He doesn't earn the money, you both do. You have children, yes? Your part of the job is taking care of them so that a hefty chunk of the money coming in isn't paid out in childcare. Tot up the cost of contracting out every single job you do during your day, subtract it from your ''DH's'' wage, and there you have what he REALLY earns. Unless he is a high earner, it's most probably over half of the income.
Then add up what prioritising his 'out of the home job' has cost you in real terms. Do you have a pension? Probably not, as you have given up your career path to have children for his benefit too and to take care of them. If you wanted to go back to work, what's your earning power like now, as compared to before you became a stay-at-home-mum? Less, yes? That's another 'debit' on his side of the sheet, if one thinks like this (that's why spousal maintenance exists).
Parents who get to be doing the 'work out of the home job' whilst the other does the home half are lucky indeed. They get the best of both worlds - the home fires burning, and a life and authority outside the home. You taking the stay at home position is a big, big favour to him, and allows him to have the lifestyle he does.
Think - if you split up, would anyone say 'Well, he can't expect to see the children anymore, after all, you were the one that 'EARNED' them - i.e. brought them up, took responsibility for 'that side of things'. Of course not. Does he get a say in how your children are taught, what they do, where they go? (well yes, going by this op!!)
So why do you think that the results of the out-of-the-home part of your joint lives (i.e. the cash flow) solely 'belong' to him?
He has no more say in how the family money is spent than you do.
There is no such thing as 'the head of the house'.
A family, by definition, are a collective - or should be.
Look into booking Florida, and when he objects, say it's coming out of what he owes you in lost pension contributions :)