To resent my husband for not making enough money?

[Mummy252]

I'm on maternity leave with our first baby, love being a mummy so much and I do love my husband to bits but I am also feeling very resentful towards him.
We've been together 10yrs since we were very young, he's from a good family and works for the family business, has since we met. His family are financially comfortable, mums a "lady that lunches" and has never worked.
We always planned for me to work but also wanted a family. With the recession etc his business isn't doing too well but it hasn't stopped his parents going on 6 holidays a year whilst he continues to work 6/7 days a week and earns half what I do. A lot if the income is from dividends and his dad and grandparents still own 90% of the shares, he has 3%. He says there's nothing they can do its hard for all of them but I am hugely resentful that I'm having to go back to work full time and leave my gorgeous baby because his parents won't give him a fair share of the business. His mum saw all her children grow up, I'm happy to work and understand this recession has hit lots of ppl but I just feel cheated because I always expected him to at least match what I earned,not have me as the major breadwinner. I want to be a mummy like we always planned and ideally go back 3 days a week but I can't because of our financial situation.
He doesn't see why it upsets me because he works 50-60 hour weeks and has about 3 weeks holiday a year whereas I'm a teacher get long holidays etc. he does work very hard but financially he isn't bringing in anything like we expected so I feel a lot of the financial burden has fallen to me.
I know we live in an equal society but I want to be a mummy, I don't want equality, I want time with my little baby!

Your ILs are being very unreasonable. They are taking advantage of your DH. You need to re-negotiate his wage.

So often we see these posts where the mum wants to stay at home and wants her OH to go out and earn more so she can keep the same lifestyle... That's not what's happening here - the OP is willing to make the sacrifice, but the partner is not.

Having said that, I think it DOES matter that the MIL got to stay at home with the kids because the business funded that for her, whereas it's not funding her son to be able to have the luxury of a SAHW. In other words, regardless of how many hours her husband worked, he must have been taking a salary out of the business which paid for a SAHM, kids private school fees etc. whereas her son is only taking out a very nominal wage.

He needs to sit down with his parents and say he's had to reassess what's happening with the business since his priorities have changed since having kids. Either the business is able to support paying him a proper wage/more dividends/greater share of the business - and that will mean them giving up some of their goodies! - or they don't want to do that and will never want to do that. So isn't it best he has the conversation with them now instead of putting in another 5, 10, 20 years hard work for no return?

I don't think you are being unreasonable to expect him to either have the conversation with them or work to the new budget. Whether it actually makes a difference... Well who knows?

The discrepancy between my views and values and those of my husband would have me worried to be honest.

I think that your ILs think that your H's salary (+ your salary )is sufficient to live a affluent lifestyle because he wouldn't be driving a flash car and going on holidays etc if it wasn't.

You mention that your H doesn't know about your finances. Could his parents be the same and have no clue what sort of lifestyle you live if earning 20k? I would sit down and do the finances with him urgently. He should not look down on your job (including all the hours that you are looking after your dd)

I think that you are not unreasonable to want to sacrifice luxuries for more time with your dd and that working 3 days is a reasonable compromise. You are not asking your h to sacrifice luxuries forever (but surely he realised that there would be fewer of them considering the need for childcare etc) and you're not saying that you'll never go back to full time work.

But northern- at the end of the day, the inlaws had a right to make decisions about their money and their business. If the FIL was happy to fund a trophy wife who never worked then that was their choice. It doesn't mean that the FIL now owes his son and DIL anything.

I am wondering why all this has come up as an issue now? The op has worked at 45k for years, while her dh has worked in the family business for 20k for years. She knew the deal when they got together. Tbh she sounds like the more capable half by a mile, but I don't understand why these discussions haven't already taken place if she is unhappy with the status quo. Personally I suspect the dh isn't particularly skilled, and is being cushioned in the family business in a way that wouldn't happen in the cut and thrust of the open Market. Or he may be perfectly competent at the job but finds there Are advantages to him of staying in the family firm- eg long term security- which he might have to sacrifice in the wider world of business. Whatever the detail, he's clearly decided that there is an acceptable trade off for working at a low wage.

I think it is entirely reasonable that the op sits down and re- negotiates the lifestyle issue. Apart from anything else, with childcare they will have to scale down spending. The dh is living beyond his means and that's unfair. If he is really being ripped off, he should approach his father and negotiate better pay- but I think the bottom line is, he needs to be prepared to go for other comparable jobs. No one owes the op and the dh a living-they need to decide themselves how they will balance their lives and support their family. The op seems to resent the fact that the MIL had a cushy lifestyle. Thats pointless and negative. No one knows the inner story anyway- the MIL may have spent her life lunching and shopping but equally she may be bored witless and have low self esteem for having lived like that. The op sounds like she has a lot more going for her a profession Shes successful in for starters.

Op needs to talk to her dh, tell him the luxury spending needs to stop and then work out how they can both work together to build the life they want, without relying on the in laws.

God help the children you teach if this is your attitude to work! I'd hate my children to be taught by a woman who just wants to play doll's house with baby and sees men as a source of income to enable her to opt out of the reality of being a grown up.

Am I the only one shocked at a teacher (presumably youngish) earning 46k???!!! I doubt I picked the wr

Oops hit post too soon.

I doubt picked the wrong profession!!

FWIW op I'm on your side, my DH earns a third less and tbh I probably spend the deficit on myself, but he's totally fine with that as I work longer hours and have a stressful job, whereas he works for his DB and has an easy time of it. I'm currently on mat leave and know theres no option of me going part time as the deficit is what will now pay for our LO.

callmemrs, I think it is wrong to call the MIL a trophy wife, just because she was a sahm.

It is not claer from your post OP, but does your husband run the business for the IL's and they are sitting back taking 90% of the profit, or are they still working in the business too?
If it is the former, then he really needs to do something about the situation. If the latter, then it is more tricky as the parents may well be bringing their years of experience of the business to keeping it going in a way that your DH may not have the skills to do.
Either way, I think you need to stop being resentful of the MIL as she is from a different generation, my Mum was at home with all her babies but there was not really any other expectation in her day. Also, the things you say about the value of their house are not comparable as the presumably they bought property at a time when it was more affordable. My parents are the same- they bought a massive house in 1968, but if my Dad's salary at the time was converted into todays value he would not have even been able to buy a caravan.

newgirlintown you think it is a terrible example for a woman to be in a highly paid professional career, not have to care about the income of the man she marries because she is personally financially secure, and additionally have chosen a profession which can be maintained part time after children so as to provide the work life balance that she wants?

I think it is a great example, personally

The bit I don't understand about this thread is in the OP's second post:

"I don't mind working but would like to drop to 3 days a week, if I dropped to 3 I'd still earn slightly more and I'd be willing to go to 4 as a compromise so I'd still be the bigger earner. The difference is I'm willing to give up nice cars and some of the luxuries we enjoy now to have that time whereas he doesn't want to"

OP, are you saying that you would be willing to work 3 or 4 days a week, but your DH isn't happy with that, as he'd have to give up luxuries such as cars, which he could keep if you were working full time?

I simply don't understand how DH thinks that the difference between 4 days and full time on a teacher's salary (given that you'll have to pay for an extra day of childcare out of the difference in salary) will be enough to fund these luxuries?

It sounds like you need to have a serious chat about finances with your DH. I agree with those who have suggested putting together a proper budget for the different possible options, once you have researched your spending and investigated childcare costs. If your DH isn't interested in your feelings (ie that you would prefer to spend more time with your DD) then you will have to try the practical approach.

Karma the op says the FIL worked really hard while the MIL lunched and planned holidays and never worked. That sounds very like a trophy wife to me.

I see where you're coming from callmemrs - but then if FIL could make a business decision to fund his lifestyle that way, then why can't the OP's husband?

I suspect that what's happened here is that grandfather and FIL had 50% shares in the business originally and an equal say in how profits were split and what salaries got paid. OP's husband coming late to the table has 3% and seemingly no control over the salaries drawn by the partners or staff. So to expect him to display the same loyalty to the company as they gave is a little unreasonable - but yes, ultimately he needs to be prepared to walk away and get another job (which may not have the job security but a higher salary) if they aren't willing to increase his salary - at least then everyone knows where they stand.

At the moment they probably don't know there is anything wrong because the OP is financing their lifestyle.

She also said MIL was a sahm to her dc. I don't suppose it was all lunches and holidays. Even if it was, that doesn't make someone a trophy wife. It just means that they were in a good financial position to enjoy life and for it to not all be about work.

A trophy wife is usually someone that a man has married as a status symbol, because she is usually younger than him and he wouldn't have 'got' her if it weren't for his position in life.

Doesn't sound like a trophy wife to me, at least, her SAHM status isn't enough to go on and is very patronising/derogatory.

http://m.urbandictionary.com/#define?term=trophy%20wife Definition 1

http://marriage.about.com/od/lifestylechoices/g/trophywife.htm Definition 2

You know what OP, thinking about it further, your DH's wage might not even cover the childcare if you go back full time. A full time place at DS's nursery is about £1k a month, how much more than that does your DH earn after tax?

Really, on a practical level, he should consider leaving the firm and being a stay at home dad, or you both going part time, because it's pointless him working if it's going to effectively cost you money each month, espcially if he's not building a career and has reached the maximum level his parents will pay for - if they are healthy, that's a long time to wait for them to die so you can be rich in your old age rather than comfortable now.

Of course, if MIL doesn't work and is just 'a lady who lunches' would she be prepared to offer free childcare? That's like a pay rise straight away...

If I understand this correctly, DH is on a very low salary and gets most of his income from dividends on 3% of the shares. (probably to keep the tax bill down)
And he hopes to inherit more shares in due course.

This means his income could be all over the place, depending on the profitability of the buisiness, and any dividends that are issued. I can understand why he is scared that you would reduce your hours.

I wonder if the FIL would consider parting with some of those shares now. He might sell you some cheaply, or even put them in trust for his gandchild. It's worth a shot

Bugger, my phone screwed up links. Copy and paste if you want them.

NewGirlinTown have you read the thread?!

OP has a very healthy attitude to work, and an even healthier attitude to her commitments as a mother. She wants to put her child first, why should that be ridiculed as "playing doll's house"?

Really, you're the one who doesn't wound like she is living in reality.

YANBU OP, but there are a few things that need to be ironed out before complaining to ILs.

I earn more than DP, not as much as you but more. He earns £18k for doing about 60h a week at his work and it drives me mad and it is hard not to be resentful for all the extra housework etc that is done for no financial reward whatsoever. I always think if I was a stay at home wife doing this kind of thing I would at least be enabling my husband to earn more but I am not, I am just having to do it on top of my own full time job because of his unfair employers.

But you do need to sort out with IL what the plans are. People have mentioned training. Are they happy to pay for him to do more training, get more responsibilities and more pay? Are they working the same hours as him? Could he create a branch of the business and keep 100% of shares? Are they eventually going to hand him the business?

As you haven't tried to negotiate with is employers it is a bit U.

OP, doesn't want someone else to look after her baby. She wants to do it herself.

It is worth pointing out to your dh though, that the money to pay for nursery has to come from somewhere and why should you fund this, when you don't actually want it and continue to fork out for dh's lifestyle.

oh and just a childcare costs issue, that assumes you can use a nursery - I can only do that on the 3 days a week I work because I drop DS at nursery and DH goes to work early, he picks DS up at just after 5pm (having left work at 4:30pm). With the hours your DH works, unless you can find a nursery right by the school you teach at, you might not be able to do drop off and pick up. If you have to use a nanny, it's more like £90 a day near us.

When you do your budgets, work this out. Show your DH. Make it clear the childcare and commuting costs vs both yours and his income. Now, he might not be prepared to go parttime or be at home entirely, but he needs to realise you can't fund a lavish lifestyle on a teachers wage if you have to pay out for childcare anyway. Childcare costs could eat up most or indeed all of his wage, so you probably can't afford any of the 'extras' he's used too, so if you are going to have that, he needs to earn more, either in the family company or elsewhere.

What usually happens, I think, is the shareholder/ partners in the business get paid minimum wage, in order to qualify for state pension. They then draw dividends on top of this, which are taxed at a much lower rate then (higher!) income. It seems as if 3% of shares do not pay enough dividends to make up to a decent income- that may be because dividends have gone down during recession, or because they never have have amounted to much.

Your DP is getting a rough deal, but it is up ito him to sort it out. Either, he gets paid a proper salary, or more dividends (i.e. gets given more shares)
I hope the company pays for a private pension for him, otherwise the last 15 years will mean he will have basic minimum pension only.

Overall, I think YANBU for wanting more time with your DC, and YANBU for thinking you DH should adress this with his parents, and also YANBU for him reigning in his spending- FT childcare is going to cost you about £750/month, has he considered that?

OLder
Directors are not subject to the minimum wage. They would pay themselves a low salary to avoid NIC and ENIC,ie to keep the tax bill down. (yes they would have to pay it twice).
I doubt if DH or FIL give two hoots about the salary
so it's all about the shares (and 3% aint much)