To expect that partners should - broadly speaking - have access to the same lifestyle?

[PosyNarker]

By this I mean, that if a couple are married or are living together with a similar level commitment, that any income disparity between the couple should not be glaringly obvious? Or that (excluding the very rich and massive inheritances), they should have a similar enough disposable income that they could do / buy the same things?

I do know there are really good reasons why this isn't the case for some families (blended families, maintenance payments, aforementioned wealthy etc.), but for the rest, surely this is the norm?

My experience growing up was that both my parents had access to whatever they needed. Sometimes it wasn't enough, but when there was surplus, if dad wanted a gadget or mum wanted a handbag they're quite traditional then they got it. This is also how myself and DP work.

From what I see with friends and close family this isn't the norm. I have so many female friends who have gone part time to look after DC and can't afford this, or that, but have DP buying £2k laptops, £1k cameras. One was asking her DP for a hair dye and cut for her birthday, when said DP is decked out in designer (for work ).

I have other friends though where I really want to scream - independence is the ability to look after yourself and any dependants if and when you need to, not the ability to pay 50% of the bills regardless. They make sacrifices they don't even register then respond to invites or buy things for themselves based on their income rather than the income they have facilitated.

FWIW I lose out by our arrangement and I have no DC so I have no axe to grind. I just think that a family ought to have the same standard of living. I do and likely always will earn more than DP unless he builds a start-up, but I couldn't not share, because we support each other 100%.

That did your partner not take both you and dd on as a package ?

(I hate that phrase "take on" but I bet he has used it, hasn't he ?)

I earn about twice what my husband does. But, it doesn't matter, what's mine is his and vice versa. We have a joint account, and all the money goes into the pot. We make a budget together, and allocate certain amounts for things like clothes, gifts, auto repair, and an equal amount of pocket money for each of us. I would feel terrible if he felt like he had to ask my permission to spend or to beg me for money. We're partners in all things.

mist he did 'take us both on' but no he has never said that.

ok, fair enough

he's not acting it though, is he ?

...and you are making that statement for him, aren't you ?

mist yeah. I have said that I sometimes feel like a burden and he says it's me that has to stop feeling that way. That he loves me and I'm not a burden and he doesn't know what else to say to make me not feel that. It's just the money thing. I just cant say hey give me some money please? You know, that money you worked for, because I want to go out with my friends or buy a new top. I just can't do it.

i had a husband. i couldn't have six pounds for a pair of shoes but he and his friends could charter a jet to take them from the isle of man to the mainland for the weekend.
he's been an ex-husband for some time. long enough for another woman to divorce him too. the third stuck with him.

I think you should start trying. But not in a "give me your money way", in a "this is a partnership, let's open a joint account and have equal access to spending money" way.

You seem to think that is impossible though, so I guess we are all wasting our time

Sorry mist I appreciate your concern and the advice

Not necessarily the norm but I do know some relationships like this.

That My last sentence is unfair and I wish I never typed it. Sorry. You are worth all of our time and more.

But That you are working too and helping facilitate him earn that money. If (god forbid) you died or walked out tomorrow, leaving him with full care of the DC, he'd have to find childcare quickly or give up work, and if he did have childcare then he would face the same dilemma as any other parent who isn't lucky enough to have a SAHP at home - are the children OK in full time childcare and is it meeting their needs? I'll take a wild guess as well that you do the majority of the housework, cooking etc as well, which is again lessening the burden on him - if he lived alone he'd have to come home and do it all himself.

You wouldn't say that a cleaner in a shop shouldn't be entitled to earn any money, because the salespeople are the ones actually making the money by selling the items. Or somebody who deals with the accounts in an office vs salespeople who go out and clinch the actual deals. It's the same in a family; you're dividing up the work and just because it's his name on the payslip, it doesn't mean he's the only one entitled to that money. You have taken on more of the childcare and housework responsibility in return for him taking on more of the financial support responsibility.

Meant to add - that doesn't give him more of a right to that money than you. After household expenses have come out, budget for savings, budget for DC, budget for food, etc, you should have equal spending money even if it's a small amount.

I think its also wrong for a couple to live seperate financial lifestyles when there are no children in the relationship. I dont see why some women should put up with it just because they happen to be childless or child free

I do think it's very different when you have children, though. It's certainly not an excuse for one person to be stingy, and if you are in a marriage then surely the point is that you share what you have, what's mine is yours etc. I couldn't imagine being in a marriage where I didn't want to, TBH, because that kind of mindset is so intrinsic to what marriage is in my opinion.

But really the crux is that when you have children it is very, very likely that one of you will end up sacrificing their earning potential, and the current situation is that that is 99% of the time the woman. I think that if you are planning to have children with someone then you absolutely have to recognise this, it is so so crucial. You are not independent entities any more, you are a family. It's normally not possible for the adults in the family to divide things up in such a way that they can each earn the exact same amount and that this joint amount is enough to run a household with children or more, to provide for the extra treats and savings etc which tend to please us and is not likely to change because of promotions etc. And even if it is possible, this kind of scenario rarely makes sense, especially if it involves people working split shifts or shifts at odd times, something, somewhere, has to give.

It is far more realistic, likely and workable to have one person earning the majority of the money, especially while the children are small. You might switch around at different times but generally it will be the case that one person earns significantly more than the other for most of the time you have dependent children living at home, and perhaps even beyond that. Now, even if you haven't particularly talked it through and have both made the assumption that it's the woman who will take time off, most decent blokes will respect that that's quite a huge sacrifice she has made - indeed, that is what marriage and the concept of post-divorce maintenance exists for!

It makes no sense and is not in the spirit of marriage to take the attitude of a toddler and say "It's mine, I made it, you're not having any of it." Er, conscious, discussion-based decision or not mate, you earned that money to support the family, which means that it is for all of the family.

It's not like the wife goes shopping and then keeps all the best food for herself, saying "Well, I bought it, it's for me. I suppose you can have some bread and cheese then, if you're starving. What do you mean the bread from last week is mouldy? Just eat it, FGS, you're so fucking ungrateful! I only went to the shop 4 days ago!"

Bertie the stats show time and again that women are the lower earners.. working in retail or care jobs.These include women WITHOUT kids . I came across plenty of them as well as myself. Now if i was living with a DH who was say..... a GP or lawyer yet it was seen as ayyy ok for there to be a massive discrepancy in our lifestyles and it was seen as ok for me to have nothing left after paying 50 % of everything (just because i didnt have living proof that id had sex without contraception) the relationship wouldnt get as far as kids!
Ive looked at the financial abuse section of the Womens Aid website a few times to link it into threads on this site.

Nowhere does it say that this situ only counts as financial abuse if you have kids.
Ive posted and taken part in MN campaigns like the cost of school uniforms even though it doesnt affect me simply because i think its unfair.
But when childless/ childfree ppl get the attitude levelled at them "oh it doesnt matter until you have kids" i can see why some of them get a bit pissed off!

Here's what I wonder, if you pay 50/50 towards bills.

Obviously everyone lives according to their means. So people on low incomes have smaller homes in less luxurious locations, usually with good transport links and as a results have lower bills.

Higher earners live in big expensive homes in big expensive areas without public transport, and have big expensive bills for gas, electricity, council tax, commuting - everything.

I can't see the high earning partner consenting to live in a small flat because that's all their minimum wage partner can afford. Obviously they will want to live in a nice big comfortable home since they can afford it.

How is the low-earning partner supposed to be able to contribute half of the bills in that situation?

Darkeyes, of course inequalities in finances should be addressed in couples whether they have children or not. I think all Bertie and others (including myself) are saying is that often this problem doesn't arise until you have children - this is the point where the woman loses her equal footing and may never catch up in terms of earning potential.

YY Annie In the same way that some partners who are abusive or have the potential to be , only show their true colours when pregnancy/babies come along.

I think much of this stems from the way certain men are raised. My husband's mother stayed at home to look after him and his sisters until he was in his early teens, at which point she started her own business.

He loves and respects his mother dearly, and as a result has no qualms/questions about me staying at home while our boys are young. We can afford it, the arrangement works well for our family, and there is no way he would swagger about with fancy possessions while I went without.

Even when we were married without children, my financial contribution was more like 20/80, to reflect the vast difference in pay packets (the downfall of my employment in a creative industry).

I wonder if any of these man who think they've "earned" the extra money and are entitled not to share, ever stop to consider that the likelihood is they only earn more in the first place because they have a penis. This hardly involves any extra effort on their part apart from having to scratch it in the morning!

I'm in probably odd position in that in 25 years together we never had joint bank accounts. I don't know what he earns and he doesn't know what I earn, although it's probably about the same, although I might earn a bit more .

DS is grown up now but when we employed a nanny I earned a good wage but less than him. I paid for the nanny and the cleaner but everything left, which was a fair bit was mostly mine to spend on me.

He paid mortgage, gas, electricity, telephone, council tax. Food was bought by whoever went shopping, as likely to be him as me. Clothes for our son was ad hoc. He paid school fees I paid for the extras. We each paid for our own cars. He doesn't have a car now, I do.

When our son was at uni I paid his rent, OH gave him an allowance and I was paying out more then.

At the moment, he still pays the council tax and utility bills, everything else, food is probably about equal. We don't discuss money or personal purchases.

We have joint savings\ investments, separate current accounts, but there not really - most direct debits come out of dh account.
We added up the outgoings, subtract that from total income & split what's left over 50/50.
I send money into dh account by regular payment to cover my part of the direct debits.
If dh was not part time I couldn't have worked ft & taken qualifications, so it was a team effort, just like 20 yrs ago when we had ds & I was a SAHM.

Caitlin - you have no idea of each others earnings - just wow