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
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think if you SAH and your DP works and earns X, you do not therefore earn X yourself

789 replies

catgirl1976 · 04/02/2012 09:53

I do not want to start a SAH / WAH bunfight and this is inspired by another thread but......

A thread recently was asking people if they earnt over £40k and I was surprised to see a number of posters saying they were SAHM / SAHD but their partner earnt XX, so therefore they did too.

Now, I am not commenting on the value of the work a stay at home partner does - the value is huge and it is a tough, worthwhile thing to do.

But you do not earn. (Even if you should etc etc).

I work. My DH stays at home. If I heard DH saying "oh catgirl earns xxx so I earn xxx too" I would be really peed off and think - "no, no dude - you don't."

We don't have separate money - what's mine is his and vice versa, and I am happy with our arrangement. It is hos money as much as mine, but I earn it. He didn't spend 20 hours negotiating a deal or whatever - that was me.

It has never even occured to me before, but I was just surprised that people felt if DP earned an amount, they earned it too and would actually say, well yes I earn over £40k as DH is a GP or whatever.

It almost felt like some people were saying they were somehow personally doing better than others because they had "married better" which seemed really Hmm

AIBU?

OP posts:
callmemrs · 06/02/2012 18:08

Catgirl you're right. The facts speak for themselves- people who are out of the job market for a lengthy period of time are going to find it harder to re enter when they need / want to. The stats also bear out the fact that a frightening number of women do not have anywhere near adequate pension provision.

Original poster
catgirl1976 · 06/02/2012 18:12

I dont have a pension

I'm 35 ..........I should maybe get one :(

OP posts:
callmemrs · 06/02/2012 18:16

Yes you would be wise to. Even though many pension pots are not going to be as great as they could be, I imagine the state Pension will be really shit.

fedupofnamechanging · 06/02/2012 18:28

I don't have a pension either. However, if dh and I were to separate, I'd put in a claim for a share of his.

Private pensions don't always protect you - my dads one is worth a fraction of what he should get, when I think about how much he's paid into it over the years. My nan paid into hers for years and is worse off financially than her neighbours, who didn't bother, but can claim state assistance.

I appreciate that the state pension is changing, but nothing comes with guarantees. you can do everything right and still end up getting screwed over.

callmemrs · 06/02/2012 18:34

Oh I agree with that karma. But my point is that the stats do show that a scary proportion of women do not even know that they don't have adequate cover. I have some pretty intelligent switched on friends who assume that if their husband does first , they get all his pension. They dont actually realise that the pension is attached to the person who has worked and paid into it, and that even though there may be a 'widows benefit' element , it isn't the full pension . And a huge number of women have no pension of their own or very inadequate ones. Of course there are no guarantees- but it is a truly worrying fact that so many women aren't even aware of their own situation

callmemrs · 06/02/2012 18:34

That should be if their husband dies first !

SecretMinceRinser · 06/02/2012 23:10

"Better make it at a weekend though Grin"

Yes how absolutely hilarious that I used 'weekend' as shorthand for 'weekend or other days of the week you happen to be off work if you work flexible hours'. Careful you don't split your sides now Hmm

Or maybe it wasn't hilarious - maybe it was another one of my so-veiled-you-have-to-be-paranoid-as-hell-to-see-it attack on working mums?

missslc · 07/02/2012 02:15

Warmster.....I find your position that the person who earns the money owns the money very odd and individualistic........when I married my husband and I became a team. What s mine is his and vice versa.....he earns for now the only wage and it is our joint income, our household income. I used my income in the past to help him resolve certain issues when I had greater earning power and savings...we were not even married then but I took the attitude that I was committed to him, loved him and helping financially is one way you help someone you care for.
Now I do the wife work whilst he brings the salary in and I will return to work when my youngest child starts pre school as his salary can support us all luckily.
The idea your partner owns the money alone is very odd.......

I realize it is a sensitive issue but I guess I am no fan of self denial. I happen to think one to one care for under threes is indeed the optimum situation for a child to thrive. That does not have to be a parent so I am not against parents working if that is best for families.
Just as if I got divorced I would not pretend it is just as good for my child as being married in a sustainable relationship, I would not pretend that sometimes as much as eight to ten hours a day in a group care setting would be the best for my child, if that was somehow my only option.
I must be convinced by the research I have read and my own subjective gut feeling and life experiences. I am not one to play let,s pretend to protect people's modus operendi of attacking others to defend their position, that I happen to have a different opinion on.

iPad typos...life too short to correct.....you get the gist
Smr......I think you have expressed your points w ell for the record.

missslc · 07/02/2012 02:25

Another anecdote.
The five regrets of the dying.in the guardian recently.

One of them is they wish they had not worked so hard and spent more time with their families.

I am actively avoiding having this regret and all I can say is most of the time i love this phase of life where I spend so much time with my child and husband. It is worth everything to me.

callmemrs · 07/02/2012 06:55

Oh I quite agree missic. I love spending time with my kids, always have done- I think you'll find Most parents feel that way.

As for your guardian anecdote- I wonder how many of those were fathers who spent their working lives chasing promotions and working ridiculous hours because they were the sole earner??

ChiefPotterer · 07/02/2012 09:47

The family is inextricably linked therefore everyone earns the wage. If your partner bought a sofa for the house would you say oh DH bought that therefore he owns it? - don't get too hung up on who earns what just spend it and enjoy it - life is too short and precious to worry over how money appears in the bank it just does - lots of credit given to those who work hard for that money but it really shouldn't matter whose money it is or isn't.

SecretMinceRinser · 07/02/2012 09:56

I think we have a similar outlook misslc. Afaic when you are in a committed relationship where you live together you share what comes in equally. Yes - if one partner earns vastly more then they could contribute more to bills but what about your disposable income? Does one partner constantly make a show of 'treating' the other? Do both partners have to live at the lower standard of living while one puts the difference in a savings account? Or does one of you dine at top restaurants while the other eats at the pizza hut round the corner? It makes no sense to me.
'If I want something I pay for it myself' might sound good. But presumably that also comes with the other side that if your partner wants something and you would jointly be able to afford it, and had no other plans for the money, they have to go without until they can afford it alone - which is a selfish attitude to have towards someone you love imo.
It's nothing to do with harking back to the 50's. I doubt a stereotypical 50's housewife would have been asked if she minded her husband spending his wage on something. It's about being considerate of the other person in the relationship imo.

CailinDana · 07/02/2012 10:00

To be honest SMR - I think the references to "asking permission" about money were just a dig at SAHMs. I don't think anyone really believes that partners should just live on their own income and spend as they like without reference to their family.

callmemrs · 07/02/2012 11:21

Chiefpotterer- I doubt anyone in real life would imagine the sofa belonged solely to them!! The op was a very specific point though about someone who isn't earning saying that they 'earn' their husbands salary, which is, of course, incorrect. It is family income, but incorrect to say they 'earned' it

MidnightinMoscow · 07/02/2012 11:52

But SMR, I'd feel really uncomfortable spending 'more' than my share of our money if I wanted something. So, yes if I like a jacket that costs £300 I will save up my money until I can afford it, even if my husband has got that sort of money for himself. Why should he sub me?

I have to work to help pay or mortgage and bills. However, I am lucky that I am in a job where there is a bit of money left over, meaning that both DH and I split the money post bills, childcare etc 50:50.

I love the fact that I can save a bit here and there, buy what I want whether its something boring like a monthly shop of shampoo etc in Boots or a new bag or make-up.

This is of no reflection on anyone else, but I just could not live without that level of independence.

CailinDana · 07/02/2012 12:02

Midnight I think you and SMR are actually saying exactly the same thing - that income should be split fairly. FWIW DH and I have equal access to disposable income and I can save for some big purchase if needs be.

Wamster · 07/02/2012 13:32

You can disbelieve me if you choose to do so, you're deluding yourself, though. The default position is that if a person does a job of work and gets paid for it, it is their money. That is how life works in a country in the UK.

I don't understand why people seem not to understand what default means?

It's all very well and good and right for people to share the cash while together, but, when the shit hits the fan, and you realise that unless you go to court to get cash out of your spouse (I'm not going to say 'partner', because, frankly, partners get nothing unless they have physically paid for it and, of course, child support), you soon wise up to this fact.

Wamster · 07/02/2012 13:35

The person who earns the money is the person who gets to keep the money unless ordered to share it by the authorities. That's an indisputable fact of life. So if you're a sahm with no money of her own, good luck with fighting to get cash if your dh does a flit. The courts haven't got a great record with helping such women.

olgaga · 07/02/2012 14:29

Wamster, if there are children the court will enforce orders for financial settlement and arrangements for children.

Maintenance is calculated as a percentage of the non-resident parent's earnings.

All assets of a marriage - savings, property, pensions - are joint assets, even if they are not in both names. A SAHP'S contribution is viewed as equal. The division of assets is not based on who earned what. It's based on a lot of different factors, including each spouse's contribution, the respective ages of the parties, their earnings potential and ability to recover their financial position.

Original poster
catgirl1976 · 07/02/2012 15:03

olgaga - they do not always sucessfully manage to enforce orders. If they cannot trace the husband or he hides income or assetts (I see this one all the time) etc, there is very little they can do.

OP posts:
wordfactory · 07/02/2012 16:15

olgaga I was a family lawyer for over ten years.
The courts in the UK have an abysmal record of making and enforcing orders.
For unmarried women the protection is woeful. To this end, I, uber femnist, would advise all women to marry.

wordfactory · 07/02/2012 16:19

But I should add that even a married woman will find herself at the mercy of ludicrosly long delays and pressure from the courts to settle as soon as possible, even if it to her detriment.
The erosion of legal aid means many women cannot afford legal help anyway.

And even with the most attentive judge, you can only split what you can find and what the husband actually has. Unless he is an incredibly high earner, the truth is there is often simply not enough to go around and it is always the women who find themselves in flippin' penuary.

wordfactory · 07/02/2012 16:22

I should also mention that the early form of WFTC was introduced in part to help the thousands of women left by their husbands with very little to survive on. It was to encourage them back to work by supporting them with that financially because it was accepted that though morally the husband had a duty to support a wife and children of years standing, the reality was that far too many were simply not getting anything much.

Alibabaandthe40nappies · 07/02/2012 16:36

word - that is why every penny of our savings is in my name. It is my insurance policy incase of martial breakdown.

Not that we plan on that happening, but you never know.

I know that we would have to settle it between us, but it means that I will always be able to get my hands on cash. DH does not know the passwords to the accounts - and he is completely comfortable with that situation.
Once I go back to work and have my own earning power again then I suspect that we will review that situation.

olgaga · 07/02/2012 16:58

wordfactory, yes I appreciate all that, would just like to clarify that I never said anything about this applying to unmarried couples.

The point I was discussing was in response to Wamster's view that "by default" everyone's earnings is theirs and theirs alone. That just isn't true if you are married.

you can only split what you can find and what the husband actually has

Yes, obviously!

None of that means that the principles I outlined are incorrect. The assets of the marriage - if any exist - are joint assets to be divided in a way that recognises each party's contribution.

And the contribution of a SAHP (should have said SAHW/H, perhaps that's where the confusion crept in - apologies) is viewed as equal, and the fact that their financial position is often weaker than the earning spouse is also taken into account.

To be honest I have a friend going through this right now and it is not the case that every NRP hides their earnings or their assets - indeed my friend used to manage all their finances!

There are a lot of women and children in the position you talk about. But this can happen to working parents too!