To think this is taking the p#$$

[Exertionforthemind]

Long story short.
Partner and I both own homes. She moved in to mine and leases hers.
I was the larger earner by far, but following birth of DD, took a lesser job to cut working hours and stress.
Now salaries are almost equal and with high child care costs, we just about get by.
Until now I have kept the child benefit money as I've always had responsibility for buying EVERYTHING DD related, with the exception of food shopping which is shared (mortgage and home running costs also split equally).
Now my partner has insisted that the CB is put towards childcare costs instead, which I am okay with, provided she splits the cost of all child related costs.
My AIBU is that until now I've never questioned the fact that she is collecting in excess if 100 monthly profit from her flat which she has kept for herself. Having questioned it when the child benefit conversation arose, I was told 'that's just how it is'. Where as I feel that if this income is generated by her living in what was originally my home, then this should be contributed toward the household.
Now, I'm not after anyones money, in fact I have always been stubbornly independent where money is concerned, but I feel I'm being taken for a bit of a ride here?.....Thoughts please.

I can't offer any advice I'm afraid. We've always pooled all money together and it's used as needed regardless of who's money it was to start with. For us it was simple, easy to manage and the most logical.

Where as I feel that if this income is generated by her living in what was originally my home, then this should be contributed toward the household.

Of course the money generated from the other house should be part of the family income. You're correct, she wouldn't have that extra income if she hadn't moved into your house. Her reasoning of that's just how it is doesn't make any sense.

She is indeed taking the piss. You should have the same disposable income to do with as you please. You keep the CB, she keeps the house money and you split every single joint cost including all child related ones down the middle. Alternatively you put CB towards childcare and she puts the house money towards it too and you then split all other costs. This ‘what yours is mine and what’s mine is mine’ attitude is embarrassing.

Thank you for the advice. That's what I thought and I'm angry at myself for having allowed it to go on. I think being the higher earner, I was sympathetic to the fact that I had more disposable income before.
I'd rather just pool everything and share costs equally.

Maybe she is taking the piss...however is she solely responsible for costs associated with her rented house? Making repairs etc? If so maybe it's fair that any income is kept to go towards that. If you would share the cost then I would say any profit should be shared.

The £100 she gets a month should be put towards DD related things now the CB will go towards childcare. If she objects then she’s a selfish nob.

£100 a month profit (before or after tax?) isn’t much when you have to save to cover maintenance and void periods. A whole year of profit could go in 2 months between tenants.

However, she should explain that, not just say “that’s how it is”.

It sounds like you moved in together well before your daughter was born?
And during this time, you had higher disposable income.
So are you sure you didn’t actually set up this expectation of “that’s just how it is” yourself?
Previously, you had more money - that was just how it was.
Now it’s her.

Did you pool money when you were the higher earner? I would keep the £100 separate for flat related expenses tbh.

Child benefit should go in the pot, and all shared (including child related) expenses out.

It sounds like you are being a little 'tit for tat' tbh, because she raised the child benefit point.

In what respect do you shoulder all the child related expenses?

This may be a daft question, but do you both have equal legal parental responsibility for DD?

Actually, you also say you have an almost equal salary. That’s not the same. And take home can vary from same salary anyway, according to things like pension payments.

How did you end up in the position of paying for all child related items? I’m guessing the child is biologically yours not hers? Is she committed as a parent?

You are actually gaining from her, financially. You’re splitting your mortgage 50/50. So you pay the same in - but you pocket equity gains.

I think being the higher earner, I was sympathetic to the fact that I had more disposable income before. so I'm assuming you didn't offer to share that with her? Seems a bit one-sided.

Agree that you should pool everything, pay for everything equally and have the same amount for spendies each.

Thanks for the comments I'm genuinely interested in views on this financially (not about my partner's commitment to us).
I hadn't thought in any depth about additional maintenance of the flat, as there haven't really been any issues with that so far, you may have somewhat of a point there and I agree, there probably is an element of tit for tat.
With regards to how I ended up paying for everything child related, I guess because she was with me all the time, I had mat leave etc I just started to pay for things as I was going to be the one attending classes with her, spending time in shops looking at clothes, toys etc. As I've always been very financially independent it never occurred to me to even ask for any input and she never seemed bothered, only about the CB (she does have 50/50 rights).
My take on it is that she benefitted from both me paying for things independently AND from the flat income for all this time, but now that we're financially equal (in terms of take home pay etc too) she is taking issue with having to make slight adjustments to her finances.
Taking onboard the comment about gaining financially from her paying half the mortgage, it's also worth mentioning that I've paid all costs involved in home improvements etc during the time she has been here...but surely it cant be the case that I've to pay all of these expenses individually forever because my name is on the deeds?
It's also worth stating....I still work full time, I've just stepped down to a less demanding role so I can avoid the extra hours I used to put in.

but surely it cant be the case that I've to pay all of these expenses individually forever because my name is on the deeds?

I think if your partner has no legal claim on the house then yes it should be the case.

Yes, if you're splitting the mortgage equally but she's not on the deeds, the £100 a month is essentially going towards her rent - i.e. she's spending it to live in your house and you are investing it in your name.

However once you start to question the status quo there are all sorts of things that you may find unequal financially. This is why people decide to pool resources and expenditure completely (and also why they get married).

I think being the higher earner, I was sympathetic to the fact that I had more disposable income before.

So did you share your higher income with her before, or not? Or were you quite happy with her living in your house paying half of your mortgage and bills on less money?

You knew she had £100 more per month but you had £80 CB so you thought that was fair (presumably you still earn more than her), but now she has asked for half of the CB you think she is being unfair. You should have shared equally in the first place, not kept your higher earnings whilst sharing all the mortgage and bills equally.

Again, genuine question....if I have to pay all home related expenses forever out of my earnings, whilst hers are covered by the extra rent she earns from her flat because she lives in mine, is that equity?

Also, a few have implied that being the higher earner previously I should perhaps have split my additional disposable income with her.......is that really the same as her keeping income she only has because she live in my house, to herself?

Yes Mookatron, unfortunately that's what I'm findin, but I wanted to have a balanced perspective before I go stamping my feet claiming that it's all unfair.

She pays you "rent" - half the mortgage and no financial benefit from it. Use that for your home related expenses just like any other landlord would.

Perhaps you ought to spreadsheet the entire relationship. To resolve who the financial imbalance really benefitted over the duration. The issue of buying for partners benefit - you didn’t do it for the childs benefit? Odd. You weren’t bothered about divine fairness when you were the higher gainer. By all means redress finances - but try not to delude yourself that it’s because you want to live in financial democracy! Whilst you are so bothered about equity and equality perhaps you ought to broach who would get what in the event of a relationship breakdown - just to keep everything super fairly balanced.

Tinty.....actually, I'd never given that any thought until she started implying that the CB wasn't being spent appropriately. Also, when applying for the CB I requested at that point that we set up a joint account for paying childcare etc and was shrugged off.
I'm angry and saddened by the whole thing.

Damn right she shouldn’t be paying for repairs or improvements l on your property!!!!
There’s a reason that doing so would give her the legal right to ask a court to consider if she has gained a beneficial interest.

You need to go away and think properly about what kind of financial partnership you want, now you have a child - and document it.

If she had not been paying half the mortgage you would have a point about the rental income. But she has been paying half the mortgage and you haven't put her on the deeds. So she's basically been giving you the extra income.

You can either make it completely fair by pooling all income inc her rent, putting both names on both sets of deeds, and paying all expenditure out of the pool. O you could by ensure that all expenditure is the same no matter what the income (I would argue that isn't fair though).

You have decided to live with this woman and your child as a joint household. The finances have to work accordingly. I can see why each of you might want to keep your own property from before you were a household just in case it goes tits up but otherwise the only thoroughly fair way to manage it is to pool resources.

Also, a few have implied that being the higher earner previously I should perhaps have split my additional disposable income with her.......is that really the same as her keeping income she only has because she lives in my house, to herself?

Well she pays half of your mortgage and bills now, so you can live in your house on a lesser salary, and work less, if she didn't live with you and pay half of all your (shared) expenses could you have gone down to lesser hours and worked less.

So yes it is the same, when you had more money you didn't share it, now she has more money and isn't sharing. It was ok when you had more wasn't it.

And bear in mind that her current legal status in your home is that of a lodger (i.e. almost not legal protection at all). Why would a lodger pay for your home improvements?!

It does rather sound like the chickens have come home to roost from your earlier decision to charge her half the house costs when you earned more. You set the scene for not having joint finances.

Demelza......thanks for your input, it's very helpful 🤣. However, I don't think I implied that I bought anything for my partners benefit and not my child at the end of the day, everything I do is for my child and I'm happy to pay for everything for her forever.....what I have taken issue with here is the questioning of how the child benefit is spent, meanwhile she hasn't ever gone and bought her so much as a pair of socks.

It's not really about the money at all.....it's the questioning of my intentions and the insinuation that I'm somehow pocketing the excess....whilst in reality I'm just about getting by.