AIBU to think we should split things 50/50

[coolestmum]

I have been in a relationship now for some time and we are thinking of moving in together. Because I have children we are going to have to rent/buy a bigger house than we would if no children were involved. (He has no children, so currently has a small affordable home).
I was assuming that as we were basically becoming partners that we would just split things 50/50 in terms of rent/mortgage, bills, food and then spend out on things that come up as and when. He has alot of hobbies which cost money, for example, I have none.
But he is giving the impression that because of the children, he is not expecting to pay 50%, but less than that as they are not his children. I do totally get this, and do not want him to be burdoned with paying for them, but on the other hand he wants to live with me and I happen to come with dependant children.
The other issue is I receive money off my council tax, some housing benefit and tax credits because my wage is not very high. He earns around 3 times what I do. This benefit and tax credits keeps us afloat and when we live together I will lose that as his income will be taken into account, quite rightly.
I think this means that although he'll be contributing towards our family, by living together if he is not going into this 50/50 i'll be way worse off as I'll be losing the current help I have which is essential for us to pay bills. I am currently undergoing training through work which means that in a couple of years I will earn significantly more, but that is a couple of years away and I can't count on it until it actually happens, if you see what I mean.
Does anyone have any suggestions as to what I can do, or has been in this situation and what worked for them? Or what is actually fair in this type of scenario?
I don't want him to be financially responsible for my children, but on the other hand by becoming a family and living together I feel he should contribute accordingly instead of continuing to think he can fund his life like a single person would. Their father pays nothing at all.

It isn’t like he is only going to use 25% of a bigger house either. It will have a bigger garden, bigger kitchen, maybe a garage

I think you’re being a CF expecting him to pay for your kids when their own father doesn’t. Chase the father for his share. I certainly wouldn’t take on the financial burden of someone else’s children. If I wanted that responsibility I’d have my own.

Think your just going to have to explain exactly what you lose if you move in together. Tx credits + Council tax discount..... He may not understand that but if you sit down with figures for future rent, bills etc and see if you can compromise.

If he's not willing to compromise and would be happy for you to be financially worse off then don't do it.... Id also be relooking the relationship as a whole.

People are making a very big leap by assuming if he doesn't want to take the bulk of the financial responsibility for her kids, he obviously doesn't see them as family or want to be in their lives.

On almost every thread about step parenting you will see people saying things like being a step parent does not make you an actual parent - he must never allow them to refer to him as dad, he must give them constant 1:1 time with their mum and get out of the way, he must never interfere or offer an opinion on how to raise them. In all these regards, step parents are supposed to see themselves as something positive but less than a parent in the child's life, why does that distinction conveniently go away when it comes to paying for them?

I think how that dynamic works in their family makes a big difference tbh - does she see him as "dad" to her kids and value his input and opinion on house rules etc equally to her own? Or does she go by the old mantra that she is the parent and he needs to step back and let her be in charge? If it's the latter, then I think that should also apply to paying for them.

As a side note, I notice a lot of the commenters here are people in OPs shoes and not her partner's, and I'm very curious to know how many of you would genuinely be saying "I'm seriously reconsidering even being in a relationship with such a tight arse, you should be grateful to pay for my little treasures!" I have to say I do wonder how any of you ever find partner's with such a demanding and entitled attitude to anyone who comes into contact with your kids.

Do you all remember the thread where a woman’s partner lost his job and expected her to cover the kids maintenance and people told her to sack him off because he was a cocklodger

It isn’t like he is only going to use 25% of a bigger house either. It will have a bigger garden, bigger kitchen, maybe a garage

Are you having a laugh? With three kids he's not likely to have 25% of the space to himself!

I am not on OP’s side or the guy either. I don’t have a partner and partly because it’s such a complex minefield

I wouldn’t do it because it sounds like a nightmare, no one on this thread can even agree what is right or wrong.

What is wrong is your kids suffering through you losing money.

A perspective from someone who doesn't have children here.
Were I to enter into a relationship with someone with children I would accept that they come as a package, and should the relationship progress to living together that includes a financial as well as emotional package. Of course I would ensure that the financial needs of the whole family are covered, because that's what we would be, a family.
If I were not prepared to compromise in this way then I would not enter into a relationship with someone who had dependent children.

@Goodlookingcreature Do you all remember the thread where a woman’s partner lost his job and expected her to cover the kids maintenance and people told her to sack him off because he was a cocklodger

Did it occur to you that different people might be replying? Also I recall one thread where the "D"P gave up his job willingly and wasn't looking for work, almost immediately after she moved in, which if true is a very different situation to unexpected job loss. Either way the kids still need a roof over their heads, clothes, food, hot water etc, you're a family where that matters to you and should not get involved at all with someone who has children if it doesn't.

I have been thinking about this in terms of myself

It is really hard to do this without the actual amounts to show where she loses and he gains but I will try. Also basing it on where I live in the SE of England

Say OP earns £15k and takes home £1000pm, then gets £1000 in benefits totalling £2k and that is what it costs pretty much to run her house and family she is left with nothing over.

DP earns £45k and takes home about £3000pm, a single man in a house with a mortgage I could only estimate his outgoings at about £1500pm

OP has no deposit? And low income So don’t know how they would buy a house

So they rent a house for £1500pm and DP rents out his owned properly, covering his mortgage and keeping his investment safe.

So the total outgoings with rent is approx £2500 pm for all 5 of them, with rent and bills

His contribution to the rent and bills is not 50%. He wants to pay 25%. So he gives OP £650 odd per month for his contribution

OP loses £1000pm in benefits and earns £1000pm
She cannot physically make up the shortfall of £1850 per month

To compensate her benefits, he would need to pay £1650 towards the house and bills which is more than 50%. She would still have virtually nothing left after contributing as she no longer has the benefits.

He may possibly be slightly worse off, but it is similar to what he was already paying for himself. He still gets £1500 or so to himself per month. OP has no spare money after bills

This is why it won’t work
Not because he is horrible
But you do not have enough to bring into the RS to make it equal at all, and you will resent each other. Whether it is right or wrong for him to pay less than 50% it just isn’t physically possible. And if he compensates you for your loss in benefits this is the same thing - he’s still going to be paying more than you do

I do indeed @Goodlookingcreature
This one is double standards.
You can see from my post that I don't agree.

Maybe people shouldn’t have children they cannot support without taxpayers assistance? Time to pony up and ask the man who dipped his wick to put his hand in his pocket and pay for his offspring, instead of holding another man responsible for children neither of their parents can support

The dc father does not pay maintenance because he is off work long term sick and has no money
Does he get benefits?
How does he live?
How does he eat?

@Goodlookingcreature - as the mum is already paying her way and doing the vast majority of childcare, perhaps you could save your "not with my tax contribution" ire for the feckless ex. Criticising the women who are actually looking after their DC while the father drifts off doing nothing seems, well, petty.

Don't move in with this man. It's not far to start living with someone who would see your children have a worse quality of life to enable him to preserve his own. This is a real sign of his character, and it's not good.

Completely agree with @Goodlookingcreature
@MRex But the mother isn't paying her way entirely in this situation, the tax payer is topping her up substantially

I have DC to former marriage and have since remarried and had another child. I'm fortunate that DH and I earn a similar amount and are on the same page with finances. We split the mortgage, utilities and council tax in half, pay for our own cars, own phone bills and both do the food shop alternate weeks. When it comes to the DC, I pay for the majority of their things and I wouldn't expect him to however if I ever fall short, he would never deny me help.

When you move in together, you become a team imo. It sounds as though he is unwilling to do that and wants everything on his terms. I wouldn't consider moving in with him, you will suffer financially and it isn't worth it.

Also contact CMS, your DC have a legal right to maintenance.

@fatfluffycushion - what evidence do you have that over half the mum's income comes from the taxpayer? If it were over half then I think she would have said so quite clearly, she suggested a small loss so it isn't half. That means she's paying her state of looking after the children. The father of the children is paying nothing, it's his share that the taxpayers are topping up. See what I mean?

*her share not her state

You don’t know it’s half, but without the figures it’s really hard to know. I based my speculation on a generalised amount - when I earned £1000pm some years back, I got about £200pw for 2 children in tax credits. There was a point where I was pretty much managing on 50/50

I’ve now got to a point where I get about 10% help from the government

That's great @PookieDo, well done.

If your buying a house, surely he wants to own half so he has to pay half?!

You come with your kids. If he's in it for the long run he should see you as a complete package.

If your buying a house, surely he wants to own half so he has to pay half?!

That's a good point actually but maybe he's talking about expenses food, bills etc. He surely can't expect to be on the mortgage as a 50/50 partner but actually pay less than 50% of the mortgage payment

I did entitled to calculator on a take home pay of 25 hours a week on minimum wage of £8.21, with 3 children, no maintenance, no childcare and rent of £800pm (where I live this would be low rent on a flat but not impossible to find)

It came out at obviously child benefit £48 per week

Then £392 per week universal credit which includes tax credits and housing allowance

If the rent was lower at say £500pm in the north this would still be £323 per month with universal credit and a lower LHA

Oh lovely, it's turned to a benefit bashing thread.