Who is being unreasonable - joint finances

[namechange59295]

Namechanged for this but regular poster.

Please help me work out whether I am being unreasonable, or whether my husband is being unreasonable (I think he is, obviously!).

I'll try to make his as succinct as possible. Been with my DH for 8 years, married for 18 months, DS1 is 7.5 months. DH bought the house we live in when we had been together for 2 years, large cash deposit, small mortgage. I moved in and paid a reduced rent until the mortgage was cleared (approx. 3 years). I have then lived there for free ever since. The justification for this which we both agreed to was that I had to move around an hour from my friends, family and work to allow him to continue to run his business, which would obviously benefit us both in the future. His friends, family and hobbies are on his doorstep (literally, we can see his parents house and the rugby field from our windows!). I hate the town we live in, but we plan to move out of town in the next couple of years and as I have made lots of friends in the wider area I am happy with this prospect, although ultimately I would prefer to move back to where I grew up and where my family are.

So, mortgage is paid off and we both have significant savings, however he has about 3 times what I have. I believe his ability to save has been partly facilitated by me because by moving to his area I have allowed our relationship to continue and him to pursue his professional desires. Of course he has also saved very hard and worked very hard for that money. I have explained this part of our financial situation not to be goady, but I don't want to drip feed and I do think this is relevant to my AIBU.

Since moving in together we have paid into a joint account for food, bills, council tax etc etc. Basically everything that's needed to keep the house running. I have just stopped receiving maternity pay but have been paying in as normal until now. Agreement is that I will stay at home with DS1 because my commute to work means I would work for about £25 per day once we have paid for childcare. We have always been of the understanding that we would both prefer for me to be at home with the children for a certain amount of time whilst they are young and that was a large part of the reason we have settled in DH's area. All discussed and agreed years ago.

I do all of the housework, so cooking, cleaning, washing, ironing, food shopping, bins, recycling, night feeds etc. plus all those other little things like buying birthday presents, cards etc. He does bath and bed with DS 5 nights a week. He plays rugby twice a week and all day on a Saturday, with the occasional night out afterwards (not regular, say once every 2 months or so). He has a lie in at the weekend on both days while I get up with DS.

I have always said that I would prefer our savings to be held jointly, with a direct debit into an account for household stuff and then an equal allowance each for spending money. He has always said that he will just top up our existing joint account as needed. We are both relatively good with money so whilst I'm not really comfortable with this, in theory it should work as long as we are both reasonable.

With regards to our savings, we are both saving for a property investment, so in that sense our intentions for the savings are mutual. He obviously has a great deal more than I do at present, but my parents will be giving us a significant (approx £175k) sum to purchase said property when we find it so he will then benefit from my/their investment. Basically what I am trying to say is that we are on a fairly level playing field once all is taken into consideration.

Fast forward to today. We are looking after his parents dog for a few days while they are away. I took her for a run on the beach this morning and it was lovely down there so I bought a coffee in the cafe and sat outside for a bit longer. The coffee cost £1.50. DH has told me that I should take my own coffee in a flask because buying a coffee out is a waste of money. He says that if I was out for a walk with a friend and we went into the coffee shop that's fine because it's being sociable. I think that considering he disappears for 2 evenings a week plus most of Saturday week in week out (and there is a cost of say £20 a week for this) I should be allowed to buy a bloody coffee every now and then if I want one! I'm not one of these people who walks around with a costa permanently attached to my hand, I hardly ever buy drinks or food out. My social commitments are a buggy fitness group once or twice a week (£4 a time), baby sensory (£5 a week) and slimming world (£5 a week). I then go for a walk with a group of mums once a week and we have a coffee afterwards. This mornings coffee doesn't usually happen, it's only because I was down there with his parents dog and I just fancied a coffee because it was really nice there today. He is saying that if I had been with someone else it would have been fine because it's being sociable. I argued that if his hobby was cycling or running which he might do by himself I would still be happy for him to pursue it, it just so happens that he plays rugby and that is a team sport.

This next bit is the important bit.

He then said that he is spending his money when he does things, and I am spending our money. My argument is that all of the money is our money, including he money that my parents have promised me for the property purchase** whenever that happens.

I think this statement completely summarises his attitude towards me being a stay at home mum and whilst he is happy for me to do so, he is going to want me to account for every last penny I spend because as far as he is concerned, I am not the one who went out and earned it. I also think that this shows he does not value anything I do in the home and whilst I am happy to do it and appreciate that I am fortunate to be able to stay at home, I do not think that attitude is fair.

Well done if you are still reading - I am happy to be told I am unreasonable if I am and in which case I need to start grovelling after the argument we've just had. If I am not being unreasonable and he is being financially controlling, then I am just disappointed in myself for being so stupid as to think we were on the same wavelength.

Thank you.

If the property was repossessed the mortgage is discharged first, then the charge

A charge sees the parents as a creditor in essence if either bankruptcy, repossession or divorce occurs their cash injection is safe (if the equity covers it).

My parents probably will never get the money back but its an added legal protection

Oh and the mortgage itself is in effect a charge by the building society/bank

Can’t believe you let him get away with this. You lost me at the “he has a lie-in at the weekend in both days” point. I’d tell him, if he is EVER such a prick about you having a cup of coffee again, then you are going back to work, and he will need to give up his lie-ins and do his share of childcare/cooking/housework when he gets back home. I’d make it clear that IT IS NONE OF HIS BUSINESS if I had a cup of coffee and if he’s going to be such a controlling arse then the SAHM won’t work so WHATS IT TO BE? Seriously there are times to stamp on behaviour like this.

Before you agree to spending the 175, I’d say get the basics sorted. Every Sunday (if he is out playing rugby on Saturday) you get a lie in. Plus remember that one cup of coffee isn’t even as much as one pint of beer that he no doubts has after a rugby game. I think you need to write a list of things that need changing. Not just the finances. Maybe you should start having every Sunday off and make him agree to that. You lie in until midday and he does all the childcare, cooking, cleaning etc...if he won’t agree to that then you’ve got really big problems in equality in the basics of your relationship

He sounds like a total right arse.

Discuss going back to work early he can muck in with drop offs/pick ups and taking time off if DC ill etc etc.

You won’t be able to look after his parents dog he or they can either pay to take it to kennels, pay a dog sitter (which don’t come cheap) or pay a dog walker £10 an hour.

I certainly wouldn’t invest your parents proposed investment with this selfish right arsed man.

What's important is that the scales have fallen from your eyes, name.

You simply cannot become a SAHP with a person like this until there's been a lot of change, not just talk but real change. Even going PT would be a mistake right as he's the type who believes that your job is to do all the lifework/mental load, too. You'd be stuck running yourself ragged going to work and doing all the skivvying, too.

Wouldn't even bother discussing the £175k or new house because you already told him those were on hold and you were going back to work FT. Now walk the walk because that's the only thing he will listen to.

'I've got my work sorted for FT. So, I go back on X date. We need to discuss pick up and drop offs and sick days. Want to sit down on X night to do that?'

'We need to discuss the lifework - cleaning, chores, cooking - and who will be doing what. Does Sat. night sound good to work out how we'll split this?'

Don't enable him. He doesn't do what he's supposed to do and it doesn't get done.

@expatinscotland you're right, I'm trying not to worry about what's been and gone and start concentrating on what I can do now. I should have got this sorted before now, but I didn't and there we are. The very reason I didn't want to bother going back part time is because as you say, as far as DH is concerned part time = loads of time at home to do all of the housework, plus no need to have any proper free time because it's not like I work all week like he does and need any time for myself.

It is amazing to me how some people (usually men) think being at home with children = being on holiday or something. And yet they wouldn't query that being a nanny is a full time and important JOB. Yet when it's your own children, suddenly that's different.

I’ve only read your posts on this thread OP. I’m struck by two things:

1. your marriage sounds (from this thread, of course there’s more to it than this) like a transaction. It’s like you’re cutting cheques to each other, quarantining your and his assets, protecting yourselves. The marriage sounds like “you and me”, not “us”. That’s a huge mindset change, if that’s what you’re after. He’s not really in this with you, is he? You’ve moved to him and his parents and his friends and his rugby and his business with his father.....and what do you have? You’re resilient, you’ve made the best of a situation you chose, but he seems to take that as a given. If it’s that much of a given, why didn’t he move to you? Which leads me to the second point....

1. .....the reason he didn’t move to you is because it made sense to be where the family income would be coming from. Him. You would be at home with the DC, he would be working. He’s reneged on his side of the deal by his actions because he’s left you with no choice but to go back to work. This is the worst bit for me. Why did you both want you to be at home? Presumably for the DC’s benefit (on the basis that that is why most people give up work to SAH). So, clearly, your DH doesn’t believe in the benefit to his DC of you being home. He literally doesn’t see the value of it, because he ascribes no financial value to it and no nurturing value to it as he’s happy for you to go back. So why the hell did he separate you from everything to go live on his patch, exclusively? And who loses out the most in all this? Well, according to the SAHM-for-the-benefit-of-the-kids model, your DC does. Ok, he’s doing you over but you’re an adult and you can get yourself out of this mess. Worst, he’s doing his own DC over with his attitude. Unbelievably selfish and arrogant.

Sometimes I just don’t get this cultural gap (I’m from a slightly different culture), how parents raise their sons to be so utterly clueless about their own mothers’ contributions to their lives, so I concerned about the women who have and raise their children. Where do these men think they would be without the women in their lives??

Well we've made a little bit of progress. He has set up the joint savings account so his next pay cheque and dividends will go into our joint current and savings account respectively.

He has agreed to go to a solicitor and financial advisor with me to discuss how we deal with the ownership of this house. He accepts that it is not costly or time consuming to add me to the register but wants to be sure there are no tax (or other) implications we need to be wary of. I am almost sure that there aren't and this is probably a bit of bullshit from him, but he is prepared to have the meeting so we will take it from there. Hoping to have this meeting in the next couple of weeks when he knows what his work commitments are.

I will be having my own meeting with a solicitor as well.

As one previous poster said, Rome wasn't built in a day, we've got a long way to go but he has certainly had a very rude awakening!

This sounds like real progress OP. Onwards and upwards...

Well done.

Good progress. He seems to have a good accountant with tax arrangements as well.May need check new stamp duty arrangements for second property ownership, also capital gains tax liabilities if eventually selling.
PS Hope you got a lie in.

Sounds really positive. Tax implications to add you to the title for your current house is complete bullshit. But you will have to pay 3% stamp duty on the whole of your next purchase as it will be a second property. Don't let him talk you round, I bet he'll say put the next one in your name only to avoid that. Say no. Your security is worth a few grand extra.

Progress op! And re the second home thing, I’d say if anything happened to him having you on the deeds rather than having to go through probate is worth multiples of a 3% charge.

I still don't like how he is finding excuses.....tax implications for the house? Bollocks to that. And yet the existing savings he has would be more tax efficient to share......

Be wary op, I'm glad you are seeing your own solicitor.

Just don't let him name the solicitor

You are doing a great job name!
I think you may find joint savings and house has better tax implications than when in the sole name of a higher tax payer because your tax allowance is taken in to account. As a couple your joint earnings could bring you jointly into standard tax liability - your financial advisor will be able to explain what I mean better.

If you do go back to being employed think carefully about who pays what for childcare, cleaning, and joint bills. To make it truly fair the split should not be 50 /50. It should be in proportion to your earnings. For example in simple figures for ease😀 If the expenses come to £1000 a month you earn £1000 a month and he earns £2000 a month and split 50/50. You are paying half your full wage- he is only paying 25%. So you do the split so you both pay the same percentage (about 30%) OR you put everything you each earn into a joint account, take out a set identical amount each into a personal account for personal spending and the rest into joint savings.
You may be earning less but you gave up the chance of promotion and development for the marriage and your contribution is equal so you need equal treatment.

@Riv yes I understand exactly what you mean. When he used the excuse of tax on interest I pointed out that surely we could relieve some of that by sharing the savings.

@Bluelady we've already discussed the higher rate of SDLT issue with a mortgage broker. I suggested we sell this house which would then mean we buy the next house at the lower rate of SDLT on the expensive house, then buy another house as an investment to let out and pay the higher rate on that house. Even after fees we would be better off.

Oh dear.....he forgot that he wasnt dealing with an idiot didnt he?! :o

Your comments show that you have just as much (if not more in fact) understanding of tax implications. So his "Whats your is ours, whats mine's my own........because......TAX!" logic simply doesnt add up. I am glad your parents have your back, funny how you cant touch his savings but he is happy to spend your parents money

A phrase I have used to my DH over an issue was "I am not as supid as you would like me to be".

"I am not as supid as you would like me to be"

he earns less than me but he has been able to become a director of his own business in that time

He has been able to do this because you are keeping house and caring for the baby. If he took full responsibility for the household, he would not have the time or freedom to work his way up like that.

He sounds like a tremendous arsehole.

I’ve read the full thread op.
I Hope it all works out for you, you sound lovely.
Your DH sounds absolutely awful. I couldn’t live with that because sooner or later coffeeman will come out in some other way.

Coffeeman! henceforth situation known as Coffeegate!

@Fishface77 and @ohamIreally - I did like coffeeman

DH often 'gates' situations so would be delighted to know last Friday will now be known as coffeegate. We won't tell him though, we don't want to give him the satisfaction!