For wanting my partner to pay more of the mortgage?

Considering all the details OP, I would be genuinely thinking about your future together.
If you have children together, there will be many many financial decisions and decisions to make that might impact you both differently. Marriage involves sacrifice for the benefit of the person you love and vice versa. It’s the very nature of family life - you’re a team. It works out in the end as you’d both do what is necessary for the team at any time.
From someone at the end of a divorce after 22 years, please think carefully about your shared values.

What I find disgraceful here, is how many people think you should keep working at a job you hate so much you actually fantasised about getting run over by a car! FGS life is not all about money, and if your partner cannot help support you for a few years whilst you climb a new ladder, he’s not worth being with. I can’t imagine how he’s going to be if you have children. He sounds like a bit of a baby himself, I want, I want! That’s the impression he gives off. What he’s currently paying out of his salary is hardly a lot, he’s has a massive amount of left over salary at the end of each month. Why do you need to borrow of your mum for the wedding, why isn’t he contributing to it? Good luck with your new career, you’ve done the right thing putting your health and wellbeing before money.

She's not "chilling out" she's just not working until 2am on a weeknight or u expectedly on the weekend. Which I understand. It's easy to get mentally or physically burned out by that which wouldn't be good for anyone.

I'm still not sure what to do about the shopping situation!).
my partner and I take it in turns to pay for the weekly shop. This could work for you both. That way he gets his treats during the month, but it can be on the weeks he buys the shopping. It works for us. Maybe it’ll work for you

I think your error is that you do not seem to have had an agreement about what would happen BEFORE you dropped your income. You discussed it, he wasn’t supportive of your plans- but what did you agree would happen? If he said he wasn’t prepared to make up your shortfall and you went ahead and reduced your income, then I think you were foolish. There had to have been a conclusion- how were you going to manage the change in your finances? If you just decided to muddle on, without any agreement on what would happen, then I think you are the author of your own difficulties, tbh.

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t have changed career, that’s entirely your right- but when you have financial commitments you have to be able to meet those or have plans in place to mitigate your reduced income. It can’t be unilateral decision making but then joint finances. Either joint decisions and joint finances, or each doing as they wish and finances split as agreed. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

Your partner could choose to compromise, but I suspect he does not wish to have to cut back and probably resents your choices, much as you resent that he won’t move/cut spending/pay more. I’m not sure either of you are wrong or unreasonably selfish, necessarily, but you clearly want different things and it sounds as though what you want is not compatible. You want to leave London, he doesn’t; you want to cut back on meals out/activities/holidays and he does not; you want him to support you financially and he does not. You can’t “compromise” on these things- one of you can’t get what you want.

You made the changes for your benefit (not unreasonable), but now you want him to compromise by moving somewhere he doesn’t want to or cutting back on his preferred lifestyle or by reducing his disposable income- I think it is predictable he is not keen on any of it.

I would also add that I think if this were the other way round- a woman facing a male partner (not married) voluntarily reducing their income and expecting her to pay a higher proportion of their mortgage, she’d be told to financially protect herself by ensuring their shares of the property value reflected any change in mortgage payments going forward. Would you be ok with that? Maybe put that to him and see if he’d be happy to pay more for a greater share going forward.

@GRex thank you for your very thoughtful answer.
It helped.

I wouldn’t get yourself into debt to marry him, that doesn’t sound right. I can see his point re food shopping, he doesn’t want to buy the budget stuff when he’s earning well, so maybe a good compromise would be he pay for all the food shopping, holidays and meals out, while you pay 50/50 on the regular bills. Then you’re paying your way in the house, he can have all the luxuries he wants, and you're not getting into debt to keep up with discretionary stuff.

Dont prioritise his potential resentment re buying cheap wine over your resentment re getting into debt to keep up with him. Right now, your grounds for resentment are very high. Don’t ignore that.

I'm not sure if you don't understand or just recognise yourself here @MoveOverToTheSea. It is not misogynostic to describe the route of the well-worn path that starts with asking a selfish man to pay for you. Try reading some threads. Women are out there right now at each stage of that path, it's terribly sad and conpletely avoidable. OP is stood at the threshold. Step 1 is to not marry the man because he's selfish. Step 2 is to understand that her financial decisions will have consequences for her that can't be negated by relying on someone else unnecessarily. Step 3 of finding a better man would be lovely, but how do we even begin to describe what that looks like to women who can't even take enough responsibility for their own happiness to follow the first two steps?

@GRex expect she didn’t chose did she? She was ill and had to adapt.

As fur expecting her fiancé to give her money …
1- she isn’t. What she wants is to move out of london. But she is staying for him. She is trying to match his lifestyle for him, on 4 times less money.
2- they are gettimg married. When two people lived together, the highest earner paying more - what you call ‘giving her money’ - is normal. That’s call support. Same with adjusting your lifestyle etc….

Your views are actually deeply misogynistic. Still finding a stick to beat women up and keep them at their place. This time because she dares not earning as much as him or chose a lesser paying job FOR THE MOMENT.

I don’t think she really is asking him to subside her. She’s asking him to make some compromises so that she can afford to pay her way.
And my main point still stands. You don’t marry someone purely because they fit what you want right now. You marry for the whole life you may encounter together. Everything about this person may change over the 40 years you hope to be married for- job, health, wealth, looks, weight……
He doesn’t have to subsidise or change his life if he doesn’t want to but I’d suggest it probably isn’t very good idea to get married to him right now either.
In the time we’ve been married both I and my DH have had changes in income, health and the way we look! Not to mention what our children bring to the table. We didn’t ’sign up’ for any of those things. But we’ve had to make it all work, make compromises.

If he has such a huge issue with the ‘financial aspirations’ then HE should step back and separate before getting married.
Not say Yes to tge comfort if marriage and then force her/treat her badly to ensure she matches his aspirations. If he already expects her to get into debts or cut down stuff that won’t affect him so he can buy his more expensive food because ‘he’ has money so won’t cut down’, then what will happen when they have children??

As for deciding unilaterally and not taking him into account in the decision… I didn’t realise that when you take a decision about your HEALTH, you had to take into account the desires of your partner. Like ‘no you can’t have this surgery because we can’t go in hols/buy this nice food if you dint work’. Says any caring partner…..
If the OP had carried on, she’d just have had to stop work completely instead. And then what? Would it have been ‘braver’ so better? F** that game of soldiers.

You seem to getting a lot of stick on this thread about changing your career in order to improve your mental health and wellbeing. Some posters talk about lifestyle as though it all hinges on money.
You appear to have missed that you are on a thread where the OP is saying she wants her DP to in effect give her money.

I do find it a bit sad to go onto thread after thread of women choosing the route of having less money, then moaning about it! These are supposedly educated women, with all opportunities lying at their feet yet rejecting decent wages and picking selfish men. These are the women who a few years later turn up wondering why DH ia off on holiday when they are 36 weeks pregnant, then a few years later complaining they have to do everything at home because of the DH's big "man" job. Then the ones a few years down the line from that moaning that he's wandered off with a woman from work and how can they make sure they get enough money from him to live on, and how hard done by that they "gave up" so much "for the family". Take some bloody responsibility for yourselves! And yes OP, that starts with you.

You seem to getting a lot of stick on this thread about changing your career in order to improve your mental health and wellbeing. Some posters talk about lifestyle as though it all hinges on money. Whilst being comfortably off makes life easier, the biggest thing that makes life good is your health. Changing career to something that doesn't make you feel that a nasty accident might be preferable is definitely not a bad choice.

My DH and I have a different set up to many, but it works for us. We each put any salary into our joint account and we each draw from it an agreed equal amount for personal spending. Joint account pays bills and we agree what goes into joint savings or bigger purchases/holidays.

We have done this throughout more than 25 years together, during which time I have been the higher earner, I have been the sole earner while he completed his degree, we have both earned similarly, he has been the higher earner, and currently he is the sole earner. We have both been able to quit jobs that were burning us out and have supported each other to do so. We have had brief periods when neither of was was earning.

We have, through communication, a mutual desire for the other to be healthy and happy, and careful financial planning, to maintain a good lifestyle, bring up two children and buy a lovely house. We live in a relatively cheaper area of the country, and do not come from money, we've had plenty challenges and some strokes of good luck, but are content.

I'm just putting this forward as a counterpoint to the idea that each partner should be earning their maximimum at all times, regardless of health and wellbeing.

But if he had been given a choice he might have concluded that he didn’t want to throw his lot in with someone who didn’t match his financial aspirations. That is fair enough, surely. She went ahead even though he objected. If her actions were temporary that would be different. He has no obligation to subsidise her just because she wants him to.

Sorry that was meant to quote someone but I can’t find the post now!!

This is such bullshit and if you believe this is how a loving couple functions I feel you are misguided! At best it’s ignorant but at worst it’s damaging to women actually because there is no accounting for children, ‘women’s’ work’ and the general unfairness that exists in marriage and children - which in this case sounds like it is on the cards… so if you take this stance now and continue with it into family life, op will be hugely disadvantage actually.

I don’t understand these posters saying op is take take take. Equality is not the same as Parity! We think equality between men and women is parity - ie being and doing the same. That’s not equality. And when family life is involved it’s even further from being equal.

Tbh I see his point and think maybe you just aren't suited to eachother. I would be pissed if my equally earning partner just decided to quit their job and earn less and expected me to subsidise them. In a serious relationship that would be a discussion, "can WE afford for me to change career".

You have chosen a lower income. Which means your lifestyle needs to match, you need to live somewhere cheaper, not eat out etc. You need to spend less. If he doesn't want to change his lifestyle then he doesn't have to.

You guys just don't seem to want the same life.

This

I don't know how she is getting a rough ride, we provide different perspectives that's all this is what a forum is for.

People seem to be a bit confused about how mortgages are calculated. The extra ownership rights cover her DP's extra money put in as a deposit; he owns that bit of the house with no mortgage. The mortgage only gets calculated on the money still owed; for OP to buy her share she needs to pay equal share.

Say it was a £500k home, DP pays deposit £50,000.
Mortgage: £450,000, now each person pays £225,000 of the mortgage or 50%.
DP pays £50,000 + foregoes investment revenue from £50,000 + £225,000 + interest on £225,000 = £275,000 + interest = 55%.
OP pays £0 + £225,000 (+ interest on £225,000) = £225,000 + interest = 45%.

DP saves paying off the £50k and interest on it, because he's ALREADY given up the money and the ability to invest it in paying that share.

Your relationship doesn't sound like a relationship at all, so I'm surprised you're actually getting married next year.

You're effectively flatmates, with one being expected to pay for 50% of things the other wants which are unaffordable. Does your partner understand that once you are married everything is shared and what is his will be yours too?

Whatever you do, please don't have kids with such a selfish person. You will struggle so much, and then eventually divorce him but by then he'll stay in your life forever if you have shared kids.

Not the point of the thread but £1480 per month for bills/mortgage doesn’t sound too bad on 35k per year .

The OP has said she pays a small amount less per month for joint bills so the difference is probably the 55/45% split.

OP has said that they are tenants in common on their property, with him having a 55% share and OP having a 45% share. Therefore, she should really only be contributing 45% of the mortgage payments which would probably save her the amount of money that she needs.

This.

Are you paying 50% of the mortgage for a house that is only 45% yours, OP?

DH and I have a joint current account that both our salaries go into and that the mortgage and all household bills come out of. We both get an equal amount of 'fun' money that goes into our personal spending accounts each month. Our savings are all in joint accounts other than our ISAs, which we both have similar amounts saved into.

It makes no sense to me that one spouse (or partner in a long term commitment and joint mortgage) should be struggling financially to keep up with 50% of the mortgage/bills while the other has surplus spending money or savings. I view me and DH as a joint family unit with a joint standard of living, it is irrelevant to us who is earning more.

I don't think YABU to ask your partner to contribute more to the mortgage, especially as you have also said you would like to move somewhere cheaper. I think you both need a full re-think of your joint finances before you get married to be sure that you feel things are fair between you. Is your future DH going to allow equal access to 'his' money in the future if you go on maternity leave, or if you are made redundant, or if you have health issues and can't work? Good luck x