Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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 you do what you have to do to make having a child financially possible?

53 replies

GirlWithALlamaTattoo · 08/07/2012 12:29

I'm not sure if this is a thread-about-a-thread sin. I've been reading in Relationships about a lady whose DH is IMO over-the-top about controlling the family finances, and a lot of people have picked up on the fact that she saved up to cover her share of the household bills while on mat leave. That wasn't the point of her OP, so I've started a new thread rather than hijacking hers.

We're approaching it in the same way. Our bills will still be the same when I'm not working, and DP doesn't earn enough to cover everything. Our combined income is enough to have a comfortable lifestyle. We will be using "my" savings, in the sense that I had the savings before I met DP, to make it financially possible for me to take time off. I'm self-employed, so won't get paid mat leave. (I'm not pg yet, but we're going to start ttc after the wedding.)

AIBU to think if one income isn't enough, the one who's off work still needs to pay their share, and if that means saving in advance, so be it? It sounds obvious to me, but maybe I'm weird.

OP posts:
shewhowines · 08/07/2012 13:49

But what you've just said is not the same as what you wrote in the op. You sound much more reasonable now.

bakingaddict · 08/07/2012 13:51

I totally agree with tryingtoleave...this thinking that a baby is like a commodity you save up for is slightly strange. Discussing how you will organise your life and finances once a baby arrives is never a bad thing but again it's unrealistic to think you will be able to do all the housework.

For the first few months babies can sleep a lot although my 2nd didn't and you can get some housework done but once they are crawling you cant keep your eyes off them for a minute. For example, my DH was working from home on Friday when our eldest callled him, DD 14 months had pulled all the dry clothes out of the tumble dryer and decided to fully climb in

Original poster
GirlWithALlamaTattoo · 08/07/2012 13:53

I don't see how it's different. I'm surprised that changing the labels makes such a difference, but OK.

OP posts:
shewhowines · 08/07/2012 13:58

"AIBU to think if one income isn't enough, the one who's off work still needs to pay their share, and if that means saving in advance, so be it? It sounds obvious to me, but maybe I'm weird. "

In your Op it seems you are saying that is your responsibility only to pay your share. What most people are saying on here is that, it doesn't matter at all where it comes from as long as you both plan in advance as much as possible. - Just what you said in your latest post about treating it all the same regardless of whose names are on the accounts.

We are all saying the same thing, but that didn't come across in your initial op.

tryingtoleave · 08/07/2012 14:03

What you are saying is quite different. First you suggested that your money was separate and you had to keep paying your share. Then you suggested it was all family money anyway. And I think what has posters upset is that looking after a baby is doing a very big share, whatever the financial arrangements.

MsVestibule · 08/07/2012 14:07

In your first/earlier posts, you said you thought a woman should pay her way and shouldn't expect a free ride. Which IMO is bollocks. The parents-to-be should plan financially together, not just the mother-to-be. The fact that she's the one giving birth and taking time off is irrelevant.

In your most recent post, you've said it shouldn't matter whose name is on the savings.

So what are you actually trying to say here Confused?

Katienana · 08/07/2012 14:07

I have been saving to top up my.income during mat leave so I have enough to cover my share of bills and continue to manage my own money as I am used to. When mat leave is up we will reassess. If we don't need my contribution towards bills then I will put less in but would most likely use the extra to pay for something like a holiday. Child is a joint financial responsibility but saving up was something I chose to do.

Original poster
GirlWithALlamaTattoo · 08/07/2012 14:09

OK, I think I see.

It sounded as though people were saying that DP should somehow bear all the costs even though his income isn't enough to do that, and the savings are enough, because me looking after the baby is my contribution. I accept that looking after a baby is a massive contribution to family life, but it's not a contribution to the gas bill.

OP posts:
shewhowines · 08/07/2012 14:13

katieanna Good planning but shouldn't Dp choose to do the same saving for the same reason.

llamatattoo all we're saying is that saving is both your responsibility in whatever way it is best possible given your circumstances - as is the childcare.

samandi · 08/07/2012 14:33

It sounded as though people were saying that DP should somehow bear all the costs even though his income isn't enough to do that, and the savings are enough, because me looking after the baby is my contribution. I accept that looking after a baby is a massive contribution to family life, but it's not a contribution to the gas bill.

My impression is that most people (myself included) were saying that both parties should save as best they can for a baby if need be. It's not the mother's sole responsibility. Obviously if the mother earns significantly more than the father she would be able to save more.

Looking after a baby is a massive contribution to the gas bill if the alternative is hiring a nanny!

TheFallenMadonna · 08/07/2012 14:45

I wouldn't go into having children without joint finances. In fact, I wouldn't live with someone without joint finances, but I appreciate that other people make other choices.

That said, I think that if you will view nursery as a joint expense, then you should consider maternity leave as a joint expense, and if you are funding some from your savings, so should he.

Original poster
GirlWithALlamaTattoo · 08/07/2012 15:15

That's exactly the point - having a child is a joint expense, so both parties should contribute to it if that's the way that family expenses are funded. In a household that runs on one income, things would be different.

If both partners earn, and both make equal contributions to the outgoings, whether the money is held in a joint account or separate accounts doesn't make any difference as far as I can see. If one partner's maximum possible contribution is half of what's needed, then the other partner will still share responsibility for making sure there's enough.

OP posts:
poppy283 · 08/07/2012 15:27

You probably are entitled to maternity allowance. Make sure you're paying class 2 national insurance and you should be entitled to £135/week for up to 39 weeks.

That should help with the gas bill!

thewholestory · 08/07/2012 15:32

I think different couples take different approaches which work for them, your approach is just one way OP.

For DH and I, I knew I wanted to be a sahm and DH agreed, so we worked hard to build his career so he could be the sole financial provider. I wouldn't have been prepared to have dc with someone who didn't have the earning potential to do that. That was our planning strategy, building up investments so that we were financially secure. For me, I would never be in a situation where one income wouldn't be enough, because I just wouldn't have chosen to have a family with someone whose income wasn't high enough.

TheFallenMadonna · 08/07/2012 15:34

It matters if you have separate finances, but your savings are taking a hit and his aren't. From what I can see, his financial position is unaffected, and yours is weakened, because you will effectively be providing a service that he would need to pay for if you did not provide it.

nailak · 08/07/2012 15:39

so is he going to pay you half of what he would pay a nanny if you were at work?

otherwise it is you making yourself worse of when in reality you are saving the family money by being a sahm.

Original poster
GirlWithALlamaTattoo · 08/07/2012 16:12

TheFallenMadonna - he doesn't have any savings, as I said earlier, because he was made redundant 4 times in the 4 years before we got together and hasn't been earning enough since to save any more. The savings we have happen to be mine. If they were his, it would still be that pot that covered the maternity leave.

I don't see that he'd be paying for a service if I wasn't providing it, because he wouldn't be having a child if he didn't have a partner. I understand, from what I have read and heard from friends, that it takes time to recover physically and emotionally from having a baby, so it makes sense for it to be me who's off work to look after the baby.

I like my job and want to go back to it. The money in the pot might be "ours" but "us" is made of him and me, so both of us are responsible for making sure the money goes into the pot.

OP posts:
thebody · 08/07/2012 16:20

Well we are married and for me the whole point of being so is sharing everything, including money.

I have been a sahm and a full time working mother and dh has been in full employment and sometimes not. Same pot. 2 debit card access.

I can't imagine in any world why one partner In a marriage would have separate savings!!!! How bloody strange.

VeryStressedMum · 08/07/2012 16:22

I agree with those saying it should be joint effort to make sure yo can survive when you'r off work having a baby. Bit strange the mother has to save up so she can contribute when she's off on maternity.
She contributed right up to the time she HAD to be off to have THEIR baby.

TheFallenMadonna · 08/07/2012 16:23

Well, you wouldn't be having a baby without him either I assume Confused

However, if your savings are making up the shortfall in your household income, then that is one thing. If you are using your savings to maintain an equal contribution, then that is different. If he got a pay ruse that covered more of the shortfall, would you contribute less?

ChitChatFlyingby · 08/07/2012 16:26

But if you're a proper partnership, your (you as an individual) savings should be your (joint) savings - as should his. So by saying you have saved your money individually, that is what is wrong with that statement. You as a couple have savings, and if one income isn't sufficient to pay all the bills, then your savings AS A COUPLE are used to fund the difference, until you can go back to earning enough money AS A COUPLE, rather than as two individuals paying their equal share.

thebody · 08/07/2012 16:32

Chitchat... Exactly.

NowThenWreck · 08/07/2012 16:55

I agree with most of that, but I still think that women should have their own savings anyway. Not to save up to split the bills equally on Mat leave, but in case it all goes tits up, and you need to get out.
I have read too many threads on here by women in terrible relationships who have no financial independence at all , and as such can't leave.

shewhowines · 08/07/2012 18:03

However, if your savings are making up the shortfall in your household income, then that is one thing. If you are using your savings to maintain an equal contribution, then that is different. If he got a pay ruse that covered more of the shortfall, would you contribute less?

I think that is the crux of this whole argument.

Katienana · 08/07/2012 18:15

My DH would save the same as me if he could but he is self employed so income fluctuates a great deal. He certainly wouldn't see me go without and would put mine and the baby's needs before his own every time.

Swipe left for the next trending thread