To ask more money from my new partner?

[diva26]

Hi mumsnetters,

please help me with a trickly money issue, I need opinions!!

I am divorced (amicably) with two schoolage boys. I work full time in a demanding job that I love, but I don't earn an excessive salary. I inherited my house, and have a low mortgage. I have a new partner and he is living with us. My mum is living with me and is effectively running the household for us all. Sounds all great, I know.

My new partner is paying half the monthly costs of running our household (excluding the mortgage), and contributes with a bit of DIY and cooks one meal Sunday evening (he is not a natural talent for either tasks I have to say). I pay the other half, my mum pays nothing which is more than fair because she is runnning the place. I am not a money oriented person, and I have never argued about money not even with my ex-husband, but I keep wondering whether this arrangement is fair.

Here an incoherent list of facts and points to consider:

• my new partner earns about double as much as me
• because his monthly costs are so low, he can save money. I cannot.
• he has a flat to maintain for his children from his first marriage, and has to travel home regularly to see them
• if he rented somewhere, his costs would be at least double of what he pays now, and for a much smaller place
• he thinks that partners and friends should not charge rent from each other, and I agree with him on that one
• he pays more often than me for going out, concerts, etc
• I fear this is a bad deal for my mum, because she is effectively cooking and washing laundry for him.
• he is often away travelling for work

Should he pay more than half the monthly running costs?? I truly do not know the answer, and would really like to hear your opinions.

xxx

But everyone who lives with somebody else benefits financially as it is cheaper to live as a couple (only one set of overheads). She is also profiting as she is splitting the bills which she would have to pay by herself if he wasn't living there.

I think several facts are being overlooked:

She owns the house and will continue to live there if they split. He doesn't own the house and will need so e savings to find somewhere to live.

She gets maintenance from the children's dad and that will support their living costs, so her new partner doesn't need to fully financially support her children.

He is paying for a flat so that he can maintain a relationship with his own children as well as contributing a reasonable amount to the home he is living in.

She is not her partners landlord and therefore it shouldn't be about rent money, it should be about what is fair.

The OPs gripe is that her partner has money left over to save and she doesn't. She wouldn't have money to save if he wasn't living there and she would be £700 per month worse off. If she wants to save then she either has to go back to shopping at asda or earn more money.

She just sounds like she wants this man to be a cash cow rather than a partner. All this talk of profit and rent is very disturbing in the context of a relationship.

OP - how big is this 'tiny' mortgage?

But a) they are BOTH better off, and b) is this what a relationship is about?

She should dump the poor sap, that's clearly what she really wants to do.

I don't think people talk enough about money, my own parents spent their lives arguing over it. Bil is very funny about money - separate bank accounts, insists on sil not profiting from his good job - it will be the cause of divorce if he doesn't change his ideas.

When one person feels like they are getting a raw deal then something needs to change whether the MN jury agrees or not.

Surely even in the the North of London you could rent half a room in a shared house for less than £800 a month and you wouldn't have to live with your MIL. If he pays £800 rent plus costs of going out, I don't agree at all that £525 would be a reasonable contribution to household costs. The OP's mother can't be doing much for him apart from cooking an evening meal when he isn't working away.

The OP would suffer the biggest financial loss he moved out, not him.

I honestly font get why he should pay 'the going rate' in that area. If OP wants to charge rent separately from the bills he is already paying more than his share of, then it should be a fifth of the mortgage cost, otherwise its pure profit for the OP. But then that would mean he would also pay a fifth of the bills instead of half so im sure if her mortgage is that tiny then she would find herself worse off. Even if his share is adjusted to cover some of her mothers share, which if we are being fair should be a quarter as he is one of 4 people she is running the house for. Although if she also provides childcare for OP as part of this setup then it should ne adjusted to take this into account too.

This could obviously get complicated very quickly so i suggest just leaving it as it is and accepting that he earns more. If you want to keep finances separate then you just have to accept that he has more disposable income. Which by her own admission, she benefits from anyway when they go out.

Op is in an amazing position, until he wises up, moves out and leaves her to pay everything

Why are you 'running around' if your mother does everything? Maybe that's what he doesn't understand. If the deal is that she's housekeeper.

I don't understand why you can't save either. If your mortgage is low and he's paying half of the bills. Maybe because you're subsidising your mother. Who has never worked. Which is fine if we're not judging everything by fiscal value, but it seems that your DP is subject to very rigorous scrutiny while your mum is totally disregarded on that score. All I can assume is that it's because you love her and you don't love him. Not enough for this to be a healthy relationship.

As many others have said, YABU to expect him to pay more. Either get over this money thing or move him out and enjoy your beautiful well decorated pile of rubble which you got for a song anyway. Eeesh.

He is earning more because he has a well paid job. He does not own a big 5 bed house though (maybe his ex wife got the house?). If you want more money, how about you earn some more yourself? Ie get a better paid job? I honestly don't understand the level of greed involved if you are eaten up by the fact that he does not pay market rent while he earns more than you. He is not paying towards a home of his own, but will rely on renting or getting his own mortgage to secure his future. Yet here you are getti g him to pay half of all the expenses of a family of 5 including your kids and your mum, and this is not enough? I don't think you love him if you think of him purely in terms of the financial benefits he bring. Stop feeling so resentful and tell him the relationship is not really working for you.

All I can assume is that it's because you love her and you don't love him. Not enough for this to be a healthy relationship.

I think you have hit the nail on the head. I agree 100%.

Ok I think what you have set up now is fair. He is paying half of all household running costs. I think that is fair as it is not just you and him but you (+ 3 more of your dependants) and him. I think what he earns is irrelevant. You should be able to save more now given that he is paying 50% of household costs (I imagine they wouldn't be much higher with him there, a bit more food that would be all).

Also given that he is in a relationship with you I assume that he will be using 'his' savings to benefit you (directly and indirectly) in the future? New car, gifts, holidays, upgrading household appliances, meals out, providing a safety net if you become unemployed etc.

If you still resent the situation I think you need to reevaluate your relationship with him.

I am not a money oriented person
Sorry OP but it doesn't come across that way. It sounds more like you know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

Is this really a relationship? or is he a lodger with benefits?
I'm not sure from the sound of it.

"tastefully decorated" and "a big tv" made me

But the OP is going to struggle to get a lodger, isn't she? Unless she makes it very cheap. Not many lodgers want to live in a house share with someone's mother who is in all day plus their children. I can't imagine there would be many takers for family meals either. How awkward would that be?

Nice house in London or not, we're not exactly talking about luxury serviced lets, with their own door key and complete autonomy and privacy, are we?

"springytickle"
"Don't be Obtuse ...They're the same thing."

Of course they are not the same thing, we have gone from falling down heap (in an effort to gain sympathy), to "tastefully decorated" "enormous rambling house". In order to gain money from the "DP".
Only an estate agent or some one trying to screw money from someone couldn't see the difference.

One thing to remember is that if the partner had a room in a shared house then he would have rights. In your house, Op, he has no rights - you can text him to say "don't come home" and change the locks if you feel like it one day.

He pays £700 which is half the bills etc. Hus true share is £280. So he is paying rent of £420.

A very speedy google gives a really really lovely room in a shared flat in Islington for £250 pw (and only sharing with two others rather than his current 4!) and that includes all bills including council tax, sky TV, council tax and garden maintenance.

So about £1100 per month.

Take off the cost of bills and the "rent" is maybe £900 per month.

The security involved in having a proper tenancy must be worth at least 10% of the rent so that takes it down to £810 per month.

You said the method you would use is to split that cost. So hervshould be paying you £405 per month rather than£420.

So it seems pretty reasonable to me.

The advantage of calling it all living expenses is that he definitely has no claim on the house in the future. Which is useful for your peace of mind I would have thought?

You keep saying that he gets the benefit of your Mother running the house, and whilst I am sure it's very nice to have his dinner made and his clothes cleaned, you make it sound like this is a cost attached to running home that he is not having to pay because your Mother is there but in actual fact, unless he had a house keeper prior to living with you that he is no longer paying he isn't saving anything in a financial sense.

Who knows, perhaps before living with you he just ate less home made meals and more ready meals or perhaps his accommodation was less tidy/clean - undoubtedly not as nice as he has it now, but wouldn't have cost him anymore.
Even if he did have a cleaner I can't have thought that would cost him more than 100-150 a month (because presumably he was in accommodation smaller than a 5 bed house). Personally I can't believe he is not questioning why he is paying half the bills when he is 1 person.

I don't think he should have to subsidise your Mother living there at all, it is your choice for her to be there. Would be different if the children were his as well as he would be saving on childcare costs but other than perhaps the cost of a cleaner, he has no requirement for a live in housekeeper so I m not sure why he should cover 1/2 of your Mother's costs. You gain far more from her being there than he does because of the childcare aspect - like i say having his dinner on the table every night doesn't save him anything, just means he is having a nicer meal. I am guessing if he lived alone he wouldn't pay someone to make his dinner everynight

Oh, it's a zombie thread! I was hoping for an update...