to be annoyed that people presume DP pays for everything because I'm a SAHM?

[partridgeappletree]

DP earns £45k and our rent is £350 p/m. He has no major debts and we run one car which we don't use much. He transfers me £350 per month for food for us plus DCs aged 9, almost 4 and 2. I receive £200 maintenance for 9 yo, child benefit, DLA, carers allowance and tax credits. Out of this I top up the food money, pay my bills, pay for DCs activities/clothes/shoes/birthday and Christmas presents and everything else to do with them. I also clothe myself and pay for the pets.

Last weekend we attended a wedding of DPs colleague and neither myself or the DC had anything to wear so I had to save to buy us all new outfits and shoes. Lots of people commented on how gorgeous they looked and how lucky we are to have DP working so hard to buy such lovely outfits.

I have saved to pay for us all to go away to Peppa Pig World for our middle daughters birthday for the weekend next month and know people will assume DP has paid but actually all he'll contribute is the petrol money. On birthdays and Christmases, his family comment on what lovely presents the DC have and how lucky they are and how they should thank daddy but he doesn't pay for them nor know what they are until they open them. He plays no part in organising or paying for parties and I'm fed up of being told how lucky I am to be a SAHM and have DP providing for us. I gave up a well paid career to be a SAHM and resent the fact that everyone presumes I'm living off DP when that actually isn't the case.

Aibu?

I want to know where I can get a job that pays £45k and comes with a £350/month house!

(Not helpful I know! But what is this job? Teacher at a boarding school? Some sort of agricultural work?)

It is not unreasonable for people to assume that your DP pays for most things as he is working and earning a good salary and you are not. Because that's exactly what should be happening.

The fact that they are incorrect isn't their fault. You shouldn't be angry at people for making a natural assumption, you should be angry at your DP.

Dixie, that is weird. we are well under 40k (one child on Dla) and we get nothing.

This thread has moved on quite a bit, but I did want to remark on this: whilst I'm sure you're working hard, you're not technically funding anything financially.

This is so insulting. The OP has pointed out (not that it should need spelling out) how long and demanding her days with the children are. Plus she is 'technically' funding her partner to be able to go out and work to maintain and progress his career.

Today 08:28 WanHeda

Oh it's you again OP.

Yep, I've twigged who it is as well. I sincerely hope all this crap is just made up. If it's not, the OP is certainly not the one being abused in this relationship.

Whilst I get everyone runs their finances different I really really dont understand arrangements like this - he has money left over and you have to save to get you and the children - his children - outfits?? Fuck that for a carry on!! If one half of a couple is a SAHP then obviously people assume its the one that works is providing financially - as this is true - but the SAHP provide in other ways, it should all be family money.

I sincerely hope all this crap is just made up. If it's not, the OP is certainly not the one being abused in this relationship

£45k sounds a lot for tax credits. I earnt £33k with two dc on higher rate DLA and got £80 pm tax credits but nothing for childcare element as over the threshold for that even though I paid £1000 pm. I know my situation is different but I think at £45k you should be able to support your family on that.

Whilst I get everyone runs their finances different I really really dont understand arrangements like this - he has money left over and you have to save to get you and the children - his children - outfits?? Fuck that for a carry on!! If one half of a couple is a SAHP then obviously people assume its the one that works is providing financially - as this is true - but the SAHP provide in other ways, it should all be family money.

I agree with this in many ways but, as I've said on another thread recently, I don't think it's necessarily right that everyone's earnings should be family money. It really depends on the circumstances. With children from previous relationships (which is the situation I am in) it can become very difficult to start treating money as family money. There are all kinds of complications that need to be taken into account - eg if the exW is earning, if the exH is earning, how this impacts on the amount available for each child etc. So I do understand a situation where the OP's partner pays a certain amount into the "second family" pot rather than sharing all his salary.

The issue here, however, seems to be that he is not paying anywhere near enough in!

Having said that, I hate it when women say they have no choice except to stay at home. While I understand this practically, in theory of course you should have a choice - they are his children too. Even if one parent has to be at home all the time, there is no reason why you shouldn't start from the perspective that it is a joint problem to be resolved and not simply the woman's issue! I would not stay with a man who expected me to stay at home. I would tell him I was going out to work and that from now on he needed to stump up more for childcare or take time off himself! And if that led to the end of the relationship then so be it!

He's got the life of Riley, hasn't he.

I think I'd marry hiif I were you OP.

Then divorce him

Bogey your list was very rude I know exactly how tax credits and dla work together. I was explaining to a previous poster why op was entitled to tax credits. Ie as long as you were entitled to a small amount of tax credits even the basic £540 a year you would receive a higher weekly of tax credits.

With 3 kids, one severely disabled the cut off point for receiving ctc is about 44k discounting ca. Someone on 45k with deductions for things like a self contributory pension could be getting ctc.

Funny place mumsnet, opinion always seems to be that all money left over after outgoings should be shared 50/50. Right up until the woman is the main bread winner then if the man thinks he's entitled to that same deal then he's a cock lodger.

Whatamess no if one parent is a carer you are entitled to tax credits for childcare. Both parents do not need to work.

Whatamess the threshold is higher for every extra child so if you only have two DC that's why you don't qualify.

Is he a fireman?

gunny oh, the tired old 'MN double standards tripe . You are aware that there are 100,000s of MNers, with a wide range of opinions? 'MN' is not just one homogenous lump.

If a man was performing the traditional SAHP role, i.e. the bulk of the housework, school runs, child care, shopping, cooking etc, absolutely nobody would be calling him a cocklodger.

YABU! You are annoyed with the wrong people! You are annoyed because they have made the assumption that you don't live with a total bastard and that he actually spends some of his money on his partner and children! The fact that he spends his money on himself while leaving you to struggle, is your own fault - you've allowed this to be acceptable. If people wrongly assume that he's paid for Christmas presents, why don't you then correct them? And why don't you insist that he contributes? It's not anyone's fault for thinking that he would be involved in paying for Christmas! Also, as you can see from all of these responses, nobody is aware that you can even claim tax credits or DLA with that salary - so yes, they probably do assume that he supports you. It's your job to fix all of this. I don't get all this talk of your child from a previous relationship not being included in his 'budget', when you shack up with someone, their children come with the package and I would be furious if someone was totting up finances and said "well I'm not paying for potatoes for that kid because it's not mine" what the actual fuck. Ask him for more money, and to stop being so effing selfish... or what's the point in this so-called partnership?

I think you should get a job and some independence. You said that you could get a part-time job if you and your partner split up, so surely you could get one now? The childcare would come out of both of your wages, and it means that you would be putting more into the pot and getting more out. If your youngest is 2, having a few days a week in nursery or with a childminder won't harm him and it will give you more independence.

While I fully support a woman's choice with regards to raising children in the way they believe is right (or necessary), it does strike me with many of these threads that a relationship where there's a sahm who feels equally valued and has enough financial and decision making control appears to be the exception rather than the rule. I'm sure that not all these situations feature a financially or emotionally abusive partner or husband, any more than the sahm is a lazy, money grabbing woman with the life of Riley. But this set up does tend to have a huge impact on perceptions both within and outside of the relationships involved. The sahm feels the money is not theirs to spend. Or they don't feel they have an equal say over financial decisions. Or they have to go cap in hand for money, explaining that they need more clothes or toiletries this month. The working partner always seems to harbour some level of resentment about the hours they work, or a worry that they don't feel they earn enough to support the family, or that they're uncomfortable with the level of financial control they have, or a disproportionate responsibility for decision making etc. How can this domestic set up ever be considered truly equal?

LittleLion

It really doesn't sound like you do "fully support a woman's choice with regards to raising children in the way they believe is right (or necessary)"

There are plenty of relationships where one parent stays at home whilst the other works that are happy, secure and equal. These kinds of issues arise when people sleep walk into relationships and parenting instead of thrashing out all of the details before agreeing to have children or marry. But the same can be said of couples who both work. I know a couple who both work - one earns a lot more than the other. They have children. They put equal amounts into a joint account and keep what's left. This means he has a huge disposable income and she is always skint. He buys flashy clothes, she buys hers from Asda, he goes out A LOT with his pals, she can barely afford a night out once a month. She also does the majority of house work, and has a much smaller pension.

My point is that financial and work inequality happens in relationships ALL THE TIME. It is not the preserve of SAHMs. But partly the result of decades of discriminatory policies and practices in the workplace.

Sahm's who feel equally valued etc tend not to feel the need to post about it so you won't see posts from them.