AIBU with expecting 50/50 split of earnings?

[shesellsseashell]

DH and I have been chatting this morning, his job involves money so he likes to take a lead on finances, asks me to send him X amount each month to cover outgoings, and this goes into a joint account with a bit extra for food shops and petrol left in there for the month which we both have access to. We then both have our own fun money.

I didn't realise that DHs fun money is actually £300 more than mine each month until a conversation today. He loves to travel and is doing a travel Challenge visiting lots of places before he's 40 (not something I want to join in with with 2yo DS but happy for him to do it!). He said he should have more fun money as he is doing this travel thing, and also earns more than me.

Before DS we had similar earnings, and since DS I've dropped responsibility in my career and dropped a day each week to be at home and look after DS.

What do you think? Am I right to feel a bit 'meh' about this?

All these people with proportionate splits, do you have children or not?
Proportionate is fair if you don't have children, but as soon as you do, it doesn't make sense.

Yes we do and yes it does. We calculate how much we spend on child- and family-related stuff and contribute proportionally to that to our joint account in addition to the bills as I said upthread. DH pays a lot more proportionally than I do because he earns a lot more. We also pay a proportional amount into a joint savings for any extras.

I simply won’t spend any extra money that is his that I haven’t earned myself. I’m going to get flamed for this but my feeling is that feminism gave us the rights to earn as much as men ourselves, not stake a claim on their earnings. I absolutely agree that we have a way to go on opportunities but I will not ever agree to one big pot where we put all our earnings because I really feel he deserves the extra and want him to spend it how he wishes without my interference. Yes, I do more childcare and yes I cut my working hours to do that, but I still would have earned less than DH because he runs his own business and does it very well. I don’t have the training, skills or ability to do that - nothing to do with sex, it’s just not within my capabilities. I also prefer the pay cut in order to spend more time with the DCs, which he wouldn’t do (he’d be happy with paid childcare or asking his parents for more help) so there’s an element of my own choice in there rather than necessity. If the shoe was on the other foot, I wouldn’t want him dipping into my extra earnings either and having a say on how I choose to spend them.

FWIW, DH would be perfectly happy to have one big joint account and have me spend his money. It’s me that won’t do it. I’m not one for spending money on myself at all though, so that probably makes a big difference (haven’t bought myself clothes in years, don’t buy/wear make-up, perfume or jewellery etc) whereas DH makes crazy splurges on his flash-in-the-pan hobbies. No argument from me, cause it’s his money to do with as he pleases!

Well I think we have different approaches to feminism.
I don't think that people who earn more necessarily deserve it more.
It's just the way things work in our capitalist economy.
Child-rearing and even paid work in "caring" (therefore female-dominated) roles are undervalued and underpaid.
People (usually men) who earn more should share their earnings with the people (usually women) who enable them to earn more by doing all/most of the childcare, housework etc.
But then I also think that having children together means being a family and a team and pooling resources (financial and others).
I suppose I'm a socialist feminist and I don't like cold, selfish individualism.
Ultimately it leaves most women worse off and they end up martyrs and/or impoverished.

Some of the peoples relationships on here sound more like a work contract than a happy loving relationship..sounds like hard work to me🤣🤣

And me, the whole thread is bizarre - what on earth is 'fun money'? We just pay it into one pot and spend what we want (within reason obviously). I hold some savings in my name, sorted. Surely in a marriage your assets are joint anyway, why the need for an algorithm to work out monthly spends?

Just make sure before you get married you have similar life expectations and attitudes to money....

FWIW, DH would be perfectly happy to have one big joint account and have me spend his money. It’s me that won’t do it. I’m not one for spending money on myself at all though, so that probably makes a big difference (haven’t bought myself clothes in years, don’t buy/wear make-up, perfume or jewellery etc) whereas DH makes crazy splurges on his flash-in-the-pan hobbies. No argument from me, cause it’s his money to do with as he pleases!

I think your thinking is bizarre, if you divorce then it will all be half yours. Not spending is perfectly reasonable though and isn't a reason not to have access to it. We don't spend all our money either.

I've always earned more than DH. We put a set amount into the joint account for joint stuff and bills etc and the rest is "fun" money in our own accounts. I do have more than him but it's just how it works not because I should have it for my expensive shopping habit - that's a shocking attitude!

SSD
, in this day and age, are intelligent grown women still falling for this shit??

It beats the hell out of me. What some people put up with is beyond my comprehension.

I would tell your 'D'H you've decided to do own travel challenge and need to check his calendar to ensure his travel plans don't impact on yours as he will, of course, be fully responsible for your child while you're travelling.

Are you unreasonable to be meh at this? yes you are, you shouldn't be meh you should be fucking furious.

...if you divorce then it will all be half yours.

I would never claim half of his earnings in the event of divorce. Never. I would want enough to ensure our DCs’ quality of life is maintained. Because I’ve maintained my own income and stuck to my own spends and not his, I wouldn’t need financial input from him to maintain my own quality of life, which is exactly the reason why I insist on the financial set up we have.

I’ve had comments on similar threads that others find my set up bizarre but I would never have it any other way. We have exactly zero arguments about money and my firm belief is it’s because of the arrangement we have.

I have been thinking about why I feel riled here and realised that it is not only the OP's DH 's attitude that imo is wrong. It is also the idea that if you earn more you have more value. This is surely , really wrong; eg A high earning lawyer isn't more valuable to society than a teacher or a ceo of a small profitable company than a care worker. Divvying up the money in earnings proportion is making a judgement on the lower earners worth that makes me feel very uncomfortable .

Has OP been back to clarify? Despite my ‘bizarre’ arrangement, I definitely know how much more than me DH has to spend (so no ‘surprise’ £300 that I don’t know about), and I wouldn’t hold with ‘my hobby is dead expensive so that makes it OK for me to take more money out of the family pot’.

But I don’t think she’s ironed these queries out for us, has she? People have just assumed? Or have I misread something?

He is doing a travel Challenge visiting lots of places before he's 40 (not something I want to join in with with 2yo DS

But he has a 2yo DS too. Is he enjoying the travelling while looking after his 2yo then? Oh. Wait. When he travels, he leaves his child behind with the unpaid childcarer. Does he ask if you’re willing, first, or does he just assume? Whereas you feel that you don’t want to travel because who would look after ds? Who indeed.

Perhaps he isn’t happy that you’re doing more childcare, and, if you listed it, probably more housework and life admin than him. Perhaps he’d like you to work full time and he’ll do his fair share. Including looking after ds by himself while you go off and spend all those extra £300s you’ve accumulated. Spell it out to him and see what he says.

yikesanotherbooboo
Exactly! That's what I was trying to say in my posts.

I would never claim half of his earnings in the event of divorce. Never. I would want enough to ensure our DCs’ quality of life is maintained.

That's entirely up to you - if you want to give your ex husband a load of money. It doesn't change that it would be half yours though. You could still have joint finances but give him more in the event of a divorce if that is what you want

Amazing how many posters think leaving a child with their other parent is 'claiming free childcare'. Pull the other one.

You should be paying in proportionate to your earnings and have money left over proportionate to your earnings. I think staying home is a choice (I too work 4 days). I could work 5 days and make more if I wanted extra money. Actually, I've recently increased my % FTE but compressed hours, which means dh does more during the week as I work long days (he already does everything, cooking, school runs, family admin, etc. on 3 days a week anyway and then I do the other 2). He makes slightly more than me, but I think that's fine. He earns it, he should benefit from it, just like I do from upping my days. I will eventually with promotions probably earn more than him. But we don't pay in 50-50. We pay in based on the percentage we each earn relative to the other. I do have less after that, but I also get the benefit of a 4 day week and one day a week off with our youngest. Dh has never had any of that. So I think it's fair to not have the same fun money if you earn different amounts, but that doesn't mean he needs to be a bit of a idiot about it either.

Make up a nonsensical challenge for yourself and tell him that you need to do it before you are 40.

I second that you should pretend invoice him for childcare. In addition, sue for loss of earnings.

Exactly mindutopia. Glad to see I’m not that bizarre.

Tea I wouldn’t be ‘giving’ him a load of money. I just wouldn’t be taking what I don’t see as mine to take, whatever the law might say.

So if in the (presumably unlikely) event of a divorce, your children would have two entirely different living environments?

Just because you have full access to a joint account doesn't mean you have to spend equally Elphaba - it just saves all the micro maths each month. I mean I'm glad it's your choice to be the poor half of the partnership but there is something very self-flagellating about your arrangements.

Supposing your dh lost his job, or became unable to work? Or if you did? What would happen then?

No, Nanny0gg, not really. I’m still quite a high earner, despite earning less than DH and could easily go back to FT in the (yes, unlikely) event of a divorce. We’d have separate but decent living environments.

I want for nothing BarbariansMum - where’s the self-flagellation?

And if either of us lost our jobs, of course we’d support each other, but we’re also insured to the hilt (income protection as well as mortgage and life) to make sure our finances are maintained.

When did this become my thread?

And me, the whole thread is bizarre - what on earth is 'fun money'? We just pay it into one pot and spend what we want (within reason obviously).

I'm glad somebody else said that, and that it's not just me! We have separate pots but we juggle money between them. Neither of us have a set amount of 'spends' each month, we just pay for what we need/want after ... what's the word ... discussing it.

Tea I wouldn’t be ‘giving’ him a load of money. I just wouldn’t be taking what I don’t see as mine to take, whatever the law might say.

Well the law has a just trying to maintain fairness and y'know protect you in case you suffer ill health so can't work/ ensure that you have provision to support yourself in retirement.

You are an adult and can choose to do as you please.

But the law is right and 50% is absolutely fair in the vast majority of cases, yours included I suspect.

Just because you have full access to a joint account doesn't mean you have to spend equally

I agree with you Barbarian, it's a very very strange set up.

Tbh I don't actually believe anyone other than a man going through a divorce would even argue for this. You don't know what the future holds simple as.

So his argument is basically “I want to spend more than you”?

Remind him he owes you for childcare 1 day a week. And pension contributions due to reduced earnings. That should even things out nicely over a month...