AIBU to expect DH to pay for all meals out?

[ElphabaTheGreen]

I do all the cooking at home - all of it, unless it's cereal or toast, as DH can't/won't cook. DH and I both work full time and we have two DSs - 3yo and 16mo. This means that I do a shit-load of batch-cooking to cope, including taking annual leave from work to cook if the freezer starts running low. DH does do the washing up, but it isn't nearly as time-consuming as planning, shopping for and preparing cooked-from-scratch meals all week.

At the weekend, we eat a couple of meals out as a family - nothing outrageously fancy. Usually just Frankie and Benny's or something equally kid-friendly and unglamorous, but it gives me a welcome break and the DCs like the change of scenery and the opportunity for chips.

Now, DH earns twice as much as I do. We have a joint account that we pay bills from which we contribute to proportional to our pay, but eating out gets paid for by DH. He's been getting increasingly huffy about this, with arsey sighs when he pulls his card out, then today he said I should pay for some meals out. I've told him in the past that if he expects me to pay, I really can't afford it, but I'd be happy to cook something a bit special instead so long as he keeps the DCs out of the kitchen. He thinks I'm being tight but I'm honestly not - in the past year, my new purchases have amounted to three pairs of the cheapest jeans from M&S and three jumpers off Amazon. DH has bought himself a midlife crisis classic VW campervan.

Given the amount of cooking I do, and the amount he earns in comparison to me, AIBU to expect him to pay for all meals out?

But mat leave shouldn't have more impact on your savings than on his savings. Mat leave is for your family. It is like the most basic definition of a joint expense.

Honestly whatever about separate bank accounts, every time I read about someone on here funding her own mat leave, basically living off nothing, my blood just runs cold.

There is something wrong with someone who would let you do that. No decent person would see you spend your last pennies on baby massage or whatever. Every decent person recognises that maternity leave sacrifices should be equal.

The thought of him sitting on a massive mortgage-sized nest egg that your free childcare enabled him to earn, which you have no entitlement to - it's terrifying. Whatever your single mum taught you, she didn't teach hard enough.

OP you have contradicted yourself. You said you don't mind doing the extra childcare for him out of hours so he can earn more and pay the mortgage off sooner which will benefit you all. But he isn't just putting this extra income into the mortgage is he? He's buying a campervan (£40k last time I looked) etc.

I think you've got cognitive dissonance.

I can see you are getting defensive because you aren't getting the response you expected but maybe so many voices saying they are shocked at your arrangement makes it worth re evaluating your situation.

So when you retire will you be off on expensive trips without him, perhaps in a flash car that's just for you, working out at a gym he can't afford to join you at or a bike that he can't catch you up on with his cheap one and will you get cross if he doesn't want to pay for coffees when you're out?

And if your going to trill "oh but I know he'd never screw me out of the mortgage nest egg, it's not like that, he's not like that!" Well fine. I believe you. Most people who say that are quite right.

But it is exactly what all those SAHMs you think you're so different to say about their joint accounts.

'No decent person would see you spend your last pennies on baby massage or whatever. Every decent person recognises that maternity leave sacrifices should be equal.'

Exactly!

Your financial arrangements sound really tiresome, Elphaba. If there is a large disparity of income between a couple and you stick with your arrangement, you are forcing the wealthier party either to put up with a limited lifestyle so that you can afford to "pay your share" of absolutely everything, or are putting them in a position of power where they are acutely aware of how much extra they "give" to you that you cannot afford to contribute towards yourself, when actually it is only being done so that the family can enjoy a lifestyle the family can easily afford without any real sacrifices being made... You are also short changing your children, unless you want to end up with a situation where they are also made aware of your lack of financial muscle, because the family money only pays for what you can afford to contribute towards and your dh's money pays for everything else they want (or they go without, while your dh's personal savings continue to swell, to be spent on what, if not family? Another camper van?).

I don't know why married people behave like this. If you divorce it all gets added up and split out fairly regardless of who has what, and that includes pensions.

I think if you've bothered to unite yourself in marriage you might as well live as one financial entity. Surely the whole point of marriage is that you spend the rest of your lives together doing things together and not being independent?

Just bite the bullet. Have everything go into one account and all outgoings, and then agree how much each of you gets to save/spend each month and save up together for things like camper vans etc.

Either of you could be out of work tomorrow due to redundancy or ill health, then what?

I agree captainproton.

Do you believe in flat rate taxation? As in, do you think a nursery nurse and a merchant banker should both pay a flat 20% income tax?

OP you have contradicted yourself. You said you don't mind doing the extra childcare for him out of hours so he can earn more and pay the mortgage off sooner which will benefit you all. But he isn't just putting this extra income into the mortgage is he? He's buying a campervan (£40k last time I looked) etc.

He'll still be able to cover the mortgage in the predicted time period, even with the campervan (£30,000, actually. Totally ridiculous.)

If you divorce it all gets added up and split out fairly regardless of who has what, and that includes pensions.

Except he has his own business, and a small pension, while she has a clearly demarcated salary scale and an excellent pension.

In a divorce, or when calculating child support, I know who I would regard as most exposed to potential financial shenanigans from the other.

I can see you are getting defensive because you aren't getting the response you expected but maybe so many voices saying they are shocked at your arrangement makes it worth re evaluating your situation.

I can't really see where I've got defensive, unless explaining/correcting certain points is 'defensive'. I'm also not sure what response you thought I was expecting - I've had a range of responses that will make me reconsider things. I've been on MN long enough to not post a thread on AIBU expecting a unilateral response in my favour!

At an even more basic level than what I said before, surely a family meal comes from the family joint account. I don't see how he can argue otherwise.

Wait until your children are older and your family money can't stretch to financing hobbies your children would dearly love to pursue, but your dh's money can stretch to putting air conditioning in his camper van and paying for membership of a golf club.

This all sounds very complicated, as if you're only roommates or something...put everything in one joint account and be done with it. I'm so glad my husband puts everything he makes into our account and I'm in charge of the finances. It really doesn't get any better than that, does it? We've never had an argument about it because he considers the money ours, not his. Marriage is different than being roommates. Shouldn't be any nickel and diming everything and begrudging attitudes and calculating every little thing proportionately or otherwise. Share one account with all the money in it and go from there.

I understand a lot of people feel independent if they have separate accounts and that makes sense, so not knocking doing it that way if it works well. Many women who are in abusive or iffy marriages where there's not that total trust are also advised to have their own money, separate from the husband. And it is a good point too that even if you have trust, you never know if someday that changes and spouse acts unpredictably, so there's a lot of sense in having separate accounts.

However, if the marriage is solid, why not put it all together, marriage is becoming one, still having your own identity but there's a new thing therea team that is one, if that makes sense and one bank account reflects that unity. When you put the money into one account, you're showing your trust and commitment to each other in a way that is very clear. Basically putting your money where your mouth isone says he/she is committed to the marriage, well that proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

All that complicated maneuvering seems very silly and petty to me. The fact OP has an issue with it shows it's not working.

My DH earns more than me, we each put half our salary into the joint account, and pay for meals out, bills, groceries, and socialising from that.

Kintan, that's a good idea.

Kintan. That still leaves you with less money to call your own. Surely proportional is more equitable.

DH and I used to do proportional for the common pot. I'm not fond of the all in together, even though we do it now, as I don't like being queried on what I spend. This never happened when I spent out of my own account.

I think it's very sad that you consider that the setup you have is entirely fair, but for the paying for meals out.

Despite the fact that you cannot afford personal spends beyond cheap jeans and jumpers in a year, while he buys a campervan.

IMO seperate finances only works if you both earn about the same.

Where one person earns significantly more/ less than the other, any division is just not equitable.

50/50 or proportional split leaves one person with a lot less disposable income.

Meals aside- having the cash to buy a camper van as opposed to a couple of cheap jumpers can never be fair.

He complains about taking his wife and children out for a meal?! You're his family ffs! No words.

I just summarised this thread to my husband and his response was 'that is just financial/ emotional abuse there's no other description for it.' I have to say the more you write about it the more I agree. Your husband might not be a bad man but you need an honest conversation to work this out and leave yourself in a less vulnerable situation.

There are no times when a woman would be financially better off without her mean husband that you don't also think she would be better off without him entirely.

"Oh no, he's a lovely fellow who can't be arsed with basic domestic tasks, buys expensive treats for his own amusement, and resents paying for his family's dinner. But otherwise he's totally aces."

If you were the bigger earner, would you see him go without new clothes while you bought yourself luxuries? Or would you want to help support him as part of your family who you love?

The irony is, the OP thinks she is somehow putting herself in a stronger position this way, whereas actually, the way the finances are arranged, she is putting herself and the children in a far weaker position than is necessary. The way she has it organised, her dh has most of the power and control in the family, because he's the one with money left over at the end of the month to spend, save or hide however he fancies. I'm sure that's not what what her mother intended when she told her dd to retain her financial independence!