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

Bu she is treating him like a flat mate rather than a partner who she is fully committed to. Most people in committed relationships are happy for their partner to be co-owner of the property and are happy for everything to be shared.
The OP makes it sound like a temporary relationship as it is her house and he just happens to live there and pay half of the utility bills. When most couples share everything financially they also both have equal rights to the property.
Also, most couples don't live in a strange situation where the mother is ironing the smalls of the newly moved in partner.
If I was him I would be running for the hills and would happily rent a room in a shared house or a bedsit.
I'm also shocked that £700 is only half of the utility bill cost and 1/5 of the food cost, that can't be right surely?

£700 for 1/5, plus he leaves really early, gets home very late, every other weekend he is with his kids... I think your getting plenty!! You would have to pay me £700 to live with my mil even (and even then I wouldn't want her washing my smalls or bed sheets)

Even if food was £400
Electric £100
Gas £100
Water £100
Cleaner £100
Council tax? £120
Tv/phone/Internet £80

So half of that would only be £500 let alone 1/5 being only £200

How much are your bills to equal £700 halved that's £1,400 per month before a mortgage!!! That's insane maybe there are things that could be cut back on

It seems you think he should contribute more (in earlier posts) just because he can afford it. Thats unfair.

Most people in committed relationships are happy for their partner to be co-owner of the property.

hahahahahahahahaha!

Um this really isn't the case at all. You can be in a committed relationship and not say "oh well you've moved in and I love you - let me gift you half my property" especially as they both have their own children etc.

Just because I would want any equity I have in my property to eventually be owned by my DC, does not make me any less likely to be committed to a partner.

This guy doesn't really contribute at all around the house (beyond cooking one meal a week). The OP isn't up for doing it all, not many women would be these days. He is really lucky to have the OP's Mum taking care of everything for him. And he KNEW the Mum was there and doing this all before he moved in!

My idea of a committed relationship is being with somebody that I intend to spend the rest of my life with. Getting married to them and having children with them or them becoming a proper step parent to any existing children.
Someone just moving in isn't my idea of commitment, especially if you are considering what will happen if you split up.

there is quite a lot of ground in between flatmate and married/life partner. You can be committed in between.

many many people life together in committed relationships without needing or wanting to transfer major assets into one another's names.

To me, a sharing of finances is something that only happens well into a relationship, not at the beginning. And it has to be both party's choice, not one party wanting more money because the other person earns more than them.

I wonder if the OP thinks her new partner is after her house, and would respect him more if he had his own house to move into with her? Is this move somehow premature or was he invited by her?

"Someone just moving in isn't my idea of commitment"

Fine to move in with someone you're not particularly committed to when you're young and have no children or significant financial assets to consider.

But surely it is reasonable to hope that people wouldn't move a new partner in with their children without being committed to them?

Maybe I'm wrong but I would assume a greater level of commitment when talking about a couple living with children.

YY Flowery and it is also reasonable to hope/expect the partner wouldn't move into a home with children and extended family unless he was prepared to embrace family life.

Well obviously my idea of a committed relationship differs vastly from the general consensus. I just think that choosing to live with somebody is a huge deal and even more huge when you have children from a previous relationship. If I was not with my husband I wouldn't choose to live with somebody unless I expected to live with that person for the rest of my life and had seriously thought about the financial implications of them jointly owning any property.
In fact, my husband is the only adult that I have ever lived with (since being an adult myself) . Under no circumstances would I move in with somebody if it was going to be a 'my money, my children, my house, your money, your children, your lack of contribution type situation'.
But then I am a very old fashioned type of woman who thinks that if you need a prenup then perhaps you shouldn't be marrying that person.

I also think that the OP shouldn't begrudge her partner having savings because he is going to need them when they split up as he doesn't own a house. She might have less savings but she has a huge asset, which is probably a hell of a lot more in value than his savings.

"Well obviously my idea of a committed relationship differs vastly from the general consensus. I just think that choosing to live with somebody is a huge deal and even more huge when you have children from a previous relationship."

Um, but earlier you didn't feel living together was "your idea of commitment." Now it's a "huge deal"?

I agree with the second version, anyway! Living together is, or should be, a sign of strong commitment when children and significant financial assets are involved.

It's not commitment if you just live together with the idea that it's a temporary thing and we are keeping our assets separate. That isn't how I would live. I have probably worded it badly, but let's just say that lots of students live together and I wouldn't call them committed

"I also think that the OP shouldn't begrudge her partner having savings because he is going to need them when they split up as he doesn't own a house. She might have less savings but she has a huge asset, which is probably a hell of a lot more in value than his savings."

Yep, this is v. significant. You are keeping him off the housing ladder. In London it's only going to get harder for him to leap back on, even if he is a high earner. You clearly aren't committed to your DP, are keeping him dangling until you are ready to move on, but you want to profit in the meantime!

I have read back what I previously wrote and I suppose it does sound confusing, but makes sense in my own muddled head.

I think there is living together in the sense that you have shacked up in a house for the sake of convenience and reduced overheads and really living together in the sense that you really want to be with this person, are prepared to share your life with them in all respects and see it as a forever relationship.
I don't think the first version should be done if you have children (I personally wouldn't do it at all), however I do feel like the first version is what the OP's arrangements consist of. So yes the are living together, but not actually committed and it isn't something that I would ever choose to do.
I think people choosing to live together should be prepared to commit as in my second version.
That still probably only makes any sense to me

I think that makes sense norudeshit. But lots of people certainly do do the first version. I have learnt the hard way that it's not a good idea and would agree with you that people should only move in together if they see it as a proper commitment*. You never want to think that the thing keeping you in a relationship is a fear of flat hunting or not splitting the bills.

*I don't think this means complete merging of assets, e.g. if one person has put all the equity into a house they keep it on a split.

If I were to move into a new partners home, I would compare what I would pay when living on my own, all expenses, and then pay about half of that amount, maybe more, but definitely not less, to my new partner. I would consider difference in earnings. A very rough calculation. I would not do anything sophisticated like listing itemised bills, or shared occupancy of rooms or whatever. That may be a wrong way of thinking, but that would feel right to me. The rest I would save, putting it into shares, whatever, that I could buy a place of my own in case things don't work out. How would that keep me off the property ladder? I could save more than with any other way of living?

My partner does not think like that. He thinks more along the line of what many of you argued for: what additional costs do I cause the household of my partner, let's pay for that and not more. He paid very little in the beginning.

I did not agree with that, and about a year ago I asked him for more, and he negotiated it down to the £700 he pays now, as a monthly lump sum. Because I thought I have to talk business with him, and I knew my line of argument above does not stand up to the way he thinks, I argued on basis of the shared expenses. £700 is really half of our monthly costs, including car and all, excluding mortgage. I found it awful in itself, and wrong wrong wrong that I had to ask him for contributing more and to have this discussion in the first place.

We went through a crisis after that discussion and I kicked him out, but we made up again after a few weeks, because he was distraught and had turned 380 degree and said that he wanted joint accounts, learn to cook, contribute to the admin, etc. I am now the one to be reluctant to have joint accounts. We get along well, he is a kind man, he is fun, we have a lot in common, he is lovely to my kids and to my mum, he just has a different opinion about finances. We have a happy home, where friends and neighbours are always welcome and gather around the kitchen table. My mum is an incredibly generous human being that enables me to have a fulfilling career, and she runs this household with energy, humour and warmheartedness, and no money in the world could reward her for what she is doing.

Am I a money greedy kind of monster because of how I see things? I am frankly stunned by some of your posts.

I think if you moved in with a new partner and gave them half what it would cost you to live elsewhere then you would be needlessly impoverishing yourself whilst making your new partner wealthier.

I'm stunned at your posts. I don't see how after all the other posts on here telling you otherwise you still think it's reasonable to demand more money off him. It's out and out mercenary, you essentially want to charge him for being in a relationship with you.

Ask for more if you want but it sounds like he is a sensible man and will view your request as the mercenary one it is.

If one person in a relationship has the good fortune to own a property almost outright that doesn't give the other person the right to treat it as a money making opportunity and charge rent at full market rate.

You don't seem to be able to grasp that if he leaves your expenses would double. You don't seem concerned about it either which makes me think that you probably wouldn't have a problem finding it despite your claim you can't save. This in turn makes me think the real reason you can't save is because you are spending your money elsewhere.

And I think that's the nub. You want your boyfriend to pay well over the odds in order to finance your lifestyle at his expense. And what is that if not mercenary?

I sincerely hope the poor bloke sees sense and leaves rather than being financially exploited by someone who clearly cares very little about him.

My goodness, so he's ready to give you access to all his money in order to have a properly committed partnership with you, and you don't want this but still want more 'rent'. Let the poor sod go and get yourself a lodger.

Based on your previous post I think he actually sounds like he has tried to be reasonable and committed since moving back in and you have shunned that idea by refusing to have a joint account.
Do you think the relationship would be better if the two of you didn't live together?
By living in separate homes you could still be dating but wouldn't have to stress about who pays for which overheads, who has more savings etc.
If you do live separately you should split the cost of going out on 'dates' etc though, so you might find that you will be worse off than you currently are.
Out of sheere nosiness curiosity, who owns /drives the car; do you share it? If it is his car mainly driven by him then perhaps he should cover the car costs whilst you cover the mortgage.

Why would you consider difference in earnings, the cost of the bills isnt changing because he has more money. Hes an idiot.

This man should run for the hills, you sound money grabbing and as though you wish to profit from the relationship before you move on to someone better.

And if £700 a month really is half of your living expenses (not including the mortgage) then something is seriously wrong. What are you spending £1400 a month on?

I think the conversation needs to about our mother. Along the lines of

"I really love having my Mum look after the kids and us and do feel she should benefit financially ffor it. After all she has done her child rearing and if she were a stranger we would have to pay them as a housekeeper, but I just can't afford it. I do still need her to look after the kids before and after school, but we're going to have to do all our own washing, ironing and fair share of cooking and cleaning"

then see what he says. If he volunteers to pay the going rate for a live in housekeeper instead of his share that's his choice, if not you can all do your share and accept your Mums offer to contribute.

Ok. So lets assume a man and a woman would both live on their own in a one bed flat and spend each £2000 per month all including. The woman moves in with the man, and now gives the man £500 to the joint living expenses. The additional costs she causes to the man by living in his flat are only £300. If course he is better of in comparison to living on his own. In fact he 'profits' £200 by her living with him. But she 'profits' £1500!! How is that fair???

I love how you see it is as profit....! Speaks volumes. You could always live apart and find a lodger?