Connect with us

Personal Finance

Allowances are for kids — not your spouse

Published

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

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.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Maximizing Returns in High Rate Climate and market uncertainty

Published

on

Maximizing Returns in High-Rate Climate

In the macroeconomic environment of late July 2026, personal cash management requires an active, structured approach to wealth preservation. With central bank benchmark rates remaining elevated to ensure long-term disinflation, conservative yield-bearing vehicles—such as short-term U.S. Treasury bills, money market funds, and high-yield savings accounts (HYSAs)—continue to offer reliable nominal returns between 4% and 5%. For individual investors, maximizing net returns requires moving beyond passive checking accounts and executing a disciplined cash laddering strategy.

Leaving substantial liquid capital in traditional bank deposits creates an invisible drag on personal net worth due to ongoing inflation. By implementing a tiered liquidity framework, individuals can split emergency cash reserves and short-term capital allocations across rolling maturities. Allocating cash into 4-week, 8-week, and 13-week Treasury bills creates a continuous cycle of maturing liquidity, allowing investors to continuously reinvest capital at prevailing market yields while maintaining immediate access to emergency funds.

Tax efficiency represents a critical dimension of high-yield cash optimization. For high-earning individuals residing in states with substantial local income taxes, direct holdings in short-term U.S. Treasury instruments often deliver superior net post-tax yields compared to standard commercial bank HYSAs. Because interest earned on federal Treasury bills is strictly exempt from state and local taxation, investors can retain a larger portion of their compounding interest gains without taking on additional credit or market risk.

Ultimately, personal wealth accumulation in mid-2026 relies on intentional capital deployment. Cash should be managed as a productive asset class that generates consistent, risk-free returns. Regularly auditing account yield terms, automating recurring transfers, and leveraging tax-advantaged fixed-income instruments ensures that personal liquidity remains fully optimized against macroeconomic fluctuations.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Algorithmic Wealth Management: Balancing Automated Financial Planning with Human Oversight

Published

on

Balancing Automated Financial Planning with Human Oversight

The personal finance industry in July 2026 is experiencing a technological evolution, driven by the wide deployment of next-generation algorithmic wealth management tools. Modern digital financial platforms have expanded far beyond basic automated index investing; today’s robo-advisors utilize real-time tax-loss harvesting, dynamic portfolio rebalancing, and hyper-personalized spending analysis to optimize retail investor outcomes. However, as these digital solutions become ubiquitous, investors face the crucial challenge of balancing automated execution with human strategic judgment.

The core advantage of automated financial planning platforms lies in their ability to remove emotional bias from investment execution. During periods of market volatility or localized sector realignments, automated algorithms systematically rebalance portfolios back to target asset allocations without falling victim to panic selling or speculative enthusiasm. Furthermore, integrated cash-flow monitoring algorithms analyze individual spending patterns in real time, automatically sweeping surplus income into designated retirement or debt-liquidation accounts to accelerate net worth accumulation.

Despite these operational advantages, algorithmic tools have inherent structural limitations when addressing complex, highly personalized financial life events. Decisions involving multi-generational estate planning, highly complex tax strategies, small business exits, or nuanced real estate transactions require contextual human judgment that software models cannot replicate. Relying solely on automated models without periodic human professional review can result in misaligned risk profiles or overlooked tax liabilities during major life transitions.

The optimal approach for personal financial planning in late 2026 is a hybrid advisory model. Individuals should utilize automated platforms for routine asset allocation, continuous tax optimization, and low-cost passive index tracking, while engaging qualified human financial advisors for periodic strategic planning, estate structuring, and qualitative risk evaluations. This dual approach ensures maximum cost efficiency and disciplined execution while retaining essential strategic guidance.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

High-Yield Optimization: Structuring Personal Cash Reserves in a Sustained Rate Environment

Published

on

Structuring Personal Cash Reserves in a Sustained Rate Environment

In the financial environment of mid-2026, personal cash management has re-emerged as a vital component of holistic wealth building. With central bank policy rates holding firm to maintain long-term price stability, yield-bearing instruments such as money market funds, high-yield savings accounts (HYSAs), and short-term Treasury bills continue to offer compounding returns around 4% to 5%. For individual investors, effectively structuring cash reserves requires shifting away from passive bank deposits toward active yield optimization.

A frequent pitfall in personal asset management is leaving substantial liquid capital in traditional checking or low-yield savings accounts, where real returns are continuously eroded by baseline inflation. By implementing a disciplined ‘cash ladder’ strategy—allocating liquid funds across tiered maturities using ultra-short Treasury instruments and FDIC-insured high-yield accounts—individuals can secure maximal yields while retaining immediate liquidity for emergency expenses or tactical investment opportunities.

Simultaneously, investors must evaluate the tax efficiency of their cash holdings based on their tax bracket and geographic location. For high earners situated in states with high local income taxes, direct holdings in short-term U.S. Treasury bills often yield a higher net post-tax return than standard high-yield savings accounts, as Treasury interest is strictly exempt from state and local taxation. Understanding these nuanced tax distinctions allows individuals to capture significant incremental gains without taking on additional market risk.

Ultimately, personal financial health in late 2026 hinges on intentional liquidity management. Cash reserves should not be viewed merely as static emergency funds, but as a dynamic asset class that contributes positively to net worth growth. Regularly auditing yield terms, automating cash transfers, and optimizing for post-tax efficiency ensures that personal capital remains fully productive across all economic conditions.

Continue Reading

Trending