Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

If one partner brings money into the marriage, is it fair that they then don't work?

43 replies

TheKitchenWitch · 17/09/2018 19:02

Apologies for the awkwardly phrased thread title.

But basically, if you bring a lump sum into the marriage (which is then used for both of you eg house) then is it fair to expect to not have to go out to work while the other partner does?

(that's not really sounding much more elegant but you all know what I mean I'm sure).

OP posts:
Singlenotsingle · 17/09/2018 19:05

Depends how much £ the partner earns! Depends whether they need a second salary coming in. Not at all fair if the working partner is working all the hours God sends, stressed and distressed.

TeenTimesTwo · 17/09/2018 19:06

Seems a bit off unless there is enough money to never work.

Neshoma · 17/09/2018 19:06

Depends how much? Can you afford for one not to work? Is there a mortgage or has that been paid off?

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

Marriage & partnerships
TulipsInBloom1 · 17/09/2018 19:06

It all seems a little tit for tat. Do the couple agree to one staying at home? Does the stay at homer do abt childcare/lions share of housework etc?

MadameButterface · 17/09/2018 19:08

it depends

if you are then mortgage free, and the mortgage repayments would have been more than all the rest of the bills put together, then crack on

if the person is doing unpaid work such as childcare which is an asset to the household, then also crack on

but it may be worth finding out what would happen to the house during a split - if the person who bought it is not working, then how would they buy the other person out? would they expect to keep their asset?

etc

YeTalkShiteHen · 17/09/2018 19:09

You’re describing us. I brought the lump sum and house (well the lump sum came after we’d been together a while) and he works. I’m a SAHM.

Courtney555 · 17/09/2018 19:10

OP what about this :

Partner 1 owns 500k house. Decides to move with partner 2 to a new area to start relationship there. Partner 2 earns 50k a year.

So if 1 sells up and buys new family home for 500k, they should be entitled to sit about for ten years because that's how long it would take for 2 to bring the same financially to the table?

What about after ten years? Does 1 have to find a job then to earn their place now their "down payment" has been equalled?

Ridiculous. Honestly.

user1493413286 · 17/09/2018 19:11

I’m not sure it’s ok unless they have an income from that lump sum which gives them money each month to live from. Even if we owned our house outright then bills and general expenditures each month would amount to quite a bit for one person to cover for us both and I think I’d resent it.
Also that perhaps misses the point of marriage for me; out mortgage is lower because of the lump sum I brought into the marriage but I don’t expect to pay less of the mortgage although I would expect that money back if we split

user1493413286 · 17/09/2018 19:13

Just to add I think it’s different if the one not “working” is a stahp as that’s a 24/7 job in itself and the savings in childcare contribute to the family finances

PurdysChocolate · 17/09/2018 19:15

I think you have to decide what feels fair to both of you.

Is the person who isn't working continually contributing? Is the lump sum large enough to contribute to bills for decades to come? Or are they contributing in other ways, like looking after children?

foxotterhare · 17/09/2018 19:15

No!!!

Courtney555 · 17/09/2018 19:16

Yes, if you're not working but giving birth, providing child care, school run, the parent taxi, doing most of the household chores, then that's different.

Feeling entitled not to make any further contribution to a partnership where you do none of the above mentioned because you've acquired a lump sum is not a healthy attitude.

WhatIsThisTomfoolery · 17/09/2018 19:18

Is it'fair'

Sounds so juvenile!

YeTalkShiteHen · 17/09/2018 19:19

Feeling entitled not to make any further contribution to a partnership where you do none of the above mentioned because you've acquired a lump sum is not a healthy attitude

I agree with that.

I have to say, it depends on how the working partner feels.

stellabird · 17/09/2018 19:19

Marriage to me means that you want to share what you have got - the good and the bad. A lump sum coming into the marriage would mean that you could both drop your hours, or both go part time, both enjoy the freedom that comes with financial good health. The idea that the donor of the money should stop work and the other one have to keep on working, seems pretty off to me.

LeftRightCentre · 17/09/2018 19:20

Need more detail.

thetwinkletoescollective · 17/09/2018 19:21

This really is for your family decide as there are factors that we can't know .

It depends on how you both view money in your household. Is it all your money regardless of who brings it into the home?

Can you afford not to have two incomes?

I think bringing in a lump sum vs working sounds a bit tit for tat and to me that's a different way to how we see money in my house.

If you don't want to work any more can that reason be enough? Do you need to justify it?

DollyWilde · 17/09/2018 19:22

All marital assets including the lump sum are shared IMO. After that, you start from zero and do what’s right for your family - which includes childcare, lifestyle choices, pensions, security, earning potentials, job satisfaction and work life balance.

BigRedBoat · 17/09/2018 19:24

I think it would depend why they weren't working - childcare, caring for relatives, illness/disability, writing a novel etc is probably ok.

  • mooching around watching Jeremy Kyle, not so much.

Also depends on the joint lifestyle, the lump sum might have bought a property but is the upkeep/bills, running a car, holidays, hobbies etc a stretch to finance on one wage?

POPholditdown · 17/09/2018 19:28

It depends on amounts and individuals.

I think if one partner brings in say £200k which allows both to be mortgage free, you can both live on one salary and the other partner is happy to work then it’s ok.

If we’re talking ‘just’ a deposit for the house, but you remain in a mortgage then I think both still have earning responsibility (assuming not a SAHP situation)

That said, it still massively depends on what both individuals are happy with.

Bumpitybumper · 17/09/2018 19:33

@DollyWilde
All marital assets including the lump sum are shared IMO. After that, you start from zero and do what’s right for your family - which includes childcare, lifestyle choices, pensions, security, earning potentials, job satisfaction and work life balance.
I agree with this completely and feel like relationships work best when the effort contributed is roughly equal. You may expend your effort at work, looking after dependents or making any other contribution that is required but the principle that everyone gets roughly the same amount of down time is very important. I can only imagine the resentment that would build up if you didn't adopt this kind of model.

Stuckforthefourthtime · 17/09/2018 19:40

Only if it's enough to live in indefinitely (or the non worker could restart work and get paid). Otherwise what happens if the worker gets sick or is made redundant? Sure, your mortgage might be paid, but the other bills will keep on coming, and you wouldn't be able to remortgage or downsize and buy smaller without a job between you.

Thinkingofausername1 · 17/09/2018 19:42

I don't work for health reasons and a shit cv because I was ill as a child and a teenager and when I was at college.Confused. I'd love to earn money to contribute but it's never going to happen. Thankfully my dh has a decent wage.

Original poster
TheKitchenWitch · 17/09/2018 19:51

WhatIsThisTomfoolery
Can you think of a better way of phrasing it?

So basically most think that yes, it's fair as long as non-working partner is contributing to household in other ways eg sahp?

OP posts:
Angrybird345 · 17/09/2018 19:52

Can you make a bit more sense with regard to the situation?

Swipe left for the next trending thread