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

Because there are only two people in your example, not five with four on one side of the share and one on the other.

And because, in your example, there's not an asset ie the house from which only one side benefits!

I would still like to know how if he pays an extra £700 to the pot how you cannot save anything

I think you can only focus on the actual situation, not hypothetical ones. What the other person saves in theory by not doing x or y is of no consequence. What should each person's contribution be to existing expenses is the question.

It's like when I treat myself to something because I just got something else half price. It makes no sense. The saving is notional

I haven't read the responses but from what you've posted, I think YABU unless you are willing for him to have a financial stake in your property should you split up. It's actually quite kind of him to pay half the costs when it seems he is 1/5 of the household.

Ok. Fine. Let's consider kids and mum. The man lived before with his mum and two kids and spent £4000. The woman lived in one bed flat and spent £2000. Woman moves in with man. Woman pays £500 to man, costs £300 to man, so man profits £200 in comparison to living without woman. Man profits £200, woman profits £1500. Ehhh?? How is that any different to scenario before?

Am I a money greedy kind of monster because of how I see things?

Oh I hope not, OP, and I do understand that (as a single parent) you have to ensure you are not subsidising a new partner. However - sorry - it is still coming across as rather greedy! Earlier I posted that you didn't seem to like him very much. To me, it's still coming across that way.

I am frankly stunned by some of your posts.

People can only respond as they find. You have described the situation as your OH pays half and you pay half of all household expenses. So it seems that your other half pays for his own household expenses and 50% of those of your mother and your children, while you pay your own household expenses and the other 50% of those of your mother and your children. Yet you seem to want more.

Add to that, we know from your posts that your breakup with your exH was on good terms, so it seems possible that your exH is also contributing to your household expenses, via child support, perhaps. If so, you are in fact paying a much smaller %age of the household expenses (and your OH a greater %age) than you've actually given us to understand. Yet, as I've said, you seem to want more.

So, yes, you do come across as greedy (though I don't think anyone has called you a monster), but I do see that there may be circumstances that we are unaware of.
You have said, for example, that you don't earn an excessive salary, so perhaps you had a significant top-up of Tax Credits which you lost when your new partner moved in?
You refer to him as your "new partner". How new? How long have you known him and how long ago did he move in? Could it be that you have rushed things a little too much and that there are deeper issues and regrets that are causing you to outwardly focus on the financial situation?

I hope there is nothing in this post to be stunned at. Your posts do come across (to me) as a bit entitled, yes maybe even greedy, but I do wonder if there is a bit of a back story or if things have simply happened too quickly.

In you example if she pays half the living costs then they would only be £1000 a month.

The other £1,000 would be paid into his mortgage which is also a 'profit' to him as it is buying him an asset. So he would be 'profiting' £1,200 in total.

She would be profiting £1,500 a month but that would be offset by the fact that she wouldn't have a property in London which was appreciating in value.

As another poster says it also ignores the fact that he is subsidising your family of 6.

Why ask for advice if you are not going to take it on board?

They are your kids.
She is your mother.

Why should he be paying anything towards them, especially as he has offered to have a joint account which will let you have access to all/most of his money?

You have turned this down and wonder why he doesn't want to pay any more.

But your not like this 'man' in your second example.

If the woman paid him £500 then presumably, again he would be paying £3000 into a mortgage which was purchasing him an asset. The woman would not benefit from that so it should not be included as a 'debit' against her account. It's actually mainly paying money back to yourself.

Seeing relationships in terms of 'profit' is really distasteful anyway.

If you want to save look at where you can stop spending money rather than trying to extort it.

Are you forgetting op that Your children and mother live there too, even if your mother wasnt there you should be paying the manority as they are your children not his, im just assuming you also get financial help off of the childrens father. You seem to be in a very fortunate situation, it also seems like you begrudge that he earns more than you and you just want a bit more money for yourself. You dont seem like someone in love with a man and wants to live with them if all you are thinking about is financial gain.

I think that sounds more than fair actually.

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 wouldn't. I would work out, along with my partner, how much the rent/mortgage were and pay half. (Personally I wouldn't include food and bills in that because they vary and because I don't do the traditional thing of one person buying all the food and cooking it).

He paid very little in the beginning

Therein lies the problem. You think he took you for a mug at the beginning and as a result don't quite trust him not to be doing it again. I agree it is ridiculous that you had to negotiate so hard and throw him out to get him to pay half.

But I think you are deluded as to how undesirable your household set up is. Not many men want to live with their partner's mother, or sadly even their children. To expect him to pay more for this dubious "privilege" is I think unreasonable.

I don't think you can also reasonably expect a new partner to support and subsidise your entire family!

I think its a bit sad really that both of you are so mammon obsessed and can't willingly contribute half each.

I do think you are worried he is only with you for your desirable location and he is probably worried you are only with him for his money. This whole thing comes across as one of those classic 'landed gentry' situations - impoverished toffs seeking someone cash-flow positive who can pay more than their fair share of the bills. You don't seem to be particularly enamoured of him on a personal level. I think the best situation would be to live seperately until the both of you were willing to commit to a more formal relationship with all the legal rights/responsibilities that come with that.

He pays half - which covers your dm and dcs,
Your dm 'runs the place' and you feel she is running round after him but then say he is away a lot?

You have very low mortgage and house is yours?

YABU. sounds like he pays more than his fair share.

move him out.

OP i don't understand what relevance it has, that he would pay x amount if he lived alone? Surely it only matters that he pays his share if he lives in your house with your current set-up? IMO he is paying a bit more than 'his share' but he is paying it so what's the problem?

You are the one that doesn't want him paying the mortgage and to make sure he doesn't have a claim on part of your house, and you are the one that doesn't want joint finances!

Sorry, too long a thread so only skim read.

Comments:

1. This arrangement currently works well for you both: you are better off than if DP were not living with you, he is better off than if he rented his own place.
2. He can save and you can't because he earns double what you do. If you are long term committed partners, then do pool joint earnings. if still not quite there then he is quite entitled to save for himself money he has earned through his hard work.
3. If he contributes to the mortgage then he will gain property rights in the house under law.

I would leave things be. They sound fair as they are.

Ok, I have read more of the thread now and had a think.

You say you inherited the house and your DM lives with you. To me, the most likely scenario for this to have come about would be that your DF died intestate and so you, as sole child, inherited his estate with your DM having a life interest in the family house where you and she have always lived ie the house is HERS until she dies, whereupon it is yours completely. As the life tenant, SHE is the one entitled to any rent, and she is letting you live there rent free as well as doing your washing/cooking/childcare. If this is right then she is the one being most put upon in this scenario and it is completely up to her if she lets your DP live there rent free. Count your blessings!

BTW this is a lesson to anyone with a London house (worth much more than intestacy threshholds) to write a will unless you want your spouse to end up playing housekeeper for your adult DC.

It seems to me that DH gets very little "value" out of your mum being there. He is away about half the time, and cooks a meal a week of the meals he is there. Presumably he organises his own washing/housework etc when he is away from your house. Seems as though you could get a cleaner and DH could cook one more meal a week, and from his point of view your mum would be "unnecessary" in the terms of being a housekeeper.

OP's examples aren't valid because the her DP isn't as much better off as she is projecting - he has given up his own home (or option to have one) to move in with you. You're comparing the cost of him living in his own flat versus being in a house share with 4 other people. If he moved into a house share with 4 random people it would cost him less than £2000. If you want to make it a more business relationship (which sounds like you do with your talk of profit), why not calculate what it would cost him for an equivalent house share plus share of bills (taking into account the times he's not there). I'm not in touch with London prices, but would that really be much more than £700? Plus as he tends to pay when you go out, I presume you will be starting to split those bills 50:50 from now on?

Sorry OP but your most recent two posts make you sound even greedier.
I am actually wondering whether you really live this man and are happy with the relationship or are just living with him to reduce your overheads (although clearly you want them reduced further).
You seem to be totally missing the point that your partner needs his savings as he doesn't have a property and will need to find so where to live if you split.

Here's another fairer option for you:
Encourage your OH to buy a flat so that he has a property and so do you. He can leave it vacant whilst the two of you are living together. Add his mortgage, your mortgage and the running costs for both properties together and then split that total cost 50/50. Doing this would ensure that you both have a property and are paying for both properties between you.
You will be worse off of course as you will be paying towards his asset. But he will be paying towards your asset too, so it seems much fairer.

"he thinks that partners and friends should not charge rent from each other"

So he thinks that one half of a partnership should live free while the other half pays 100%. Why on earth would he think that??

Are his children adults?

It's a stunning package he is buying into and he should pay for it. He can afford it. I would be totally put off that he felt it was appropriate to pay you hardly anything when he first moved in. He's the greedy one.

Set a rate, non-negotiable, that you consider an appropriate rate for him to pay to live there. It isn't necessary for you to have a joint account and I can understand your reluctance. He should pay (well) for what he's getting.

If it's a dealbreaker then there we go. You - and all you have - don't come cheap. He should know that good things don't come cheap.

Good things dont come cheap... the MIL coming as part of the package Im starting to think this either a joke or a boast thread...

SpringTickly, that's a disgusting attitude to relationships and only a half step up from prostitution.