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

My H is very similar, except his goes into his pension. Why does he do this? Because he came from poverty, lost his family home to parental bankruptcy and divorce, ended up sofa surfing in his late teens. His father is still working in his late 70s, his disabled mum has barely £5k to her name in her 70s.

I come from a very different background and have a far more casual relationship with money because I have never truly known hardship. I similarly struggle with wanting to live more in the present and save less. We are both high earners and could afford it. But because I know why H is like he is, I try to be more considerate of his fears of the future and find a compromise position that doesn't hurt either of our values and beliefs around money.

Good for him. More people should be that sensible.

It’s definitely not easy to save £150k, but it’s also not impossible on an average salary without taking excessive risk. If you earn £35k a year and save around 25% of your take home pay every month in an average risk tracker fund you’d be there in about 13 years. In the case of the OPs partner, who takes home £3,800 (which still indicates a salary of less than (£60k) and is saving a little over a third of it, it’d be relatively easy.

Or you could spend £600 more a month on holidays and going out ;)

Speak up, next time he mentions where to eat out, say no let's go here, meaness is never attractive

I do know the importance of savings but 1,500 from a 3,800 pay packet seems extreme to me.

That's not even half though. It's 39%. Most money advice organisations say 20-25%, so although he's a bit over, it's not significant. He's more than entitled to spend or save his money as he wishes.

TBH it's only slightly more than what I save a month and my salary is around the same. Not everyone wants to go out for expensive meals or have top of the range cars etc. Live and let live.

What on earth are you talking about? Low risk investing almost always has low returns, high returns comes with risky investments that may or may not offer you the high return.

Again, none of this is relevant or makes it “easy” to save £150k on a low salary.

Maybe he’s saving to pay off his mortgage?
my exH and I saved a massive amount each month, Every couple of months we paid off a chunk of the mortgage as we thankfully had a mortgage that didn’t ‘fine you’ for paying off extra…. We cleared our £100k mortgage and goodness how much interest we saved in doing so… if we hadn’t done this we would still be paying to clear it now, (7 years later!).. Maybe he’s thinking that once it’s paid off he will have the money to retire early and live a comfortable life with you.

we simply don’t know what the situation with the house is because the OP is being conspicuously tight lipped

Well we know it’s not rented out & we know that the OPs mortgage will still be the same whether he’s there or not.

either way if my so called “darling” partner was able to save double what I could because he wasn’t equally contributing to our shared living costs and reducing our holidays to camping trips to boot I’d be reconsidering my life choices.

My darling husbands saves more than I do because he earns more & I like to spend. The OPs mortgage payment is still the same whether he’s there or not 🤦‍♀️

how many times. What savings is he making vs if he lived in his house?!

some suggestions I provided up thread:

maybe he is providing the house in lieu of child support? Maybe he provided the house to someone who is employed by him as part of their compensation. Maybe his elderly mother lives there and if she didn’t he would be paying her rent elsewhere.

we simply don’t know what the situation with the house is because the OP is being conspicuously tight lipped 🤷‍♀️

@DancingNotDrowning

only if you believe there is no intrinsic value in you being the primary carer to your DC.

I don’t think I am though! My dc are in school and we share pick ups and drop offs.

but if you were unmarried, with no shared DC and were squirrelling away double what your partner could save, whilst contributing nothing to the accommodation costs, yes, I’d absolutely think you were the female equivalent. Would you argue that you weren’t in this circumstances? Be sure that seems more akin to the OPs situation.

I think we are reading different threads. I cannot see where the OP says she wants to save more but can’t? And I would include bills in accommodation costs. ..

but certainly if OP was my friend and she was living with a man who was able to save double what she was because he wasn’t contributing equally to their shared accomodation I’d be miffed for her.

This makes no sense. He isn’t saving because he lives at the OPs house, he is still paying for the costs of his home so if he lived in his own house he would be saving the same. He’s not renting out his house & banking that cash.

but the fact he’s able to save significantly more than she can, purely because he doesn’t pay rent puts her at a huge financial disadvantage and it wouldn’t be for me

Jeesh, how many times. What savings is he making vs if he lived in his house?! 😆

Where has the OP said she would like to save more but can’t afford too?

@CagneyAndLazy does he earn more?

we have absolutely no way of knowing what their incomings and outgoings are and how they compare but it’s an absolute that if he was paying towards their shared accommodation expense, she’d have more money coming in and would therefore be able to at least choose to save more. I’m baffled that you and other posters think income and ability to save are not linked.

anyway this is like one of those weird maths questions where everyone comes up with a different answer. I don’t think we’re going to agree.

@DancingNotDrowning He's able to save more as he earns more.

OP hasn't said what the mortgages cost (understandably as it's irrelevant to her thread) but if they both pay out £500 on their respective mortgages then the fact he lives in OP's house, paying half the bills and food, etc., has absolutely zero to do with how much each can save.

It would be no different if they both lived in his house instead, or if they lived half the year in each other's homes in turn.

But the whole point is, the reason he has more savings is that he saves and she doesn’t. It’s nothing to do with ‘rent’.

Their actual costs are very similar. They both pay a mortgage. They share the bills 50:50 on the house they are living in, and I expect he has some bills for the unoccupied house as well. But, of what’s left after their similar bills, he saves more than she does. And she thinks he should save less and spend more (on her).

There’s nothing in the OPs post that indicates she wants any rent from him (wisely, as it’s far better for her not to, from a security of her own perspective). But even if he did pay rent I think he’d still save more than she does, as they have very different approaches to money.

@CagneyAndLazy

“You seem desperate to paint this man in a bad light”

it’s a chat thread so i’m not desperate to do anything, but certainly if OP was my friend and she was living with a man who was able to save double what she was because he wasn’t contributing equally to their shared accomodation I’d be miffed for her.

I’m genuinely surprised how many people think it’s ok for him to live rent free. I’d be more sympathetic if he didn’t pay anything because he was broke but the fact he’s able to save significantly more than she can, purely because he doesn’t pay rent puts her at a huge financial disadvantage and it wouldn’t be for me 🤷‍♀️

£77k is a lot in cash but not much in terms of saving for retirement. He might be better directing around half into his pension as he would also get an extra tax top up and benefit from investment growth.

Families support each other in different ways. Whatever that family looks like. It's not up to you to decide who should or shouldn't be paying rent to live in that house. It's upto the owner of the house and the person moving in as to what's appropriate for their situation

Absolutely. But that’s entirely separate to the matter of whether the OPs DP is then pulling his weight with the OP.

anyway the OP seems to be conspicuously reluctant to answer questions about what is going on with her DPs house so this thread can be nothing more than assumptions and guess work.

either way if my so called “darling” partner was able to save double what I could because he wasn’t equally contributing to our shared living costs and reducing our holidays to camping trips to boot I’d be reconsidering my life choices.

And if they both move into his house instead, with exactly the same setup regarding costs? Neither of them is better or worse off however they do this.

They clearly both want to each own a home but live together.

If OP's partner was renting his house out then yes, I expect they'd be doing things differently.

You seem desperate to paint this man in a bad light even though OP is doing noth8ng of the sort herself, other than questioning the proportions of saving v spending on luxuries.

Would they?

Adult child back from uni? Stay at home parent? Elderly parent?

Families support each other in different ways. Whatever that family looks like. It's not up to you to decide who should or shouldn't be paying rent to live in that house. It's upto the owner of the house and the person moving in as to what's appropriate for their situation.

MN posters deciding he's a cock lodger doesn't change that decision or the situation.

@Trainerstrainers

“He also pays far more in living costs because I’m p/t. Am I a female cocklodger?”

only if you believe there is no intrinsic value in you being the primary carer to your DC.

but if you were unmarried, with no shared DC and were squirrelling away double what your partner could save, whilst contributing nothing to the accommodation costs, yes, I’d absolutely think you were the female equivalent. Would you argue that you weren’t in this circumstances? Be sure that seems more akin to the OPs situation.

If anyone else was living there then they’d be paying rent though!

I thimk he can save as much as he wants, it's just odd that you never had a conversation on why he had so little money on such a good wage before. Neither of you are wrong in what you want to save. You have to decide if this is the lifestyle you want or not.

in a normal relationship, accomodation costs are shared. men who don’t contribute towards the cost of accommodation are typically considered to be cocklodgers. The fact that he has his own house makes no difference.

only on MNs, in real life I know plenty of people who moved in together & didn’t pay towards the others rent/mortgage immediately if ever. That tended to happen when property was sold/new property was bought. And I know some women who never did as they stopped working after a baby.

DH provided 3/4s of a significant deposit for our home but it’s 50/50. He also pays far more in living costs because I’m p/t. Am I a female cocklodger?