Dear Amy: I’ve been with my partner for more than 15 years, and we have, from the very start, kept most of our money separate.
I particularly didn’t want to start squabbling about fairness when one or the other came home with a personal purchase (either large or small) that wasn’t going to affect our ability to pay bills and cover living expenses.
We’ve put money in our budget to cover everyday household needs and mortgages, and always made decisions on “extras” that come up, such a replacing the furnace. We’ve been good about saving.
Our strategy has worked well until recently. My partner was laid off from his job about six months ago. He’s been diligent about looking for work, while at the same time buying himself all sorts of toys worth a few thousand dollars using his personal savings. Arrgh!
I haven’t complained, but it really is beginning to irritate me.
When I bring up more practical matters, like needing to do home repairs, he questions the need and postpones decisions. I’ve either done the work or hired someone to do it.
I know yelling isn’t productive but I’m out of ideas. — Burned-out Babe in Toyland
Dear Burned-out Babe: While there’s nothing wrong with keeping your money separate, transparency about your personal finances is necessary for your partnership to be healthy.
Obviously, you two should have a fund ample enough to cover extra household expenses — and if you hire someone to perform a household repair, your partner should share the cost.
His choice to spend his way through his unemployment is a dangerous practice. Does your partner have gobs of money safely set aside in case his unemployment stretches into retirement?
You seem to confuse talking about serious issues — or even expressing your irritation — with “yelling.” Bring this up and work out a series of compromises for a variety of scenarios — this includes the possibility of waiting on home repairs.
Working this out with a couples counselor would be a great investment.
Dear Amy: My nephew is getting married in another state (three hours away).
I was invited to this wedding with no guest.
When I questioned this I was told it’s because I am not in a serious relationship.
I find this to be extremely rude.
They want me to drive six hours round-trip by myself, sit all by myself and give them a generous gift.
This has caused an enormous strain on my relationship with my sister, who says I’m overreacting. Can you tell me what you think of this? — Annoyed Aunt
Dear Annoyed: Your nephew is under no obligation to invite a guest to accompany you to his wedding.
If you choose to go to this wedding, you will not be seated by yourself. Presumably, you will be seated with other people — perhaps family members or other single guests.
If you can’t bear the thought of attending this event as a single, you could decline the invitation. If you choose to attend, you are obligated to do your best to be a good guest.
Dear Amy: The letter from the “devout Catholic” who tells her son that Mary leaves babies on the doorstep compelled me to write.
I am a devout Catholic about to have my fifth child. My children are all well aware that the baby is growing inside mommy and will come out when he’s good and ready.
Pregnant women are a staple at any Catholic Mass. Catholic children who attend get used to the sight of women with growing bellies and know what it means.
What this woman is telling her child is actually superstitious and opposed to Catholic teaching.
The letter did give me a good laugh, however. As did your reply. — Sadie, An Ardent Reader
Dear Sadie: Amen, sister.
Send questions to askamy@ or Ask Amy, Chicago Tribune, TT500, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611.
