How do I fold side-income into our budget so my husband doesn't know?
"Maybe you can just hang onto the cash and upgrade the things you buy for cash now a bit.  Buy the better cut of meat, the nicer pair of shoes, etc. Since you have no trouble with bending the truth a bit.. if challenged, the shoes were ""on sale"". And no you must have lost the receipt.  Not that I'm advocating it, but the only time I notice my better half's shoe habit is when a garbage bag of the old ones goes out the door." These earnings will likely have tax implications, depending on where in the world you are. So, your budget concerns not nearly as important as having an honest conversation about money with your husband. Better for him to be mad about the truth than to continue the lie, and potentially have this become a much larger legal, not just marital, problem. I doubt that it is possible to keep something like this secret from your husband forever. If you get away with it once, I'd guess you'll probably try it again, and sooner or later he'll find out. He'll notice that things show up in the house that aren't accounted for in the budget, or he'll see a statement from your secret bank account, or one of your friends will carelessly say something about it when he's around, etc. I found out about some of my ex-wife's secret finances when she wasn't home one day, I got the mail, and found a credit card bill for an account I knew nothing about. If the preconditions on the question are that you're not going to tell him the truth (and you're not going to get a divorce), I think the only realistic answer is that there is no way of keeping this secret with a high probability of success.
I would ignore the bank completely when they use gross income. Decide, based upon your current living situation, what your MAX limit on a monthly payment is.  Then from that determine the size and cost of the house you can buy. My husband and I decided on a $2000 monthly payment max, but also agreed $1500 was more reasonable.  When using those numbers in the calculators it is way less than when using gross income. When we used our gross pay the calculators all said we could afford double what we were looking for. Since they don't know what our take home pay is (after all the deductions including 401k, healthcare, etc), the estimates on gross income are way higher than what we can comfortably afford. Set a budget based on your current living situation and what you want your future to look like. Do you want to scrimp and coupon clip or would you rather live comfortably in a smaller home? Do the online calculators based on take home pay and on gross pay to get a sense of the range you could be looking at. @ Chris:  Companies like Keane, ours, and others know where to look for these funds and where to ask at the correct agencies that are holding this money that is not part of the public links that you have access to. This is how we find this information.  Our types of companies spend significant time, money and resources in finding out about the money, then finding who it actually belongs to (because it does not always belong to who is mentioned on the list) and then finding the correct individual. @ jdsweet:  I apologize if you think this is a marketing ploy.  It is not.  Our company doesn't even take phone calls from people that want us to find them money.  Only if we contact someone, because at that time we're confident that the person we touch base with is due the funds. Again, I am not plugging our company, but trying to let Neil know that in some cases he is right, you don't need a third party to claim funds for you - if you can find them.  In this case, he has looked and cannot find them.  Keane is charging a fair amount to retrieve funds he cannot find and doesn't know about and is not charging him anything to do all the work. Again, as mentioned above, the direct answer is that we know how to access information and lists that have this money hidden from the public because the agency holding the funds doesn't want you to know about it so that they can escheat the funds.  Escheating is the state's legal way to confiscate your money.   See, if you don't put in a claim for the money (depending on what type it is and where it is located) the agency and state holding the funds has certain time frames for you to get the money.  If you don't, again, they get to keep it and that is what they want despite what they say.  That is why there is approximately $33 Billion that is known to the public and really $1 Trillion that's out there. I apologize if you think that this is a plug for my company, it's not because we're not looking for calls, we make them.  I'm also not asking Neil for his business. From all accounts on my side, this seems like a fair deal. I wouldn't want to have a house no matter where I live. So I am more than OK with always living in an apartment. We live in a really nice place right now.  My husband is pretty up-to-date on how the country is running and he would be telling me if he were at all concerned about the state of things. Which he isn't... at least not anymore than when I first met him.  So, while I am sure that I will always be middle class... I am OK with that. And perhaps Americans do earn 20% more than Germans but they also pay a lot more for things that Germans do not pay as much for.  Edit: Also, my husband's grandfather was one of the leading historians in germany until he died in 2009. His grandparents were very well off. His parents were poor while he grew up. My husband is on his way to being a partner in an expanding business (he does programming) and his brother is a Pharmacist.  By this time in a year or so from now the amount of money my husband earns will double. As it stands equity contracts in startups are by default structured differently. The standard equity is shares or convertible notes.  Having equity that's structured in the way you propose is a bad idea for both sides. VC don't like equity that's not done with standard equity contracts. If the lawyer of the VC has to review your equity document and understand how the exact terms work that makes it more complicated to invest money into the startup. On your end it might not be fair because a company doesn't need to make any income to be successful. Various companies manage to reduce their tax burden to next to nothing by clever accounting that results in having no taxable income. Uber brought the uber.com domain name with 2% equity at the beginning, so there are certainly deals that get made with equity. There are also other kinds of deals where domain names don't get sold for a one-time payment but with regular payment for 8 years where the domain names goes back to the seller if the company folds or otherwise doesn't want to pay anyone. Your last sentence is key. If you have multiple accounts, it's too easy to lose track over the years. I've seen too many people pass on and the spouse has a tough time tracking the accounts, often finding a prior spouse listed as beneficiary.  In this case, your gut is right, simpler is better. Wow. She really is in a pickle. Even though I can intellectualize that she ought have paid more attention to her family's finances, and assuming she wasn't complicit in her husband's obvious tax evasion, I can sympathize to some extent.  This is a great demonstration of how dangerous it is to just let your spouse handle all the finances because they understand the money stuff. Even if they pay the bills you should have at least a fundamental understanding of the taxes being paid, estate and retirement plans. So here's some practical advice based on the hole she has dug for herself: I won't answer in a detailed manner because most people at this site like answers with certain bias' on these questions, like pool resources always relative to which partner is asking.  If you follow the above advice, you are hoping things work out.  Great!  What if they don't?  It will be very messy.  Unlike most of my peers, I did NOT follow the above advice and had a very clean exit with both of us feeling very good (and no lawyers got involved either; win-win for both of us with all the money we saved). One assumption people make is the person with the lowest income has the strictest limits.  This is not always true; I grew up in poverty, but have a very high income and detest financial waste.  I can live on about €12,000 a year and even though my partner made a little less, my partner liked to spend.   Counter intuitive, right?  I was supposed to be the spender because I had a large income, but I wasn't.  Also, think about an example with food - sharing expenses.  Is it fair for one partner to split whey protein if one partner consumes it, but the other doesn't (answer: in my view, no)? My advice based on your questions: Balance the frugal vs. spendthrift mentality rather than income ratios.  If you're both frugal, then focus on income ratios - but one may be more frugal than the other and the thought of spending €300 a month on housing is just insane to a person like me, whereas to most it's too little.  Are you both exactly the same with this mentality - and be honest? Common costs that you both agree on can be easily split 50-50 and you can often benefit from economies of scale (like internet, cell phone). Both of us feel very strongly about being financially independent and if possible we both don't want to take money from each other. This is so healthy for a relationship.  My partner and I split and we both still really love each other.  We're headed in different directions, but we did not want to end bitterly.  What you wrote is part of why we ended so well; we both were very independent financially.   Kids are going to be a challenge because they come with expenses that partners don't always agree on.  What do you and her think of childcare, for instance?  You really want to know all this upfront; again a frugal vs. spendthrift mindset could cause some big tensions. "SO has observed a lot of irresponsible spending from a parent, which has scarred SO for life OK, so we've got fear... SO is not very financially savvy and has very little idea about how much we earn  ...and ignorance.   You are entirely correct to worry about the conversation. Fear plus ignorance equals disastrous conversations. I manage our finances. Apparently your SO wishes to have input on the management of your finances without understanding them. It strikes me that this serves neither of you well. I would note that it is exceedingly difficult to rationally argue someone out of a position that they arrived at through irrational fear and ignorance. So I wouldn't start by having a conversation about charitable giving at all. Rather, I would start by addressing the ignorance, because that's the easy one.  how high up we are in terms of being in the top y% of households by income Income is irrelevant to the fearful; income can vanish with debts remaining. If your SO is not earning much of that income then SO's future financial security is dependent on the whims of another, which has already turned out badly once for SO.  Focusing on raw income is the wrong way to go; focusing on an abstraction like percentile is even more irrelevant. The figures to focus on are not income and percentile, but rather net worth and change in net worth over time.  Income $300K, expenses $350K eventually leads to poverty if you lack net worth, even if you are in the 1% of income earners. Open up with ""how much do you think we earn?"" Playing rhetorical games with ignorant people seems both risky and perhaps unethical to me, and it seems unlikely to engender trust. I would approach this situation by first removing the ignorance, rather than attempting to take advantage of it for rhetorical purposes.  I would also institute a policy that ignorant people don't get a say. If SO wants to abrogate financial responsibility to you, then SO should accept your decisions without question. If SO wants to have a say in your joint financial life then SO has a responsibility to make recommendations based on both facts and feelings, not just feelings. So, how to remove this ignorance? This will take some doing, but not much. Go through your records and account for: From that you can compute your net worth. Then go back a few years and account for: From this you can show the effect of your past prudent decisions on your net worth. There should be no percentages. There should be no math more complicated than adding and subtracting, and it should be very clear what adds and substracts to what.  People who are financially savvy are extremely intimidated by jargon. If some of your increase in net worth came from a realized capital gain less taxes do not say ""realized capital gain less taxes"" on your summary document. There should be no ""depreciation"" or ""cost basis"" or anything even vaguely like that. Even ""assets"" and ""liabilities"" are too jargonish. ""Possessions"" and ""debts"" are more easily understood. I'm thinking something like: My SO is financially savvy and still I do this about twice a year; it's helpful for both of us to have a quick summary of what's coming in, what's going out, and what we've got. Once the ignorance is gone, then start working on the fear. It sounds like the fear comes from a betrayal of trust, so it's not just enough to be trustworthy, you've got to consistently appear trustworthy. A great way to do that is to keep doing what I already suggested: on a regular, ongoing basis inform SO of how you are doing financially. When SO sees that net worth is consistently improving over time, that you are not one bad decision away from poverty, the fear should diminish. Expect this to take a long time."