To think if you expect me 2 stick to a budget, you should stick to yours???

[WhatTheAbsoluteF]

DH and I spent more on Christmas gifts for family this year as well as other big items which now means we have to watch our budget until his next salary comes in, in a week's time. (FYI we are generally quite well off and have never been in this situation before. We live in a beautiful, large home, drive an expensive, brand new car and go on holidays often, but we have spent far more than usual on furnishing our new home and purchasing items for baby's arrival, hence the need to budget.)

Yesterday, I needed to do some shopping for my baby who has outgrown her current clothes. I asked if I can get my older daughter new boots as well, as she only has one pair of boots that she says is starting to get tight on her. (She has outgrown all her other shoes) His response was that he only has around £300 to last us till the 20th of December and therefore we can't buy her boots now. He goes on to say I can only spend £50 on baby clothes, which I accept. He also says he has to buy a few groceries for the house and asks what I need....I give him several items and he asks me to leave out one or two because he only has a £40 budget for the groceries. I agree. (I know we can get anything else we need, with his next pay cheque)

I ended up spending £42 at the store, while he went on to spend £79....almost double his budget! I was sitting in the car with baby, waiting for over 30 mins while he shopped......freezing my butt off (luckily baby was wrapped in a thick blanket and dressed warmly) and wondering why he was taking such a long time to get back with the few items on the list. I was surprised to see him coming back with a fairly full trolley of goods. When I asked, he said he only bought 2 extra items....Checking his receipt revealed that he had purchased far more than 2 extra items. When I asked, he said these items were on sale & we would all enjoy eating it. I agreed, but pointed out that I didn't buy my daughter boots or other clothing items she needed because he asked me to stick to the budget, yet he couldn't stick to his own!

My poor daughter accompanied me to the shop to buy baby's clothing & saw several reasonably priced items for herself (necessary as she has also outgrown her winter clothing from last year) and I told her she needed to wait till the end of the month to do her shopping. I pointed out to my husband that I could have got a few good items for my daughter with that extra money. He went on to have a fit.....accused me of saying he can't provide for his family (I never did!!!) and stormed off in a rage. He has not spoken to me since.

Am I being unreasonable to think that if he expects me to stick to a budget, then he should stick to his? I don't think I did anything wrong by querying his spending. Did I? Would you assume I implied you can't provide for your family if you were in his position?

You are not well off, despite the beautiful home and expensive car, if you cannot even afford a pair of shoes for your child. Does that help you to put it all into perspective?

This, exactly, regardless of the recent expense that comes with moving house and a new baby on the way.

The OP is not well off.

I'm with a previous poster ChristmasJumperWearer

All the money is a red herring. This is about power.

I'm suspecting in the usual ebb and flow of your lives you never have to give the cost of things much thought, so your DH's opinions on money and who has the right to spend it and whether that should be on himself or on his DC's is masked. In this highly unusual scenario for your family it has shocked you to find out he prioritises himself and expects you and your DC's to 'go without', however temporarily. I.e. he reserves the available spending power for himself the first time there has ever had to be a real choice?

If so, the issue IS one of power and control, which will easily be lost sight of amongst sentences like 'only £300 for a week' which is so out of the norm for the majority.

If you feel I'm right, I'd suggest you move this to relationships, where you'll get asked the right kind of questions to unpick this.

Frogme how on earth could you possibly think having £300 to last 6 days is short? And what do you mean about going into debt?

It's because it's not a 'real' budget that you had to stick to that your dh didn't feel obliged to stick to it.
I do think it was out of order for him to not stick to it when he said he would but really, he knew there was no need for a budget.

Also, he bought food which I assume was for the family rather than himself? If he'd spent an extra £40 on himself and you only had £80 then I could understand why you'd be so annoyed.
But this seems to be just playing at budgeting.
His controlling attitude is probably the real issue here.

Good post notquite I agree

tinker the mentality behind it - not the actual figures.

Do you not have a joint account? We have a joint account and a credit card. Salaries are paid into the joint account and direct debits come out of the joint account. We also have a credit card onto which all of the expenditure goes, obviously we still have to watch the expenditure because if we overspend there won't be enough in the joint account to cover the credit card payments.

We don't have a budget we know that our funds are limited so we watch what we spend very occasionally I have bought non essential items when I shouldn't have and dh has occasionally done the same.

I think the main issue in your situation is not that dh went over the budget and you didn't. I think the issue is that you talk of dh giving you money and you both had a very specific budget. Dh doesn't give me any money we are a family and we share our money and debts.

How does he control the finances?
Is he otherwise controlling as well? Because it's rarely the case that one form of control is isolated.
The tantrum the threw is a form of control to shut you up, particularly when you criticise him.

tinker i said that as I often read posts like that on mumsnet. Tit for tat makes things worse not even.

It's not tit for tat if they have the money. He expected them both to spend the same, so she didn't get the boots. He went over budget so it's ok for her to match it by going over the same amount.

I agree it would be two wrongs if they didn't have the money, but they do! It's just going to sit in his wallet til payday whilst their dd goes without shoes. Of course she should get the boots.

Not to make him angry, or prove a point, or any kind of tit for tat. Simply because the child needs footwear and they have the money to buy it.

I think the money is immaterial. I only have £9400 to last until I am paid (contractor so variable- could be Monday- great no issue- could be January- very tricky). But I have 1 charge card of £5450 to pay by the 19th and another of about £1600 and then bills etc. I am sitting with a calculator trying to work it all out. We all have to budget whatever our incomes.

It isnt the amount. It is the principle- you need to sit down and talk about money. I assume that both children are yours jointly- so not 'my' children but 'our' children

Perhaps he thought buying extra food doesn't really count as it's food? IYKWIM? I will often stop myself buying clothes and things like that and ask DP to do the same if we're running a bit short (I do most of the budgeting and planning for us) but in my mind food is different for some reason, especially if its on offer!

Fairienuff - if the child needs boots and they have the money the OP should get the boots but not because the dh went over budget, that is tit for tat and extremely immature.

You are being extremely petty, OP. Life is about bigger things. If your DH does this regularly then you need to sort out your finances so you have your own pot. If its not a regular occurrence and has just come up now because you've overspent on presents then let it go. It's not something worth causing an argument about and it definitely isn't something that you need to start thread about.

In short, YABU.

I find the whole argument bit really childish. You both had a budget but it was self-imposed, not really required to be that strict. He went over budget, obviously he's not very good at buying food on a budget, you could have laughed it off and said it's no big deal, you've got plenty of money for a week, and either gone to get the boots or waited for a week, either way it doesn't make much difference. But you got upset because he's rubbish at budgeting and I would assume he was embarrassed at being so rubbish and went off in a huff. Childish. You are not that strapped for money to argue over it, you're just making problems for yourselves.

I agree Marjorie. In fact I think OP should have bought the footwear first as the child has none that fit her. I also think she could have got boots and babygros for the same amount as she spent. They money clearly isn't an issue because they have plenty of it.

But in their scenario, where they agreed a budget, it would be fine for OP to go over because he did. She could just say, 'Oh well, you spent £30 more than planned, so can I have £30 for dd's boots now'. It just sounds odd that she has to ask for money but, by their logic (not mine) he couldn't argue with that and would have to give her the money.

If he did argue, their relationship is in a very bad place.

What kind of a man doesn't buy his own daughter shoes when she has none anyway?

I don't think its silly to have some spare cash incase of emergencies - boiler breaking, car issues etc.

I think you both sound a bit daft with cash.

With £50 you could have bought a pack of baby grows and boots for your daughter easily. A baby doesn't need £59 worth of clothes just to get through one week.

As for sticking to the budget, I suppose if he agreed he should have but I'd be very at somebody moaning at me for buying a few extra from my own earned salary. Giving up work and relying on another is never a good idea, it leaves you weak financially and reliant for your every need.

I think not quite has it spot on.

I would have bought the boots for the child who is here and needs them, rather than clothes for a baby not born yet.

That is the sensible thing to do.

Yes, he should have stuck to the budget though!

oh to have only £300 to last 6 days though

It appears that neither of you understand the meaning of financial planning, let alone a budget. The fact that you prioritised buying things for a child that isn't here yet, over one that is, speaks volumes.

Priority needs to be given to having a buffer (at least three months salary) because your nice big home could be at risk.

Seriously woman, this childish he's spending more than me crap is a distraction from the lack of a financial plan.

Sounds like both of you are used to just spending without thinking. I can see DH's reasoning that he was getting food more cheaply that you would be buying next week anyway - therefore actually saving money. That's the sort of decision you can make when you know you have enough money.

Equally you had £50 for baby clothes and boots, which several posters have pointed out was more than enough for both, yet you decided not to economise but wait and buy more expensive ones next week. Another decision you can only make because actually you know you have enough money.

I do wonder how a household that doesn't normally watch the pennies ends up in a situation where one DC has no clothes that fit and the other DC has no shoes that fit though.

Wow....more responses than I expected...Too many to respond to individually. As I mentioned before, I don't need opinions on what you think of our finances or financial arrangements. I was merely looking for an opinion on whether you felt I was being unreasonable for questioning my husband blowing the budget that we had agreed on, when he was the one who decided we needed to budget till his next pay cheque was in. (I do understand that he would want to have some money available for an emergency situation, as would I)

To all those people who say the boots should have been priority, I agree to some extent. Yes, 'our' daughter needs them, but bear in mind she has only recently complained about her current pair being slightly tight and she can wait a week more without much harm done. My issue was that I would have rather bought her the boots now and waited a week for luxury grocery items if given the choice. I wasn't....That is the issue. (My baby IS already here to a poster who felt her clothes could wait as she hadn't arrived!)

DaisyFlowerChain....Wanted to respond to your post because I'm a bit confused as to where you got the figure £59 from? I spent £42 on clothing, which covered several baby grows, vests, hats, mittens,etc. (So quite a bit for that price.) Your post suggests that my husband should be 'entitled' to do as he pleases with 'his' money, which is ridiculous! This is 'our' money. We wouldn't be where we are if I weren't available to care for our kids. This is a decision we took together in the best interest of our children and I certainly don't expect to be made to feel inferior as a result of my choice (yes CHOICE) to be a SAHM. I have no regrets about being able to bring up my children by myself, rather than leave them in the care of someone else while I work. I am very fortunate, as many mums have no choice in this regard.

By the way, I have noticed the difference in opinion by various people about our financial status. Some have posted sarcastic comments implying that we are moaning over what many would consider a large some of money (thereby also implying we are well off), while others have declared that we are not as financially well off as we think if we are in a situation where we need to budget. I am not bothered by either. And yes, I do consider ourselves fairly well off, as apart from our current home and vehicle, we own several other assets including overseas property which is paid off (Some bought while I was still working.)

Anyway, my DH has since apologised for his mistake, and I have accepted his apology. To those few posters who did answer the question I posed and made me realise that I wasn't being unreasonable, thank you! The fact that my husband has apologised, shows that he was indeed wrong to blow the budget we agreed on and proceed to fly into a rage when questioned about it. I'm glad it's resolved.

This is 'our' money.

Not from what you have posted.

Dh and I have 'our' money. We each have a card to the joint account. I don't ask him for money for shoes for the children.

Why doesn't he buy shoes for his daughter OP? She doesn't have any that fit and he has money. Why hasn't he either bought footwear or given you money to buy footwear.

Are you both just going to leave your dd in too tight shoes for a week?

Can you answer that question?