Day: October 26, 2025
The offers and details on this page may have updated or changed since the time of publication. See our article on Business Insider for current information.
Affiliate links for the products on this page are from partners that compensate us and terms apply to offers listed (see our advertiser disclosure with our list of partners for more details). However, our opinions are our own. See how we rate products and services to help you make smart decisions with your money.
John M Lund Photography Inc/Getty Images
- For Love & Money is a column from Business Insider answering your relationship and money questions.
- This week, a reader and her husband have different ideas about how to save.
- Our columnist suggests that the reader remind her husband that her financial goals are important too.
- Have a question for our columnist? Write to For Love & Money using this Google form.
Dear For Love & Money,
My husband believes we should have six months of spending saved up at all times. I think it’s too much, but I just go along with it.
I try to add money to our high-yield savings because, in my opinion, savings means savings. But he never puts money in — he says he just meant we should have it on hand. I don’t agree with this, because it feels like I’m the only one contributing to our “savings.” What should we do?
Sincerely,
My Money, But Not My Idea
Dear My Money,
How many months of salary should a person have saved in an emergency fund (experts recommend at least three to six months), and whether saving should be an ongoing process or about reaching a certain dollar amount, depends on your goals.
As for your specific case, I’m tempted to weigh in on who I think is right. But I don’t think that’ll actually help your situation. Instead, I want to discuss what seems to be the underlying issue: You and your husband hold different financial planning philosophies and what appears to be an unequal approach to who calls the shots.
You’ve clearly outlined the differences in your financial philosophies. You see savings as a wealth-building tool and, therefore, want to contribute to a high-yield savings account where your money can grow. Your husband sees savings as a means of security, so he doesn’t worry about monthly contributions, only meeting a specific dollar amount he knows he can fall back on in case of emergency.
However, your dilemma is bigger than a disagreement over savings strategy. The real issue is that within this disagreement, your husband is the only one getting his way. He has his six months of savings, and so, as far as he’s concerned, your family is set. But that’s not your preference. Your preferred strategy is for both of you to consistently contribute to a high-yield savings account, something only you’re doing.
The obvious answer here is to compromise. You’ve reached your husband’s savings goal, and now you can both turn your efforts toward your savings goal. But it doesn’t seem like he’s open to doing this because in his mind, your savings have been handled — his way.
I don’t know the inner workings of your relationship, but there seems to be a power imbalance evident in your letter that is worth unpacking, in order to decide how to best communicate your needs. In many relationships, one member of the couple becomes the default leader. For obvious cultural reasons, in heterosexual relationships, this is often the man, but plenty of other factors can play into this for all relationships.
A big one in my marriage is that my husband is an oldest child, and I am a middle child. When things get dicey, I tend to look around for someone else to tell me what to do. My husband, on the other hand, walks into every situation assuming he’s in charge, and if things start sliding south, he alone must fix it.
But I’m an intelligent person with great ideas, too. Relationships work best when both partners work together, play off one another’s strengths, and make decisions as a team — each feeling heard, trusted, and respected.
Intentional and equitable collaboration is crucial to working as a team. For you, that’ll involve telling your husband that your savings strategy is as important to you as those six months of emergency savings are to him. Explain to him why regularly saving is important to the way you want to approach your money in life, and remind him — since you seem to share finances — that someday, you’ll both benefit from the money you’re stashing away.
If he responds by arguing with you over the necessity of those savings, do what I did in this letter and avoid debating the merits of your differing plans. Instead, remind him that you’re an equal partner who deserves to have your opinions valued.
You said in your letter that while you think your husband’s goal is “too much,” you “just go along with it.” Why? Because it’s important to your husband, and extra savings never hurt anyone. Your financial priorities deserve the same respect, even when your husband deems them unnecessary.
And as long as you continue to share finances, respect means more than him simply tolerating your choice to set aside a portion of your check every month; it will require his participation. You’re an adult with good ideas and financial anxieties that you two can tackle as a team. This is the whole point of sharing finances.
If you find that your husband won’t agree to supporting your financial goal of putting away savings regularly, it may be worth having a conversation about potentially keeping some finances separate. Sometimes staying true to your financial style is easier for everyone when it’s personally maintained.
This doesn’t mean you have to scratch the joint account entirely and make savings one person’s responsibility while the other person gets to have all the fun. Instead, you might agree on an equitable amount of income for each of you to keep in your separate accounts. This number should reflect how much money is currently flowing towards discretionary financial goals, split in half.
However you choose to get there, true compromise doesn’t result in a win-lose situation where one person triumphs while the other is left carrying their losing argument alone. True compromise is two people agreeing to concede a little and gain a little — and that’s a win-win.
Rooting for you both,
For Love & Money
Looking for advice on how your savings, debt, or another financial challenge is affecting your relationships? Write to For Love & Money using this Google form.
#SouthCaucasus
#IlhamAliyev‘s personal responsibility for the #Azerbaijan SSS abuses, including the ” #TartarCase” – Google Search
google.com/search?q=Ilham+Al…
Based on information from human rights organizations and reports from countries like the United States, Ilham Aliyev’s personal responsibility for abuses, including the “Tartar Case,” is viewed through his position as the ultimate authority in an authoritarian system rife with official impunity. While there is no public evidence of Aliyev directly ordering torture, his regime is widely considered to have created the environment that allowed such abuses to occur on a systemic basis. [1, 2, 3]
The Tartar Case The “Tartar Case” involved the mass torture of Azerbaijani military personnel in 2017 following the Nagorno-Karabakh war. The accusations against them were of spying for Armenia.• Initial denial: For four years, the government denied any wrongdoing, classifying the case as a state secret.
• Admission of guilt: In 2021, after information leaked and outrage grew, a military prosecutor admitted to mass torture, stating that “physical violence” and “very serious measures” were used against suspects. Officials later acknowledged that at least eight people died from the torture, and 405 were victims of abuse.
• Limited justice: While some perpetrators received prison terms, human rights observers note that sentences were often light and that a full, comprehensive investigation has not yet occurred. [4, 5, 6]Aliyev’s role in the wider system of abuses Critics argue that Aliyev’s long-standing, authoritarian rule and suppression of dissent create a system where the government’s security forces, such as the State Security Service (SSS), can act with near-total impunity.
• Impunity for security forces: The U.S. State Department and human rights watchdogs consistently report that Azerbaijani officials who commit human rights abuses are rarely, if ever, punished.
• Crackdown on dissent: The Aliyev regime is known for silencing critics through various methods, including the use of force, intimidation, and trumped-up charges.
• Control over security apparatus: The Special State Protection Service of Azerbaijan is a militarized body under Aliyev’s direct command, and its chief is a close associate. This demonstrates the president’s tight control over the state’s coercive bodies.
• Transnational repression: Reports allege that the Azerbaijani government has engaged in transnational repression, including digitally harassing critics living abroad and intimidating their families inside the country.
• Silencing critics of the Tartar Case: Some of those who attempted to expose the abuses in the Tartar Case faced reprisal. For example, a human rights activist who publicized the case was arrested on defamation charges. [1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9]While Aliyev and his government deny widespread abuse, their acknowledged inaction and the systemic nature of the violations have led human rights experts to conclude that the government is responsible for creating an environment where torture and other abuses are not only tolerated but are a tool of the regime. [3]
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] state.gov/reports/2023-count…
[2] state.gov/reports/2023-count…
[3] humanrightsnetwork.org/blog/…
[4] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartar…
[5] eurasianet.org/azerbaijan-pr…
[6] state.gov/reports/2022-count…
[7] state.gov/reports/2022-count…
[8] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specia…
[9] rsf.org/en/azerbaijan-s-ilha…— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Oct 26, 2025
