To ask Dh to go to the 'posh' pub for Sunday lunch

[ilovedoodles]

Just asked my Dh if he would like to go for Sunday dinner tomorrow at a pub and he said yes.
I suggested a particular pub which does amazing food and he said only if you're paying (as he thinks it is too expensive). It is a bit pricey for a roast at £15 each but on the other hand it is really nice food and is much nicer than any of the other local places.
We haven't been out together anywhere this weekend where we spent money. He would quite happily go to another pub that will cost £11 each. I won't enjoy this as much as the food is just ok.
AIBU to think he can't spare another £4? I have said I will pay for myself.
He earns a good wage and money is not an issue.

I wouldn’t call that set up a marriage

Why did you marry him?

Do you get anything from this relationship?

Why are people saying the dh is mean for quibbling over £4 and not saying the op is mean for quibbling over £11?? Op, why can't you be the one to treat him by taking him to the restaurant you want to go to? Seems weird to pick an expensive restaurant and expect someone else to foot the bill. Next time he can treat you and can be the one to choose where to go.

@harshbuttrue1980 how would it be 'treating' me if he takes me somewhere I don't like?

Because he's mean in many other areas of their marriage and this is a final straw moment. Have you read the thread?

@Mrsjellybum no problem! I wasn't really posting about the separate finances thing here but it seems to be a talking point so good idea to make a new thread.

And he's not just someone else. He's my husband!

I hate all this I pay/he pays nonsense. So glad we only have a joint account.

We never argue about money either. In nearly 20 years, not once.
Why would you?

harshbuttrue - What planet are you on? Why should she have to "take him out" or he "take her out" fgs. Most married couples just pay for it out of "their" money. Then this kind of craziness never happens.

There are some reasons we don't have shared finances. It's a bit more complicated than the standard marriage.

We set things up the way we did because XH is terrible with money. He wouldn't get into debt, but would be skint 10 days before pay day.
So account each + joint meant all the bills paid, shopping done etc. I set the levels so we'd have a surplus to cover cinema, meals out etc, or we'd leave the surplus to build up if we needed to say, replace a bed.

g1terrati, presumably you think the OP is on another planet too then?? Or else why would she offer to stump up the £4 (which implies that he has to pay the £11 left over)?? If a couple want separate finances then that's up to them - but I don't get separate finances and then the woman still expects the man to pay. OP, rather than being stingy and offering £4, why not be a 2018 woman and offer half?? It sounds like you are of the view that "my money is my money, and his money is family money"

@harshbuttrue1980 I did offer half. Read my original post.

What are you talking about? The OP was clear that she was going to pay for her own.

I really hope you’re at the spa relaxing, OP. 🍸

He now thinks this is all my fault.

Simply couldn't be with someone who quibbled over £4 [shudders]

Separate finances here and it's worked for 18 years. I have no idea why this appears to be such an issue.

Show him this thread. This is all his fault.

a) He is an arsehole for quibbling over £4
b) He is an arsehole for preferring to eat shit food
c) He is an arsehole

Two reasons @Bluelady .

One, I couldn't eat lobster while the person I love, live with and share my life with eats bread and water. So we share.

Two, women are on average paid less and suffer the expenses of children more. When I met my DH he earned less than me, then the same, now more. I took more time with DD, which we both agreed. If he now had more spending money as a result, and thought it was fair, I'd divorce him.

Maybe we find it works as we both have roughly the same amount of money. And if we didn't the richer would pay for the poorer. No need to pool your money for that.

Just to say politely say something again I wasn't posting to ask advice on whether shared marital finances or non shared finances are better. But I think each couple should make the decision that works best for them. Posters clearly show that non shared and shared finances can work in a marriage.
But with that said it is an interesting point that posters have brought up. I am questioning it more now. I can't decide whether it would be better to carry on as we are or whether it would be better to share money. I can't help but think I will be worse off if we share as he would have more control over me then? For example, today if I had wanted to go for a roast alone then I could have. Could I have done that if we had shared finances, I'm not sure. He definitely would have had something to say about it.

"Could I have done that if we had shared finances, I'm not sure. He definitely would have had something to say about it."

I don't see why you couldn't have. OH and I have had a joint bank account since we got married over 36 years ago. We both have equal access to it. Why would your husband not let you use the bank account? You would have a debit card each. He can't stop you.

Well in your case you're screws either way. Because you're married to someone mean who doesn't care about your happiness

In our house we share but have an agreed, equal amount of pocket money that we spend how we wish. Beer and video games for DH, posh sunglasses and electronics for me! No arguments that way.

I know he couldn't stop me but it wouldn't stop him moaning about me spending 'his' money.
He is quite tight and controlling with money. I transfer half the money for bills, shopping and mortgage etc to him and he pays it. This means I can't even do the food shopping without him there because I've already given the money for it to him. He likes to shop in several supermarkets to get the cheapest price. Whereas I would probably go to one or two and it might cost a few pounds more. But I value my time in this case more than the money.