffees and lunch to the outside world (although she will end up poorer in the long run). Some people enjoy the "rush" in spending (a bit like gambling) - it increases dopamine in the brain and therefore is very addictive. Some of this behaviour stems back to how our parents related to money and we either adopt similar thinking or become totally opposite. And for some people it is tied up to their mental health and well being.
im so glad im single - all my money and time belong to me. no need to worry about anyone else.
cost of living is cheaper when you're with another person.
You'd have more time and $ to live life with.
For example, one person can go out and get the groceries for both of you, which saves petrol + time.
Making lunch / dinner is cheaper in bulk. Save $.
Arguably, you save on tax by getting married.
If you're buying a house, another person chipping in to help re-payments means less $ lost to the bank in interest.
In the same train of thought, if you're renting, you can upgrade your bed to have two people (your SO) then halve the rent cost. (this is a weird way to word it but you get the point).Arguably, you save on tax by getting married.
What's the tax saving?
Putting term deposits on the lower income earner's name is one easy one.
Due to different (lower) tax bracket.Can put it in a kids name too.
Putting term deposits on the lower income earner's name is one easy one
What's a harder one (apart from putting assets in someone else's name)? People could put money in their parents/grandparents/other relative's name too … don't need to be married for that.
Can put it in a kids name too.
Limited to $416/year for kids under 18…
@sp00ker:
Very true.
I don't know what other tax implications there are for marriage.
I guess we got to wait for blitzfx to enlighten us.If you have no relatives in-country, or they've disowned you for running away to Australia to marry, or the ones who haven't disowned you are already dead, then marriage is the way to go.
Also, setting up family trust fund and giving $ to the lower earner.
Same with super.I don't really support spoon feeding him more information such as listing out a 'harder one'. If anyone really cared or bothered to know because it directly impacted their life, they would have already googled it or seen a financial adviser.
then marriage is the way to go.
Or adopting some 17.999 year old kids or befriending some old pensioners or homeless people … list goes on.
Also, setting up family trust fund and giving $ to the lower earner. Same with super.
Again, you don't need to be married to maximize the benefit of these strategies/structures - you just need willing participants.
I don't really support spoon feeding him more information such as listing out a 'harder one'. If anyone really cared or bothered to know because it directly impacted their life, they would have already googled it or seen a financial adviser.
I'm pretty sure you wont be able to tell me single tax saving that's only available to married people.
My point is, there is no tax saving in Australia by just getting married.
Medicare levy threshold :p
Defacto's & Same sex partners qualify for the family threshold.
There isn't any point in waiting two years to qualify for de facto if both people have made up their mind.
So this situation is still very much marriage-only if we wanted to have nearly no-tax without waiting years, and save for 20% deposit before housing prices rise far beyond our means.But sure, you get the same benefits in any other situation. Which probably includes the messier legal problems in the event of a "break-up" instead of a divorce with assets that were sorted out prior to the marriage.
There isn't any point in waiting two years to qualify for de facto if both people have made up their mind.
I think it's only 12 months under immigration/tax law … 2 years until family law.
So this situation is still very much marriage-only if we wanted to have nearly no-tax without waiting years, and save for 20% deposit before housing prices rise far beyond our means.
Not sure what you're saying here … saving a few grand on the medicare levy surcharge is what's going to get you a house AND you're earning >180k/year?
Also you don't have to get drunk as much to pick up.
Life's not so great single actually.
yeah but isn't that your insecurities talking?
SINK life whoooo!
Its a open ended question really….
How much do they get NOW?
Piss the money hungry gold digger Off or tell her to go work in a brothel for pocket money!
I can only assume you have a mental illness with that sort of comment…
Or he's on the internet and has no accountability over what's said.
It takes a particularly messed up individual to come up with that. I think we need to talk about Kevin (aka Ronnie23)
WOT
Wtf are you on about
$3.50
tree fiddy*
Does she not work? Going old school single income? If not, she shouldn't complain, if yes, don't give her more than you would feel comfortable spending on yourself, others have said it and that's because it's true.
We own a business that I run, and my wife works for the government in public health.
I pay myself a salary to go with her salary and our rule is generally we won't try to spend more than 15% of our income on 'toys' and self spoiling etc.
Works pretty well. I also keep the profit from the business in a separate account (that she knows about) which we build up for a goal or investment which is separate from that spending money. We try and save at least 50% of our income each month.
We are on a higher combined income vs most of Adelaide which helps because houses are cheaper, petrol is cheaper (or used way less than driving in other cities) with our business and her work being literally 10 minutes away.I don't make any large purchases or financial decsions until i have a solid idea of what our income after tax will be.
Just in case there is surprise before EOFY.I'm not perfect, but I am definitely not abusive. My wife has a problem where she has to spend money. Should I just walk away and give up on our relationship because of this? or should no control measures be set in place so that we end up unable to pay our bills or eat and eventually end up homeless and bankrupt because we have no money? I don't know what she spends her money on and I don't want to know. It's none of my business. All I wanted to know was what a fair amount of spending money is. Yes, we are opposites but that makes us stronger as a couple.
Setting a fixed amount per week for her to spend is good since she isn't good with money. However giving her more money to spend won't make her any happier, the more she has the more she'll spend, go to more expensive stores and ask for more money again. Don't let the problem snowball into something much bigger as you mentioned could happen.
You probably just have to look at your overall budget and decide what you can afford. It's hard to say what an appropriate amount is since you don't know what she spends the money on… For us it's even harder since we don't know your overall income, lifestyle and demographic.
You are currently managing the issue which is good but there might be a way to fix/improove the issue by seeing a psychologist to look at whats behind this.
For now I'd probably stick to $250 until there is a good reason to increase it, looking at where the current money goes and what the extra money will make a difference.
I think she should monitor her spending first with either a specific credit card (i.e. one for misc purchases) or an app.
If you have a saving goal, the I think it is better for her to have a monthly or bimonthly amount and that way if she spends more in a certain week, then she knows to spend less the following week(s).
Does she work?
She will thank you for this once debts are paid and capital is built.
I feel you buddy - my gf gets halfway out of debt and then goes on holiday and buys a couch… It's ridiculous.
My answer - if you earn triple what she does, give her a $50 here and there. If you earn equal amounts and she just wants your cash, mate, you shouldn't have to pay her for her affection or her calmness.
I can see exactly where you are coming from then and I feel your pain. Probably because I've been in the exact position you've been in. I'm good with money and budgeting, my other half literally spent money like water. (Long story) Not only couldn't he help himself spending his money, he thought it was a really cool game to then spend my money as well. Lots of it.
I left. Lesson learned. Money, budgets, financial goals, and how you expect to actual achieve financial success as a couple is something to start having a discussion about really, really early on in the relationship.
Leaving your moldy, chewed apple core on the dining room is annoying, but quirky. And, from my own sorry tale it's all very well being in love with someone, but if you're totally incompatible on major issues. You're heading for disaster. No matter how much to love the person.
As for using money as a control mechanism, I'm sorry if I automatically painted you with the same brush. I've seen it happen though - especially where one person earns significantly more then the other. It's not pretty, and it's a humiliating position for the person it's being perpetrated against.
Frankly, I don't think there is an easy solution to this for you. Until your partner realises there is a problem nothing is going to change.
In a theoretical world I give myself about $25 a week. This enough to grab a coffee, buy a lipstick if I see one cheap, maybe a book every now and then.
I don't include clothes etc in that spending money. That said I buy clothes only if there is sale on and I actually need something. As for shoes etc., I go and buy a new pair - literally when the ones I currently have are worn through.
I have a separate amount for dinner/takeaway and I think when you work full time it's nice to have an easy dinner once a month or on pay day etc., and either go out or order in.
I think your best bet is to excel sheet absolutely everything up. Mortgage/rent, utilities, food, misc spending, car, petrol etc., I do mean everything - include coffees etc. Take say 3-6 months worth of costs/savings. Then show it to her. Ask her what she intends bringing to the table to ensure you both remain financially healthy. Ask her what does she intend to contribute and what does she consider is a fair amount of spending money for herself each week.
If she comes back with something outrageous, ask her why she thinks this amount is a 'fair' amount and can she not see by spending unreasonably it's impacting on the ability to pay for your core costs of rent/mortgage, food, utilities, save each week.
Combine your income, work out all your expense, etc how much to save each period and then you have the disposable amount.
The amount should be yours and her combined spending amount. You tell her that the total amount is for the both of you and there's no such thing as a 50/50 split. Anyone who has some sort of consideration for the other would automatically draw a blurry line at or around the halfway mark in their mind. It's not that they can't cross that imaginary line, it's just that if they do decide to do that, then it affects the other person. That way, it'll make you communicate and cooperate with each other as well - In the case one of you expects to spend more for a particular period, then you guys can work it out. On the rare occasions that both of you want to spend more than normal, then that can then be negotiated and/or taken out of the savings account.