Connect with us

Personal Finance

Allowances are for kids — not your spouse

Published

2 years ago

on

Simpleimages | Moment | Getty Images

You don’t have to scroll far to find the #tradwives and #SAHGs (stay-at-home girlfriends) of social media who glamorize the extremes of domesticity, or the wives in Dubai who film their extravagant errands, such as picking up a Cartier bracelet and stopping for a facial on the way home.

At all ends of the wealth spectrum, there’s a common thread tying these women together: permission. Someone, usually a man, is giving it to them.

The term “allowance” should make you think of money a parent gives to a child. Yet, it arises in the financial arrangements of these partnerships, too. The allusion is right in our faces, infantilizing women by placing their freedom to spend under the thumb of their partner’s permission.

Most financial experts and professionals cringe at the concept, and it should come as no surprise that the topic has been covered far and wide.

More from CNBC’s Advisor Council

But there’s also the fact that social media’s going to social media — so much is put on for show. The most extreme content often receives the most attention, leaving open the question of how real and commonplace “allowances” actually are among couples.

Do people really operate like this?

Until recently, we thought, no. But turns out, we were wrong.

While interviewing couples for our forthcoming book on love and money, a few have used that word. Typically, the dynamic involves a male partner who earns an income and a female who cares for their children at home.

Hearing it via Zoom during real conversations about real people’s money felt worse than the sensationalized snippets on TikTok. The sense of permission took on a broader meaning with dual negative implications: These women need permission from their partners to spend money, and they have permission to not engage around the important decisions in their financial lives as a couple.

It’s disappointing, for sure, but we think there’s something to salvage beneath the surface.

Why ‘allowance’ is a problematic term

Most people who adopt this antiquated terminology don’t really intend to create a disparate weight of power and control in their relationship — at least that’s what we’ve observed.

What they actually want is to feel safe knowing that guardrails exist.

They are not trying to remove anyone’s sense of agency. They just want to know their partner is not heading to Cartier for a bracelet and stopping for a facial on the way home (figuratively speaking, of course). However, they might also be a bit lazy for embracing the easiest word, one already familiar to them from their own lives and the lives we observe online. 

Just because it’s easy doesn’t make it right. There’s harm in “allowances,” which perpetuate gender-based stereotypes and widen the wealth gap and knowledge gap around personal finance.  

American Greed: Financial Infidelity

What’s worse, they diminish the work being done at home. We do a terrible job as a society of assigning value to a spouse’s nonmonetary contributions, and they are just as crucial to maintaining household stability as the income flowing in.

Not to mention, restricting funds for the person who likely purchases most of the household’s needs adds a whole other layer of strain when their partner has a different viewpoint of what’s considered a “want” versus a “need.” This is a setup for constant conflict and a relationship dynamic that’s just plain unfair.

There’s an element of trust at play, too. Creating one-sided restrictions around spending can easily lead to lies. The leading method of financial infidelity among couples, 30%, is spending more than your partner would be okay with, according to a Bankrate survey.

Set a ‘check-in number’ instead

Mtstock Studio | E+ | Getty Images

A better way to build trust while establishing reasonable guardrails around spending isn’t through permission, but through communication. Couples can set a check-in number, which is a dollar amount they are both comfortable with each other spending before discussing it together.

There’s no one right number. We’ve spoken to couples who’ve picked $100 and couples who’ve chosen $1,000 based on their personal circumstances and comfort levels.

Consider carefully what the number should be, though. Selecting a number that’s too high could risk running afoul of your budget, which would defeat the purpose. But choosing a number that’s too low could lessen your partner’s agency to spend, which might not reflect the reality of costs to effectively perform his or her responsibilities of everyday life.

For example, setting a check-in number at $50 when your spouse purchases all the home goods, school supplies and clothing for your growing children probably doesn’t make sense. She might even grow resentful if she feels her judgment carries no weight, which, based on the data, can clearly erode trust over time.

But most importantly, the check-in number should be the same for both partners, irrespective of who earns more income.

Our idea of contribution shouldn’t be affixed to a salary and shouldn’t dictate who has more financial freedom. We all contribute in our own ways, and every contribution matters. Your husband shouldn’t be able to buy $2,000 golf clubs while you’ve got to check in for a $110 pair of sneakers. These are inequities that metastasize. They don’t just go away.

Remember, setting a check-in number isn’t an “allowance” by another name. It’s an amount up to which you and your partner are free to spend without having a conversation every time. It replaces permission with communication. It builds a team playing by the same set of rules and fostering an environment of mutual respect.

— By Douglas and Heather Boneparth of The Joint Account, a money newsletter for couples. Douglas is a certified financial planner and the president of Bone Fide Wealth in New York City. Heather, an attorney, is the firm’s director of business and legal affairs. Douglas is also a member of the CNBC Financial Advisor Council.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Personal Finance

$20,000 Caution Bond Requirement for US Visa Applications imposed on 50 Countries

Published

6 days ago

on

August 8, 2026

By

The United States Department of State has officially implemented a revised visa policy introducing a mandatory posting requirement for caution payments of up to $20,000 on select foreign travel applications. Under the updated regulatory framework, consular officials are authorized to require temporary nonimmigrant visa applicants from targeted foreign countries to post a refundable financial bond of $20,000 as a condition for visa issuance. The policy mechanism is designed to address diplomatic concerns regarding high overstay rates among temporary visitor, business, and educational visa categories.

The caution bond pilot program applies selectively to foreign nationals from designated countries whose diplomatic entities record historical visa overstay rates exceeding established federal thresholds. Under administrative guidelines published by the State Department, the full financial deposit is posted directly to a dedicated federal escrow account prior to final visa issuance. The entire caution payment is automatically refunded to the applicant upon verified proof of timely departure from the United States in strict compliance with the authorized duration of stay. Conversely, failure to depart within the legal timeframe results in full forfeiture of the posted financial bond to the United States government.

Diplomatic representatives and travel policy experts have expressed varying perspectives regarding the operational implementation of the caution bond system. Administration officials emphasize that the measure serves as an effective, market-based incentive to enforce international travel compliance and preserve domestic immigration security standards. However, international trade organizations and foreign diplomatic missions have raised concerns regarding the financial burden imposed on legitimate business travelers, foreign students, and commercial partners from developing nations.

The United States finalized the rule to make the temporary visa bond program permanent, taking effect on August 3, 2026. The updated permanent regulation replaces the prior 12-month pilot, eliminates the lowest $5,000 tier, and raises the maximum required bond amount to $20,000 for specific B-1/B-2 business and tourist visa applicants.

Here is the list of the 50 countries on the list as o August 3, 2026

African Nations (31 Countries)

  • Algeria
  • Angola
  • Benin
  • Botswana
  • Burundi
  • Cabo Verde (Cape Verde)
  • Central African Republic
  • Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast)
  • Djibouti
  • Ethiopia
  • Gabon
  • The Gambia
  • Ghana
  • Guinea
  • Guinea-Bissau
  • Lesotho
  • Malawi
  • Mauritania
  • Mauritius
  • Mozambique
  • Namibia
  • Nigeria
  • São Tomé and Príncipe
  • Senegal
  • Seychelles
  • Tanzania
  • Togo
  • Tunisia
  • Uganda
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe

Asian & Eastern European Nations (11 Countries)

  • Bangladesh
  • Bhutan
  • Cambodia
  • Georgia
  • Kyrgyzstan
  • Mongolia
  • Nepal
  • Papua New Guinea
  • Tajikistan
  • Turkmenistan
  • Uzbekistan

Caribbean & Latin American Nations (5 Countries)

  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Cuba
  • Dominica
  • Grenada
  • Venezuela

Oceanian Nations (3 Countries)

  • Fiji
  • Tonga
  • Vanuatu

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Next-Generation Retirement Planning: Managing Longevity Risk and Variable Income Streams

Published

1 week ago

on

August 7, 2026

By

Retirement planning strategies are evolving in 2026 to address increased life expectancies, shifting dynamic market conditions, and the transition away from traditional defined-benefit pensions. Individual investors and financial advisors are abandoning rigid retirement models in favor of flexible, multi-asset strategies designed to mitigate longevity risk and preserve purchasing power over multi-decade retirement horizons.

Mitigating Longevity Risk with Dynamic Asset Allocation
As average life expectancies extend past eighty-five years, one of the primary financial risks facing retirees is outliving their accumulated wealth. Traditional fixed income allocations—such as the standard 60/40 equity-to-bond portfolio—are being reevaluated to ensure portfolios generate sufficient capital growth alongside reliable income.

Financial planners recommend maintaining a meaningful equity allocation throughout retirement to offset long-term inflation erosion. High-dividend equity funds, global real estate investment trusts (REITs), and inflation-indexed Treasuries are combined to create diversified portfolios that deliver both growth and income stability.

The Transition to Dynamic Withdrawal Strategies
The classic “4% safe withdrawal rule” is increasingly replaced by dynamic withdrawal strategies that adapt annually based on market performance. Under a dynamic withdrawal framework, retirees adjust their annual distribution rates within pre-set caps and floors:
– Market Upside: During strong market returns, retirees can increase discretionary spending or fund family legacy gifts.
– Market Downturns: During market pullbacks, spending distributions are temporarily reduced to prevent sequence-of-returns risk and preserve core investment principal.

Guaranteed Lifetime Income Options and Deferred Annuities
To establish a guaranteed baseline for essential living expenses, individuals are incorporating modern fixed-indexed and deferred longevity annuities into their broader retirement architectures. Modern annuity structures offer competitive return caps, transparent fee schedules, and inflation-adjustment options.

By funding essential expenses—such as housing, healthcare, and insurance—with guaranteed income streams from Social Security, pensions, and annuities, retirees can manage discretionary investment portfolios with greater flexibility and lower emotional stress during market volatility.

Actionable Steps for Future Retirees
1. Calculate Baseline Retirement Expenses: Determine fixed living costs and map guaranteed income sources to cover essential expenditures.
2. Adopt Flexible Withdrawal Rules: Implement dynamic spending rules to protect investment principal against market downturns.
3. Incorporate Inflation-Protected Assets: Maintain exposure to dividend-growing equities and inflation-indexed bonds to safeguard long-term purchasing power.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Building Generational Wealth: Family Governance, Estate Tax Optimization, and Asset Protection

Published

2 weeks ago

on

August 1, 2026

By

As the largest intergenerational transfer of wealth in history accelerates, high-net-worth families, entrepreneurs, and individual investors are placing heightened emphasis on comprehensive estate planning, family governance, and asset protection. Preserving capital across generations requires a balanced approach combining tax-efficient legal structures with open family communication and financial literacy education.

Optimizing Estate Tax Exemptions and Trust Structures
With potential modifications to federal estate tax exemption thresholds on the horizon, proactive estate planning is essential for high-net-worth households. Estate planning attorneys and wealth advisors are establishing multi-generational trust structures to transfer wealth efficiently while minimizing estate and gift tax exposure.

Popular structural strategies include:
– Irrevocable Life Insurance Trusts (ILITs): Utilizing life insurance proceeds to provide liquidity for estate tax obligations without expanding the taxable estate.
– Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts (GRATs): Transferring rapidly appreciating assets to beneficiaries with minimal gift tax consequences.
– Dynasty Trusts: Preserving wealth across multiple generations while providing long-term asset protection from creditor claims and legal liabilities.

Establishing Family Governance and Financial Education
Legal and financial structures alone cannot guarantee long-term wealth preservation without effective family governance. Financial advisors report that a significant percentage of multi-generational wealth dissipation stems from lack of communication and inadequate financial preparation among heir generations.

Families are establishing formal family governance frameworks, including periodic family meetings, written mission statements, and structured philanthropic foundations. Involving younger family members in charitable grant-making and investment discussions fosters financial stewardship and prepares heirs to manage family assets responsibly.

Digital Asset Custody and Legacy Planning
In today’s modern economy, estate planning must extend beyond physical real estate and traditional brokerage accounts to encompass digital assets. Comprehensive estate plans now include detailed inventories and legal access protocols for corporate domain names, intellectual property, digital media rights, and cryptocurrency holdings.

Fiduciaries and estate executors should be provided with secure, encrypted access mechanisms and clear legal authority to manage and transfer digital holdings in accordance with the owner’s estate directions.

Practical Steps for Legacy Planning
1. Review and Update Estate Documents: Ensure wills, revocable trusts, and power-of-attorney designations accurately reflect current family structures.
2. Establish Structured Trusts: Utilize irrevocable trusts to protect assets from creditors and minimize future estate tax liabilities.
3. Create a Digital Estate Inventory: Document access protocols and legal permissions for all online accounts, intellectual property, and digital assets.

Continue Reading

Trending