To think this level of saving is extreme and I’m right to question it?

@ITru

You strike me as the sort of person who thinks all money is to be spent immediately.

For example:
If somebody gave you a tenner you'd pop into Pret.
If it were £100 you'd book a restaurant.
£1000 and you'd book a weekend away.
£10k and you might buy a car or book a luxury holiday.
£100k and you'd do some building work.
£1 million and you'd give up work and start spending it all.

Newsflash - you're never going to reach those larger amounts if you piss away all the money that comes your way.

Did you enjoy the holiday? What was wrong with the restaurant he booked for your birthday?

I think your partner has a decent savings rate and is being very sensible. If it is negatively impacting his and your lives, then perhaps he's being too disciplined. Does he also have a pension? Are these his long term retirement savings?

£77k is not that number though, is it!

Exactly that. The only difference is, he is choosing to save just over a third of his take home pay (relatively normal behaviour) and the OP is not. So guess what, he builds up savings and she doesn't.

To repeat myself, if this was the other way round, would we all be saying that the OP should be compensating him for not saving?

You can get second home insurances. If that solves that problem for you?

Is he scrimping on enjoying life though? He is spending on meals and holidays, just not the expensive ones OP wants. Maybe he prefers a camping trip and the pub, I do, or at least I don't prefer the luxury version enough to make it worth the difference in cost to me.

My DH also died and he left us very secure, which I'm very grateful for.

Is he actually interested in the "lavish" things you're talking about wanting to do? Because that might be the actual issue, rather than the saving.

If it was something he wanted to do, would he spend or would he still go without? Because it's things you're wanting to do, but he may not care about, he doesn't see the value in spending on it?

I've heard about people who save so much money that they end up with more money than they could spend in a lifetime of living comfortably and they still live like they're on the bones of their arse.

I don't get it. Life is for living.

Why are people so keen to insist that she is subsidising him? The maths doesn't support that at all.

He is paying 100% of: the mortgage at his house, the bills at his house, any other upkeep at his house.
He is paying 50% of: the bills at her house, the food at her house.
Unknown: is there any contribution to upkeep of the place? DIY? etc.

She is paying 100% of: the mortgage of her house.
She is paying 50% of: the bills at her house, the food at her house.
Unknown: upkeep, decoration, DIY etc.

She is not subsidising him. If anything, due to economies of scale, she is likely saving money by having him there because covering all of the energy/council/internet/food/etc. would likely be more than she is paying now.

If his house is just standing unoccupied for some time the insurance is likely to be void.
There is so much more to this story, as it does not ring true and is highly likely that the OP is being used!
OP needs to have a conversation with her DP, not us!
Raise the void insurance point, ask to see the property (and be smart enough to ensure he is showing you the property he owns, not any occupied property). If he can't do this/avoids the topic/can't show you proof of ownership, he is lying.
If he is so motivated to save money it is not plausible that he is not renting his place out.
Or it is that he has an ex wife/family still living in a home he owns or jointly owns, so he doesn't see this as renting it out.
OP, you need to ask him a lot of questions on this, or ask yourself if you're happy to risk years of regret, in the future.
Without trust, you have no future.

THIS! We were the same. Struggling to see why so many people can't understand?!

Are you married and do you have kids? If not married or no kids then I don't think you really have a day in how he spends (or doesn't spend lol) his money.

Sorry for your loss. And that's very true about shrouds.

We don't have crystal balls, it's hard to know if we'll live to 50 or 90 or somewhere inbetween. I err on the side of getting to 90. But I also live now.

It isn't really, you need closer to £500K for a comfortable retirement. And if you lost your job that sort of money would only last 2-3 years. Once you get to a certain age it is difficult to find work again.

I save £1K a month on top of pension contributions. My take-home salary isn't a million miles (pounds) from his take-home. I'd save more but have my son's rent at university to pay. But if I want to do, or buy, something nice, I do/buy it.

I don't think he's that unreasonable. But £1k a month would be enough. The £500 could be used for the here and now.

If he’s living in your house and not contributing towards rent/mortgage, you’re subbing him. You pay the mortgage for the home in which you both live.

They go to their own houses.

OP own her house so stays put. Op doesn't get any input into her bills - the house she owns and pays on the mortgage remains her. She could then get single person council tax reduction.

He goes back to his house which he has been paying his mortgage on- immediately because he is not renting it out so doesn't have to wait to get vacancy again - and continues to pay his bills there which may go up but he won't be paying at OP house as well - so probably has more money.

He doesn't have 2 houses - as he has no claim to OP house - but does have immediate access to his own house as it's not rented out.

TBH I think he should rent his house. It’s a waste to keep it empty.

I imagine he's holding on to his empty house because he's not at all sure about a future with someone who expects fancy holiday and restaurants

😂😂

He has a house with a mortgage, which he pays. He also pays insurances, taxes and utilities on that house, although I imagine gas and electricity will be minimal if he isn’t living there.

OP has a house with a mortgage, which she pays. She pays insurances, utilities and taxes, but the partner pays towards food and living expenses.

Seems fairly equitable. The question was weather the mount he’s saving is excessive. He doesn’t think it is, OP thinks there could be some room to treat themselves a bit more.

Neither is right or wrong. Just different financial outlooks.

He's making money off you. He should be paying you some rent.

£77k is hardly security, and isn't yet an adequate pension. It sounds like you still have holidays and evenings out, so tbh it sounds pretty sensible to me. Are you saying that you would prefer to spend more on being a little more extravagant, rather than have savings for the future? That's a diff attitude to him and will cause problems if you ever join up your finances. It is his money, that he is earning, so I think you shouldn't judge him on it if you don't feel you're subbing him in any way.

I agree, the lack of understanding basic mathematics on this thread is depressing.

I’d find this level of saving irksome because he’s scrimping on enjoying life now. My husband sat in a chair and died, he was gone in a second. As they say, there’s no pockets in shrouds.

Whilst he's saving a lot, he is also spending 2.3k/month, so it doesn't seem like he is particularly miserly? I personally don't care about fancy restaurants, so don't spend my money on them. But I do like my holidays so wouldn't go camping. Each to their own.

I would love you to try explain your maths on this one !!! How the hell does he have 2? He has one house , his own, that he is currently paying all the bills on. Op has one house, her own , that she is paying half the bills on. They each have 1 (one) house and would have one house each ( Their own current houses) if they separated.