financial therapy

Why Financial Therapists Like Loud Budgeting

Have you heard the term “loud budgeting” in 2024? It’s trending and describes the phenomenon of naming out loud when you can’t afford something, or more accurately, when you have enough money but don’t want to spend it on the thing that’s being asked of you.

Financial therapists know that words have power, so we aren’t about asking people to keep saying “I can’t afford this. I can’t afford that.” That self-talk has a negative effect on mental health and often keeps people living in scarcity. In contrast, loud budgeting is about saying no to spending.

So how do financial therapists see loud budgeting working? What if it can serve as an empowerment tool? What if it names out loud your values and priorities for saving and spending. Loud budgeting from this perspective could sound like:

I don’t want to prioritize that right now.

I don’t want to spend money on that.

That’s not a priority.

I have other goals in mind right now.

I’m saving my money for xxx.

I’ve already met my budget this month for (coffee/eating out/shopping/etc).

No thank you.

Meeting your money goals AND practicing boundaries with others sounds pretty good doesn’t it? So here’s your invitation to experiment with loud budgeting from a place of owning where you stand. It can serve as tool that isn’t about reinforcing your ability to afford something but focuses on not wanting or choosing to afford something, stating it isn’t a priority right now. It’s a new response to financial peer pressure, and I think financial therapists couldn’t be more excited for folks to try it out.

Four Problems of Financial Gatekeeping

What is Financial Gatekeeping and what are the problems it brings to relationships? We first defined Financial Gatekeeping in June 2023 as “preventing a partner from having an active role in shared finances.” Financial Gatekeeping holds some similarities to Maternal Gatekeeping in that it feels one-sided, signifies one partner’s decision-making role, and has a negative impact on the other partner or the family system. Instead of mom’s refusal to allow dad to participate in caregiving or activities with their child, we want to explore the experience of refusing to allow a partner to participate in household finances. Let’s take a look at the problems Financial Gatekeeping can cause:

 

1.     It disempowers one partner

This challenge of Financial Gatekeeping probably feels pretty straightforward in that decision making resides with only one partner. This could look like one partner being solely responsible for the finances, such as having access to bank accounts or reconciling the family expenses each month. This could also mean that the one partner with access to finances makes all purchase decisions big or small, or is responsible for paying the bills for the family. Although there may be an initial agreement to have one person responsible for the finances in thinking it makes things “easier” on the family or couple, it prevents the second partner from having any autonomy or decision making for purchases they may find valuable or in alignment with the family’s goals.

 

2.     It prevents collaboration on shared financial goals

Shared financial goals are an important part of being a couple who has a healthy relationship with money, according to colleague and fellow Financial Therapist Nathan Astle. So how can we support shared financial goals? Financial Gatekeeping prevents goals from being formed because one person makes the decisions, possibly with minimal or zero input from their partner. That second partner may feel they don’t get a say, based on power dynamics, not contributing income to the household, or having a partner who makes more income than them, which can falsely serve as a justification for one person to continue making the decisions and setting the financial goals.

 

3.     It can lead to Financial Abuse

If one person continues to exert power over the other, this looks and sounds like Financial Abuse. Behaviors that can embody Financial Abuse include things like having one partner require permission from the other to spend, restricting their access to bank accounts or shared income tools, giving them a limited amount of money or allowance for the things they need, or requiring all purchases to go through the partner who holds all the power and control over household finances. It’s an unhealthy dynamic with increased possibility if Financial Gatekeeping is occurring in a couple or family.

 

4.     It reinforces negative money beliefs

For the person who is disempowered and restricted from financial decision-making, the messaging they receive from the experience of Financial Gatekeeping can reinforce their negative money beliefs. Perhaps they already have money beliefs like:

 

I’m bad with money

I can’t be trusted with money

I make poor decisions with money

I spend too much money

 

Having a partner or spouse enforce Financial Gatekeeping can then amplify these negative beliefs about ourselves, making it that much harder to have a healthy relationship with money.

 

If you feel like you are stuck in a pattern of Financial Gatekeeping with a partner, the good news is that things can change for the better. Perhaps you start with your own money healing to explore any anxiety or beliefs that could be driving your behaviors. Maybe you engage in couples work around money to increase your connection and communication with one another. Or maybe you start with a mini money date to identify a shared goal you can work on together. Financial Gatekeeping doesn’t have to stay a part of your partnership and money, it can evolve into something empowering to both partners with some intentional work and motivation to change!

Exploring Enneagram Types and Money

So many of us are fans of the Enneagram because it explores the possibilities of connecting and relating to others. It also helps us understand our edges and think about ways of growing and adapting. So why not explore how the Enneagram connects to money beliefs and money behaviors within the scope of Financial Therapy? Of course these are considered generalizations based on what I’ve seen in my therapy practice, so they shouldn’t be seen as one-size-fits-all. The intention behind this blog is to get each of us thinking about our Enneagram edges as they relate to money, in order to begin crafting our healthiest relationship with money! I welcome your thoughts as you take a deeper dive into each of the nine types below.

 

Type 1 Perfectionist: There's only one right way to save money.

Potential Problem: Rigidity and commitment to money decisions may lead to poor outcomes.

 

Could Enneagram Type 1s be more likely to experience sunk-cost fallacy, which is the phenomenon of being reluctant to abandon or change a money decision because of a diligence and commitment to the decision, even when ending it might be in their best interest? The rigidity of embracing only one way to manage money could present problems of poor investments, a lack of a diverse portfolio, or problems pivoting when money needs to be spent in ways that weren’t the original plan.

 

Type 2 Helper: I must give others money to be helpful

Potential Problem: Encourages financial dependence in others.

 

Enneagram Type 2s have a need to be needed. Supporting loved ones, strangers, or even nonprofit causes can reinforce their desire to be financially supportive and thus valuable to others. Their generosity could become a target for manipulation or dependence from others because of their willingness to follow through when helping others in need. They may struggle with saving for their own futures while wanting to help others with theirs.

 

Type 3 Achiever: I must make more money to be seen as successful.

Potential Problem: Workaholism. Limited joy in money. Feelings that money controls them.

 

Enneagram 3s may have a difficult time separating their self-worth from their net worth. Their success is measured by what they do and by what they accomplish, so making more money would mean they were more successful in their own eyes and in the eyes of others. This belief encourages workaholism, poor boundaries, and a hustle-mentality. They can also struggle to find joy in money due to their focus on making more of it, with a common belief of feeling controlled by money in their rumination on how much they are making, by what means, and how often.

 

Type 4 Individualist: Money is bad/corrupt/capitalism.

Potential Problem: Underearner, struggle with meeting money goals, poverty 

 

Our Enneagram 4s tend to be feelers and creatives. They enjoy deeper conversations, which can include conversations about how money hurts or helps others. Prior to doing their own money work, they may believe that money is bad or corrupt, which can lead to a conscious or subconscious rejection of money, resulting in underearning due to not wanting to hold onto money. Once they do their own money work, 4s may experience a healthy shift from “money is bad” to “money is a tool” or some other neutral belief that changes their relationship with money for the better.

 

Type 5 Investigator: I must master money and how to invest it.

Potential Problem: Missing understanding of emotional components to money in self and others.

 

Enneagram 5s tend to be very logical, left-brain individuals. In a quest to best understand money, they may invest time and funds into educating themselves on money matters, including understanding investments and the stock market. Some 5s track money as if it were a job, with a serious commitment to checking their numbers or watching money news daily. Because of their focus on how money works, they may miss opportunities to understand the psychology of money in themselves and others, questioning the emotional decisions of others as incomprehensible or irrational.

 

Type 6 Loyalist: I must be responsible with my money.

Potential Problem: Deprivation from savings only. Guilt when spending.

 

Anxiety can plague Enneagram 6s when they are in an unhealthy state, which would include worries about money. 6s may struggle to spend money, fearing consequences or money emergencies where they wouldn’t have enough. They seek to be responsible with their money, and can feel guilt when making purchases without the space for thorough analysis of the consequences, or when making bigger purchases that have a bigger impact on their budget or bank account.

 

Type 7 Enthusiast: I will spend money to feel happy.

Potential Problem: Limited or no money for retirement or emergencies.

 

Our Enneagram 7s love to live life to the fullest. This may mean pursuing new experiences or by seeking dopamine through purchases. Others can view them as chasing the next shiny object, which results in judgement. Due to their passion and various interests, 7s can struggle to save money, whether that’s a vacation next year or retirement in 20 years. They live for the moment, which can have a negative effect on their emergency or retirement accounts.

 

Type 8 Challenger: I will do what I want with my money.

Potential Problem: Conflict in relationships in wanting sole decision making around money. Financial gatekeeper.

 

Enneagram 8s don’t like to be told what to do, so to tell them to save, spend, or use their money a certain way doesn’t bode well. 8s like to be the boss, which can include managing the money in a business, with their partner, or as a family. Their passionate personalities spur them to want to be sole decision makers with money, which puts them at risk of Financial Gatekeeping and resulting conflict with a partner or spouse.

 

Type 9 Peacemaker: Money upsets people so we don't have to talk about it.

Potential Problem: Money avoidance or accumulating debt.

 

Due to their natural role as a mediator, Enneagram 9s don’t voice their wants and needs very often. Their primary goal is to see all sides of an issue and to help keep the peace. Since money is a hot button issue for many people, 9s are more likely to agree to not talk about money, encouraging avoidance to prevent a conflict. As you can imagine, this can lead to money problems where money isn’t talked about, including increasing debt, poor management of money, and a lack of clarity about the future of money since it isn’t talked about.

 

How do these money challenges and potential problems land with you? Do they resonate with what you know of the Enneagram? By exploring our current relationship with money, we can continue to grow as individuals and partners in relationships, marriages, and communities. I’m a huge fan of knowing our edges, and encourage you to share your thoughts with me in the comments!

A Caution When Setting Different Rates in Private Practice

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This content does not replace a professional consultation with a legal representative.

 

What do I need to consider when setting my rates?

It’s a common question I’m asked as a Financial Therapist to therapists. Although there are multiple factors to explore when raising your rates (join us in our upcoming workshop!), there is another piece to the puzzle that’s been on my mind lately.

 

For therapists in private practice who take insurance, there are parameters they agree to as part of signing a contract and being in-network. One of which is that Balance Billing is illegal in Colorado. Balance Billing describes billing your full rate to insurance, being paid your contracted rate by insurance, and billing the client the difference. This is a no-no in Colorado.

 

An example:

Your private pay rate is $150

Insurance pays you $121

You invoice your client for the difference, which is $29

 

Seems pretty straight forward that this won’t fly. But what about in private-pay practices? Are you allowed to charge different clients different rates?

 

Yes and no.

 

For different services, it is common and accepted to have different rates. For example, your individual therapy rate may look different than your couples or family therapy rate, EMDR intensive rate, or 60 versus 90 minute session rates. Some folks are charging a higher rate for “premium times” like evenings, which feels a little sticky unless it’s in writing and known to all clients when scheduling for them to make an informed decision regarding their therapy.

 

What about charging a client a “supply fee” for being in-person? This feels like a gray area in private pay practices.

 

What feels even more sticky to me is setting different rates for in-person versus telehealth sessions, which has come up more often as professionals explore hybrid practices where they offer both.

 

For example:

A therapist charges $150 for a 50 minute telehealth individual session.

They charge $175 for a 50 minute in-person individual session.

 

The cost difference is that they want to charge more for in-person to offset costs like office space or rent, or gas and supplies like coffee and tea that are utilized for in-person services. As a business owner, I understand that thinking. And yet, the bottom line is that those expenses are tax deductions and part of doing business.

 

Here are two reasons I would caution a therapist against having different rates for telehealth and in-person sessions.

 

1.     It feels discriminatory

That’s right, this could put you at risk of being accused of discrimination. What if your client has a disability that requires or prevents them from in-person sessions? Does in-person at a higher rate convey a message to an able-bodied person? There are aspects here to think about as a private practice therapist.

 

2.     It encourages insurance companies to follow suit with wanting to pay providers less

I can tell you how upset the therapist community was when certain insurance companies suggested a lower reimbursement to therapists for telehealth after the pandemic. The argument against this? We are still doing quality work via telehealth and continue to support meaningful client outcomes towards their goals via video. So if we support a different fee structure for in-person vs. telehealth in private practice with private-pay clients, are we not encouraging insurance to reignite this initiative too? As you can imagine, this would have a negative ripple effect on therapists who want to be paid fairly by insurance, and in response, might limit their number of telehealth sessions which reduces access to care for clients.

 

So what can you do? Rather than charging different rates for telehealth vs. in person, consider raising your rates overall to address the added expenses of in-person services. Not sure what this needs to look like? Join us August 15th from 12pm-130pm MT to engage in a live webinar workshop on raising your rates.

 

Raising Your Rates Workshop Objectives

1)    Remove money blocks to raising your rates

2)    Identify factors for raising your rates

3)    Explore strategies for implementing new rates

 

I hope I can convey that my goal in writing this is to support you as a business owner AND therapist. To hold space for multiple views while also owning that I’m risk-adverse. Raising rates is one aspect to consider in response to added expenses in practice, while knowing that things are constantly changing, which means revisiting ideas often to support your business growth.