The Atlantic recently published an article on the often-asked, titular question: “Should Couples Merge Their Finances?” Rather than give a direct answer, author Joe Pinsker presents a nuanced overview of the three basic approaches: joint, separate, and hybrid. Crucially, he also points to the deeper truth that “the notion that you can keep your finances truly ‘separate’ is to some degree an illusion. Navigating the financial tensions and answering this question in the context of your marriage requires more than statistics about marital satisfaction or awareness of underlying gender equity issues.

Merging finances leads to higher marital satisfaction, right?

Many studies over the years have shown that couples who merge their finances tend to be happiest. One can certainly see how pooling household income creates a sense of unity (“we’re in this together”) as well as a buffer against the ups and downs of career and family life. This increased marital satisfaction is especially pronounced among lower-income households. And yet, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. It may well be that happier couples are more likely to merge their finances.

Moreover, the conventional wisdom to merge everything was passed down from a time when men were the primary earners and women did the vast majority of (unpaid) labor in the home. Women are increasingly coming into marriage with an equal (or larger) share of the household income and having accumulated substantial assets before marriage.

Even if income is pooled, that doesn’t mean there won’t be squabbles over how it is spent (particularly when it comes to discretionary items). At the risk of overgeneralization: men tend to be the most scrutinizing of their spouse’s minor indulgences, and then turn around and make a large purchase without consultation. This hits a little close to home in my marriage. I find myself cringing every time I see what my wife spent at the salon, yet I’m the one who goes out and purchases the latest tech device or power tool on a whim.

Separate accounts level power dynamics and provide autonomy, right?

Keeping financial accounts separate preserves the sense of independence that many couples desire. Yet many of the same avenues of conflict over spending priorities persist. Now you’ve got to negotiate how shared expenses should be split upfront, and the temptation to make big decisions without the knowledge or input of the other may be even greater.

Practically speaking, financial autonomy in marriage is an illusion. The article quotes Boston University law professor Katharine Silbaugh who argues that “The money a couple has is necessarily the product of joint decision they make about where to live, who works for pay, whether they have kids, and how they share housework and care for responsibilities.”

Another common argument for keeping finances largely separate is the sad truth is that most marriages end in divorce. Access to cash can be particularly important when navigating a separation (whether it’s contentious or amicable), but having separate accounts does not mean there will be a clean split. There is a legal process in place to transfer ownership of individual accounts to the other spouse as part of any divorce proceeding. So there’s no guarantee that your separate accounts will remain wholly yours after a divorce is finalized (unless you have a prenuptial agreement in place).

Is a hybrid approach the best of both worlds?

The hybrid approach provides a third option: couples have shared accounts to pay shared expenses and shared goals while maintaining separate accounts for discretionary spending. This approach does not magically solve any of the issues already discussed, but it does offer a framework for providing autonomy within the context of a unified household. It grants each spouse the freedom to make some decisions independently, while larger decisions must always be navigated together. This balancing act occurs no matter what approach a couple takes, and the hybrid approach is no panacea.

One particular situation where maintaining greater separation of accounts may be advisable is in the case where one spouse has a significant amount of debt and you want to shield the other partner’s assets from creditors. It may be preferable to maintain some separate accounts in situations where one partner has (or stands to inherit) significantly more assets, in the case of blended families, or for estate planning purposes. These are situations where a prenuptial agreement may help reduce conflict. The important thing is that these issues are discussed openly up front and revisited regularly.

What should we do?

My advice: Choose the hybrid or joint approach, then get a counselor!

You are not alone in finding it difficult to navigate marital finances. All couples struggle no matter their approach to integrating their finances. I have seen all three approaches work, and I’ve seen all three fail.

My advice is generally to fully merge or take the hybrid approach, recognizing that this choice does not guarantee success in the long run. I tend to recommend against couples attempting to keep their finances wholly separate because it’s just too complicated to implement (who pays for what?) and it ignores the important truth that your financial lives are already integrated whether you keep your accounts separate or not. The lines between what is shared and what is separate are blurry, especially once kids enter the picture or when one partner’s career takes them in a different direction.

The bottom line go all in or take the hybrid approach, then start going to couples counseling!

Let’s Normalize Couples Therapy

Money provides an important window into our inner lives and how they interact with the lives of those who are closest to us. But these money struggles are just the symptoms of a far deeper cause, which often requires stronger medicine than a simple budgeting strategy.

There has been a growing cultural awareness of mental health issues in this country, lifting some of the stigma that has existed for generations. We are more accepting of individuals going to therapy to come to grips with anxiety, past trauma, and depression. And yet, I have not seen the same normalization for couples therapy.

For many couples, going to therapy is cast as an admission of weakness, rather than an opportunity to strengthen communication and deepen the relationship. As with individual mental health treatment, I suspect the lingering resistance to couples therapy is strongest among men. At the risk of overgeneralization, I think this is because of the ways that boys and men are socialized. We often lack the communication tools and emotional vulnerability needed to understand and connect on these deeper matters.

Yet, in my experience, admission of weakness is always the first step to any kind of meaningful healing and connection, no matter the arena.