
The death of the joint bank account – how under 35s are ditching them and how to manage money with your loved one
SHARING IS CARING The death of the joint bank account – how under 35s are ditching them and how to manage money with your loved one
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
SETTING up home with a loved one is exciting but as well as picking out a new sofa, you'll need to manage bills and a household budget together.
Young couples are turning their back on shared bank accounts and instead finding new ways to divvy up joint costs.
Sign up for Scottish Sun
newsletter
Sign up
1
Sharing finances comes with moving in with a partner
Credit: Getty
In the past, couples often set up a shared bank account which can then be used to pay for any joint expenses from food shopping to council tax.
Both will have a debit card for the account and can pay in as well as withdraw cash.
But over the last six years, the proportion of joint current accounts held by under-35s has steadily dropped from 18% to 14%, while the number of joint accounts grew overall from 12.4million to 13.9million, according to exclusive figures from credit agency Experian for The Sun.
Joint bank accounts can be a convenient way to pay household bills, but they also financially link both partners in the eyes of lenders – meaning one person's bad money habits can damage the other's chances of getting credit.
The other downside are potential issues over control.
Dr Nisha Prakash, a lecturer in financial management from the University of East London, says: 'The younger generation values financial independence and autonomy.
'Typically, a joint account holder can withdraw the entire amount from a joint account without the other person's consent."
Here's how you can fairly share household finances without a shared bank account.
Make a budget
Communication is key - talk about how much each person has to contribute towards bills and other expenses.
Draw up a rough budget of how much total costs are expected to come in at each month.
You will need to think about whether to include food shopping and other items in the costs.
Consider if you are going to split bills equally or whether one person earning more is going to pay a higher proportion of costs.
For example, if one person is earning 70% of the combined household income, decide whether they also cover 70% of costs.
It's a good idea to agree these things at the outset to avoid disagreements.
Divvy up bills
One way of managing budgets is to share out the responsibility of bills between you.
Vicky Reynal, author of Money on Your Mind: the Psychology behind your Financial Habits, says: 'With more dual-income households, couples are finding ways to coordinate finances as equals in ways that do not necessarily require a joint account.
"For example, one pays the internet and the other the electricity.'
This way you could take ownership of the service.
For example, making sure you're on the best tariff as well as being the one to sort out any provider issues that may arise.
You can try to split so that you'd both pay a similar amount each month in respective bills or have one transfer cash where there is a shortfall.
Split fairly
Apps such as Splitwise allow you to keep track of shared expenses.
Each person can add an expense. For example a food shop or a bill they have paid.
The app then keeps a running total and works out who owes what.
You could do that at the start or end of each month, week or even daily depending on what suits your circumstances.
Decide on savings goals
Consider whether you want to set up a pot for savings for joint events such as holidays or Christmas.
You should also consider getting an emergency fund together to cover joint and unexpected costs such as a broken boiler.
This should be three to six months of your total outgoings, then it can act as a financial buffer in case either of you are suddenly out of a job.
You can create 'jars' to save and spend from together through app-based savings provider HyperJar.
It's easier to set up and not as formal as a joint bank account.
You can also set up a joint savings account through most financial providers, and means you don't have to link all your income and outgoings to the account.
Just look for the best interest rate so that your money works as hard as possible.
If you have a one year savings goal, Cahoot Simple Saver pays 4.55% for a year and can be opened as a joint account.
And remember to do with someone you trust, as one person can usually withdraw the entire amount.
Joint account
If you do decide to get a joint account together, make sure you pick the right bank and account type.
Look for low fees, a high interest rate on cash kept in the account and easy access via an app and online.
Remember to find out if both account holders are equally responsible for any overdraft.
A three-account system can work well for couples.
This is a joint account for shared expenses while each person keeps their own personal account.
It's a good idea to review account statements together and use alerts so both parties know when the money leaves the account or when it gets credited.
Remember that either party can withdraw the amount without consent, unless you specifically request dual approval.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Scottish Sun
2 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Do you have Apple Pay or Google Wallet? How YOU'RE at risk from fraud
Consumer experts share warning to shoppers on how they can avoid falling victim to scammers BILL BLOW Do you have Apple Pay or Google Wallet? How YOU'RE at risk from fraud SHOPPERS who use Apple Pay or Google Pay may be at higher risk of fraud, consumer group Which? has warned. It said the use of one-time passcodes by banks could be making people with digital wallets an easy target for scammers. 1 Shoppers who use Apple Pay or Google Pay may be at higher risk of fraud, Which? has warned Credit: Getty A survey by the consumer champions found that the majority of banks are still using these security features, putting consumers at risk. Unlike contactless cards, there is no £100 spending cap on cards added to Apple and Google Pay, so fraudsters can quickly drain victims' accounts once they gain access to it. Scammers normally trick people into divulging their card details by setting up a fake transaction, Which? said. People will think they're paying for a bargain product advertised online, or they might fall victim to a phishing message. A common example is parcel delivery scams, where you're asked to pay a nominal amount for re-delivery. Scammers monitor the transaction in real time, inputting the victim's card details into a digital wallet on their own phone. Many banks will then ask for a one time passcode (OTP) to verify the cardholder, which the scammer then asks the victim for to complete the "transaction". The fraudsters are then able to drain the victim's bank account. Which? surveyed 15 banks and card providers about their digital wallet setup process between April and May this year, and found the majority still use OTPs sent through text message as one of the options for adding cards to a digital wallet. Of the 14 providers that allow cards to be added to wallets (Capital One is the exception), just two banks confirmed they do not use OTPs, while a third appeared not to when Which? researchers tested the process. New 'property tax' will PUNISH hard-working Brits and torpedo house market, blasts Kirstie Allsopp Barclays, Co-op, HSBC (with its sister banks First Direct and M&S Bank), Santander and Virgin Money said they currently use SMS OTPs, though they are not the only verification option. Starling said it still uses OTPs for setting up Apple Pay alongside other options, but it removed them from Google Pay in 2022. TSB said it is working to set up in-app verification, but is using OTPs in the meantime. American Express, Lloyds Banking Group and NewDay (which operates the John Lewis Partnership Credit Card) - did not outline which verification methods they use. When Which? tested the set up processes for cards, Amex did use SMS and email OTPs, while Halifax did not and instead offered several "more robust methods" including in-app approval. Chase and Monzo said they have never used OTPs for setting up digital wallets. It comes after Cifas, UK Finance and the Cyber Defence Alliance previously warned about the link between OTP use and digital wallet fraud. Providers can also limit how many wallets a card can be added to overall, or within a certain time period, but most banks do not implement these restrictions. Virgin Money allows an individual card to be added to a maximum of five devices. Starling with a total limit of 15 devices, while Monzo customers can only add their Monzo cards to a digital wallet twice in a 24-hour period and three times every 30 days. However, Which? said that even with these limits in place, consumers can still fall victim to scammers as they only need to add one card to a digital wallet to start spending. Which? Money deputy editor Sam Richardson said: 'For millions of us, digital wallets are a quick, easy and secure way to make payments, but weaknesses in card providers' security means they can also be a gift to scammers. 'Banks have known for years that using one time passcodes (OTPs) to verify account holders is leaving consumers vulnerable. "It's clear further investment is needed to make the digital wallet set-up process fit for the threats consumers face in 2025. 'In the meantime, we'd caution shoppers to always think twice before sharing their payment details - or OTPs - online. "If you think you've been a victim of a scam, contact Action Fraud and your bank immediately.' Apple told Which? it is not responsible for approving or rejecting the addition of a card to Apple Pay, or for approving or rejecting transactions. It said that it takes users' security seriously and Apple Pay has been designed in a way to protect users' personal information. A Google spokesperson said: 'Security is core to the Google Wallet experience and we work closely with card issuers to prevent fraud. "For example, banks notify customers when their card has been added to a new digital wallet, and we provide signals to help issuers detect fraudulent behaviour so they can decide whether to approve added cards.' An American Express spokesperson said: 'Privacy and security are a priority for American Express. "We have controls designed to protect customer accounts and guard against unauthorised fraudulent activity, and if we identify activity that may be fraud, we will take protective actions.' Barclays said that the verification method used for adding a card to a digital wallet will depend on the user journey. It said it does not currently have plans to phase out use of OTPs. Co-Op Bank said it monitors for fraudulent registrations through its fraud detection systems and has multiple strategies in place to detect digital wallet fraud. It does not currently have plans to phase out use of OTPs. HSBC said it has no immediate plans to phase out OTP delivery for adding cards to digital wallets, however, it keeps its digital wallet provisioning process under review. Lloyds said it has invested millions of pounds in multi-layered fraud defences, and continues to regularly review its authentication methods. Nationwide said that it has multiple layers of protection in place to keep its customers safe from fraud including warning messaging, AI models and sophisticated internal analytics. It is currently exploring alternatives to OTPs. Natwest said it regularly reviews its customer experience and authentication to ensure security, and said it is reviewing how it uses OTPs. NewDay declined to comment. Santander said it is looking at other forms of authentication, and other security measures, which may be less visible to a user than the mechanism used for two-factor authentication. Starling said it currently only uses OTPs for Apple Pay, and removed this option from Android phones in 2022. TSB told Which? that it is working closely with card and wallet providers to implement approval via the TSB Mobile App. In the interim, OTP verification is accompanied by the necessary risk verification, alongside fraud controls to keep customer details safe. Virgin Money said its fraud team has heightened monitoring and controls around digital wallet fraud. It also said that it is looking at in-app verification as an option but has no current plans to phase out use of OTPs. Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing money-sm@ Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories

Scottish Sun
4 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
How Rachel Reeves will RUIN British horse racing for millions of fans in her desperation to increase taxes
The Racing Tax will put the sport's British success story in grave danger NICK TIMOTHY How Rachel Reeves will RUIN British horse racing for millions of fans in her desperation to increase taxes Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) AFTER increasing spending by EIGHT times more than she promised, Rachel Reeves has created a huge, £51billion black hole in the public finances – and she's going to make YOU pay the price for her failure. In the Budget this year, we are going to see record tax rises — and among the ideas in the Treasury is a new Racing Tax. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 3 Horseracing supports rural communities and towns all over Britain Credit: Alamy 3 Chancellor Rachel Reeves has created a huge, £51billion black hole in the public finances Credit: Reuters 3 A bookmaker pictured at Royal Ascot in 2022 Credit: Getty Horseracing is the second-largest spectator sport, with five million people watching every year across 59 courses. It generates £4.1billion for the economy and backs 85,000 jobs. We have the best horses, the best trainers and four of the top ten races in the world. It supports rural communities and towns all over Britain, including West Suffolk, home to the Newmarket racecourses, which I'm proud to represent in Parliament. But the Racing Tax will put this British success story in grave danger. Right now, bookies pay a 15 per cent tax rate on racing, but Labour's plan to combine all online gambling taxes into a single rate could increase it to 21 per cent. 'Mindless free-for-all' Because racing is also subject to the Betting Levy, ministers would put racing at a competitive disadvantage against the most addictive kinds of online gaming. It could mean £330million of lost revenue for racing in just the first five years, and put 2,752 jobs at risk in the first year. This would lead to higher prices and less racing because of lost income. This proves Labour doesn't understand racing at all. Punters who follow the horses, on the whole, tend to be more selective and use their knowledge, judgment and skills when placing their bets at the bookies, on the course or online. British Horse Racing to Strike for the First Time: Industry Unites Against Betting Tax Hike Plus there are only so many races that you can put money on. But online gambling is a mindless free-for-all and incredibly addictive. There is simply no reason why horseracing should be treated in the same way. Yet, in the desperation to increase taxes, racing — and millions of racing fans — will suffer. Some assume racing has the cash to spare, but this is not true at all. While the industry is very valuable to the economy, its profit margins are tight for breeders and trainers. They invest a lot, but don't always see a return. We are already at risk of falling behind global competitors — such as France — because we are breeding fewer thoroughbred horses. But our racing industry isn't taking this lying down. On September 10, the day before the St Leger festival at Doncaster, no races will take place in Britain. Everyone in the industry knows the financing of horseracing needs reform. Nick Timothy The four race meetings at Lingfield Park, Carlisle, Uttoxeter and Kempton Park will be cancelled. The industry is taking a financial hit to prove its point. Usually, races are only cancelled because of awful weather, equine virus outbreaks or national crises. But the whole industry, from owners to trainers to jockeys, is standing together to protest against Labour's plans. It will be the first time in the sport's modern history that the industry will voluntarily refuse to hold races. Together, they will head to Westminster and make their voices heard. Everyone in the industry knows the financing of horseracing needs reform. Australia and France give horseracing a lot more government support through direct funding or betting taxes than us. Private investors have deeper pockets in the USA and Japan. Prize money is more modest in Britain — which means races in places like the Middle East might become more appealing to owners and trainers than races at home. But the industry keeps getting punished. No progress has been made on reforming the Horserace Betting Levy, which provides a third of the industry's income. 'Nobody has any fun' Affordability checks have been introduced for anyone betting more than £150 on racing within 30 days, driving customers away and costing £3billion in lost turnover in just two years. Labour ministers keep offering us warm words, but fail to deliver. The Racing Tax is the last straw. Opposing Labour's tax plans does not mean we don't want change. The Horserace Betting Levy can be improved by applying it to bookies' total turnover rather than just their profits. It could cover bets placed on overseas races so long as the bookies are based in Britain. The rate could be raised above ten per cent. This would be done to the benefit of the industry and punters alike. There is also more the sport can do to modernise and increase revenue. But the Racing Tax is classic Labour — faceless bureaucrats interfering with people's lives, undermining a successful industry and making sure nobody has any fun. They just don't understand how the economy works, which is why they are killing it with more tax and regulation. We should all stand with horseracing to protect this vital but endangered industry.

Scottish Sun
7 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Arsenal are big spenders but failure to sell is holding them back in transfer window – their record sale speaks volumes
TAKING THE MIK Arsenal are big spenders but failure to sell is holding them back in transfer window – their record sale speaks volumes Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) ARSENAL have gone big this summer with a spending spree of nearly £200million. But when it comes to sales – needed during this transfer window to balance their squad and their kitty, as well as bring in more new faces – the Gunners are lagging behind their rivals. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 7 Arsenal boss Mikel Arteta is relying on outgoings before signing any more players Credit: Getty 7 Defender Jakub Kiwior is among the players being linked with a move away Credit: Alamy 7 Oleksandr Zinchenko could also be sold Credit: Alamy It is why Tottenham have been allowed a free run to agree a £60m deal with Crystal Palace for Eberechi Eze. So far this window, Arsenal have recouped around £6.9m, seeing Brazilian winger Marquinhos head to Cruzeiro for £2.6m and Nuno Tavares to Lazio for £4.3m, while Thomas Partey, Jorginho, Takehiro Tomiyasu and Kieran Tierney left on frees. Only Leeds [£6.5m], Everton [£3.4m], Manchester United, Crystal Palace and Fulham [all £0] have brought in less so far. The comparison to their Prem title rivals is stark. Liverpool have raked in £188.5m from the likes of Luis Diaz and Darwin Nunez. READ MORE ON ARSENAL COR-NER BLIMEY Fans spot Arsenal's sneaky new tactic to manipulate new Premier League rule Noni Madueke and Joao Felix have helped Chelsea pocket £205.7m while James McAtee's departure has seen Manchester City hit £55.7m. Even Nottingham Forest [£102.1m], Bournemouth [£197.5m], Brighton [£104.7m], Wolves [£98.7m] and Brentford [£83.8m] have had fruitful outgoings. This has been an historical issue for Arsenal. Their record sale remains Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain's £35m switch to Liverpool in 2017. Below that, it is Nicolas Anelka's £30m move to Real Madrid 26 YEARS AGO, one that famously allowed Arsene Wenger to build a new training ground and sign eventual club-record scorer Thierry Henry in 1999. CASINO SPECIAL - BEST CASINO BONUSES FROM £10 DEPOSITS Arsenal have attempted to address this issue in recent years, selling Aaron Ramsale to Southampton, Eddie Nketiah to Crystal Palace and Emile Smith Rowe to Fulham for a combined total of around £89m in the summer of 2024. And in 2023, another academy graduate Folarin Balogun left for Monaco in a move that could hit £35m with bonuses. How Arsenal survived Man Utd's attacks with 'forcefield defence' 7 Fabio Vieira has been linked with a move to Stuttgart Credit: Getty 7 Leandro Trossard is another player potentially heading for the exit Credit: Getty But it remains an area that needs improvement. Over the next couple of weeks before the end of the window, Arsenal's sales stats could look far more healthy. Should the likes of Fabio Vieira, Oleksandr Zinchenko, Leandro Trossard, Jakub Kiwior, Albert Sambi Lokonga, Reiss Nelson exit for their market value, it could take their outgoings to well over £100m. It would be a welcome addition to their kitty with targets still being eyed up this summer, including a blockbuster move for Real Madrid's Rodrygo. In arguing why their sales have not been as big as their rivals, boss Mikel Arteta can point to several factors. When he first took over in December 2019, he inherited a bloated squad full of ageing stars on big wages, forcing the club to take action by accepting the financial hit, ripping up contracts for free transfers to welcome younger, hungrier, more cost-effective players in their bold and risky recruitment strategy in a desperate attempt to fix the culture at the club. In an ideal world, they would have earned some money back on the departures of big hitters Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang, Mesut Ozil, David Luiz and Alexandre Lacazette, instead of allowing them to leave for nothing. And as a result of this, young academy stars like Saka, Smith Rowe, Nelson, Nketiah and Balogun were relied on and trusted in the first team far more than the likes of Liverpool, Man City and Chelsea – who have made a habit of selling their homegrown talents for big profits, able to do so because of the size and quality of their squads. 7 City collected £42.5m from Chelsea for Cole Palmer in 2023, while the Blues let go of Mason Mount, Ian Maatsen, Conor Gallagher, Tammy Abraham, Fikayo Tomori and Lewis Hall for a combined total of around £230m. This summer alone, Reds teenager Ben Doak has joined Bournemouth in a deal worth up to £25m and Jarell Quansah left for Bayer Leverkusen in a move worth £35m including add-ons, and who can forget Raheem Sterling leaving for City in 2015 for around £50m. Arteta's squad now looks complete with an impressively impactful bench to match the starting XI, yet that was not always the case, hence why ineffective squad players have previously been held on to instead of sold. Arsenal currently have big names in their squad that could be sold for big profits. William Saliba is wanted by Real Madrid. Gabriel was approached by the Saudi giants. Teenage starlets Ethan Nwaneri and Myles Lewis-Skelly were monitored before signing new bumper deals, while Max Dowman's worth is only rising despite being just 15. In their bid to finally end their 21-year wait for a Prem title, Arteta and Arsenal are in no position to cash in on their most prized assets just yet. But the ability to consistently sell big and invest wisely cannot be sniffed at, especially when you consider the trophies Liverpool, City and Chelsea have hauled in as a result. 7 TRANSFER NEWS LIVE - KEEP UP WITH ALL THE LATEST FROM A BUSY SUMMER WINDOW



