> Wouldn't your lack of bad conflict regarding money be less about the fact that you combined finances, and more about you yielding to the conflict and accepting its presence in a different way?
A simpler way to put it is we communicate with each other our plans for the use of our money, especially when it concerns larger amounts.
And it's easier to think of it being "our money" when it's pooled in shared accounts.
> Based on your choice of words, it seems like budgeting is a option rather than critical, so if that's the case, how would you approach things if both of you needed to have the same relationship with spending?
What do you mean by "needed to have the same relationship with spending"? Whether we budget or not depends on our financial circumstances. In leaner times, budgets become critical. Most of all, it's a monthly opportunity to talk about the family's financial health and spending/saving/giving priorities. If somebody is spending too much or conversely, being too thrifty, we talk about it.
> It would seem to me like combining finances would only lead to less actual conflict (good or bad) if you've both already synchronized your relationship to the money coming in, rather than a solution in itself.
I don't fully understand what you mean by "synchronizing your relationship to the money coming in". If it's a fancy way of saying "we talk about the money we earn and how we spend/save/give it", then yes, we do.
I agree that pooling finances is not the whole solution. The main solution/bad conflict preventer is thoughtful communication and trust. To use a git/coding analogy, studies have shown the act of combining finances is a small (but important) commit on the trunk of your overall commitment to each other in marriage.