To not contribute more money?

[moneyistheroot]

DP and I have just had a disagreement over money.
We are engaged to be married, no kids.
We are in the process of buying our very long term home. We already own together.

I'm 25 and currently earn £60k in finance. It's gruelling, stressful and has long hours. I'll be on £100k+ by 30.

DP is a teacher on £40k and is 30. He will struggle to match my income.

Our lives are lived similarly, DP does extra tuition which makes our net pay similar. We live as to what the lowest earner could afford. For the majority of the relationship I was the low earner (studying). He never paid for more, we always split equally.

He has just said he expects me to contribute more to our household financially when I begin to earn significantly more. I disagree. When we have kids it would be joint but I wouldn't work my hours now and would take a pay cut, so likely to be equal.

I don't think I should sacrifice the extra money pre-children when I don't have as much pension contribution and I'd like to buy nice things for myself etc.

So who is BU?

I can’t imagine going into a partnership with someone where we jointly invest in property and intend to have children together where finance aren’t equally shared. So I think you might be being a bit U, though I think your investment in a pension and on bringing yourself up to his level on other things and an agreement on savings for the future should come long before you start freeing up more spending money for anyone.

But even if you came round to my way of thinking on that (and it is only one way to look at it) I think you should seriously reconsider marrying this guy because you seem to have incompatible approaches to money and it is likely to drive you a bit insane. Marrying a spender when you’re a saver is not a recipe for a happy marriage nor for a fair financial future.

If you marry, whether you put more to the bills and free up money for you both to do as you please with or you keep to 50:50 and put more into savings, if you get to the stage of divorce he will get half of your savings even if he’s had the same amount of money to fritter away on himself through your marriage. And being with a spender who is reluctant to see salaries drop when you have kids does not sound like someone who is going to be prepared to sacrifice his spending to ensure his children get fairly treated. From his perspective you may seem too preoccupied with he future you don’t enjoy the here and now.

TalK with a relationship counselor who specializes in finance. See if you can find a compromise you’re both happy with. He may not really have appreciated how much planning you’re putting into having children - men tend to be really ignorant about the impact of children on women’s careers - or have realised how much your different upbringings might affect the way you use and see money. But even if you come to a compromise you like consider not actually marrying and keeping your assets under your own name. Marriage is good protection for a partner who gives up financial power to their partner to focus on children, but it sounds like you’re going to be both the one focused on children and the higher earner (even if you go part time for some years from 100k+ you may well still be the higher earner for the majority of the time).

DH and I chuck it all in the same pot. We have a very similar attitude to money.

When we first got together, I owned my own property and earnt significantly more. I have also inherited money and will potentially inherit some more in the future. DH literally came to the relationship with nothing but now earns significantly more than me and has the potential to earn more in the long term. He is not going to inherit anything.

Use some of your extra cash to get an AVC/boost your pension so that you will be on equal footing when you retire. Then see if there's still an imbalance and decide what to do about it.

If it was a man, most would be outraged at the thought of the man earning more but expecting the woman to contribute to an equal degree that then left him with much more disposable income.

The same rule would apply here IF it wasn't for the fact when you earned less he still expected you to contribute equally, so on that note I would be slightly aghast at having to forego disposal income to pay more of his share knowing full well he hadn't done the same.

I suppose you have to decide what is most important though going forward, making a point or making a stable foundation.

I've not rt whole ft yet but it stands out to me that you are planning to use your savings to finance being at home with the children. I think this should be a shared cost during maternity leave at least. Obviously if you wanted to sah long term against his will, then you ought to use savings to finance it. But mat leave is a joint expense since you are recovering from the birth of your shared children and looking after them when they are tiny.

Personally I don't consider his income of 40k+ to be low and so I'm not sure why he can't be meeting his 50% of bills, irrespective of what you earn. I think you need to get your pension to a position where you match his and also have similar savings to his before you even think about sharing your earnings.
Personally I think he's a cheeky fucker and I wouldn't be marrying him.

YANBU. He didn’t contribute more when he was earning more, why should he expect it of you?

Maybe this changes when you have kids, but you can discuss when you get there ..
Saw a pp say it was weird that you could be on 60k at 25. This is completely plausible as first year graduates in my firm were on 55k a year ( and this is from 4 years back, could be even more now!!)

I'm a woman. I have 3 children. I havnt given up my income or my success.

Why would you?

If he doesn't want you be a SAHM is he proposing he does because he earns less?
You need to build up your pension and savings and I would seriously think about whether you really want /need to be married.

I would never pay proportionately more than my partner if we were on those pay rates! You both earn a lot of money so just live within the lower earners means and split half. If you want to live within higher means, eg bigger house new car extravagant holiday, then it is fair to expect you to sub the rest.
Obviously if something like having children came up and one partners income was nothing and the other one bringing home the bacon then obviously the earner would have to pay more. But for now whilst you are both on decent salaries there doesn’t seem a need for you to pay for your partners side of things, their salary looks like they can more than afford it them self.

Up until 22, I don't think you can count because you were paying that anyway and you'd made that kind arrangement with him.
After that, he's only ever earning between £5-8k more than you - splitting 50/50 (although shouldn't have been done) was marginal. You'll be earning potentially £60k more than him in 5 years...that's a HUGE difference! Either, he's going to hold you back because you'll always spend less so he can still split 50/50 - in which case you'll end up resenting him. Or he'll end up resenting you for having a load more money! Doomed...

YABU. DH and I have always shared everything.

Your relationship is established now and I don't think it's sensible to compare what happened in the early days, when you were just getting to know each other, with what should happen now. You would not expect someone on the first few dates to split their income with you but many people do expect that of their spouse. I'd not want to be in a relationship where we were not a genuine partnership, finances and all. I earn twice as much as my OH. We pool our finances. I don't see the extra as 'my' money.

And agree with don't pay down the mortgage.If you split pre marriage or aster a short marriage he wouldn't get your savings but if he is joint on the mortgage with get 50% no matter who paid theost.
I think you need to really think this through.He may be honest but he sounds dodgy and has worked this out.
Personally I wouldn't get married in your situation.

Sorry, also meant to say, you have a really large income. You can still have nice things even if you join your finances more.

Are you married OP? Sorry if you've already said.

I would normally have said you're unreasonable. As I think in a relationship it's a bit shit if one party has lots of cash and can enjoy a significantly better lifestyle than the other. But in your case you're not actually wanting a better lifestyle - you want to save for the future. Ans he earns reasonable money anyway so it's not like you'll be dining out every night while he eats value beans on toast again.

If you're not married could you not put extra into the house with a legal agreement that you get it back if you split or is that not enforceable? I guess the reality is that if you are married and you split then he would get some anyway. Or if you dont split and put it into your pension then he will benefit when you can both retire early.

I think it's a bit rich that you always went half for everything no matter what the earnings and now he wants to have a say in what you do with your extra half. Without knowing the details though it's hard to know if hes being a money grabbing hypocrite or you've just both reached a level in lifestyle vs earnings where this is the first time as a couple you've actually had a decent amount of spare money and because you've got a house together he thinks its reasonable you make financial decisions together.

Is there a compromise to be made? Eg you both have the same amount of spending money per month which may mean him cutting down and you put some extra in the house and some in your pension?

The one thing I didnt really like in your posts was the 'I work bloody hard for it's...kind of implies he doesn't. My husband works harder than me and earns more...but I hand on heart work to the fullest of my mental and physical ability and doing any more would make me ill, and if he said he should have more say over what we do with our money because he works harder than me, I'd be quite upset, as I contribute more than him in other ways (things like organising holidays, social stuff with our friends etc that just wouldn't happen if I didn't) and it would imply that these things dont have a 'value'. So I'd maybe concentrate on where you see the best investment for your money, the fact you've got very different spending habits, and the fact you've always paid equally and had separate finances, when you discuss it, rather than turn it into a 'who works harder' argument. I'd have thought a teaching job these days would be very stressful.

Also (sorry I know you didnt ask for this advice), base your plans on what's best over a few different scenarios rather than thinking you're definitely going to have kids in 5 years and drop hours. You may well do. You may equally find you cant face leaving your baby with strangers or have a baby with special needs etc and need to stay at home, and then you may wish finances had been shared more (or you'd saved more). You may find being at home with kids more tedious than you've ever imagined, and be offered an amazing job on full time hours only and decide to take it and your husband drop his hours. I wouldn't make financial decisions without considering these alternatives. I know people with great careers who didnt give a shit about them after having a baby and a friend who quit work to raise her kids only to last 8 months at home before she realised she hated it and went back full time.

See I would completely disagree with you if he funded you during your student years. But he didn’t and in fact benefitted from you by paying down his debts.

My DH paid for damn near everything whilst I was in the later years of studying. Poor guy slogged his guts out for us. Now I am a high earner and he is a SAHD, we split everything because its part of the give and flow of our history.

I would be cautious about increasing (his) share of the equity when to be frank you guys don‘t seem to be heavily invested in each other.

You both sound a bit unreasonable tbh. If you feel bitter about the prior split you should have spoken up. Equally as the higher earner, he should have volunteered to pay his way before.

That said, if you start out looking backwards you'll get nowhere. You need a common consensus on financial priorities ad what is fair well before adding kids / part time working to the mix. First I'd sort the pension discrepancy, then decide on the appropriate balance.

So he has told you that you will have to earn for ever, and can't be a stay at home mum due to your earning more.
The person who wins if you marry is him.
He will have holidays with any babies, while you will always work.

Has anyone suggested a prenup? I don't know how it works re property and if he gave up his career to be a sahf then that would change things, But potentially, you could have an agreement that while you're childless, any excess paid on the mortgage by you is reflected in the division of assets if you do split.

It's not romantic or lovely, but it might solve the problem - paying off the mortgage quicker does make financial sense if you can do it, but I do understand your hesitency to do that under the circumstances.

Or, just have a joint everything, chuck it all in together and don't worry about it. He sounds like a decent bloke.

If you were the lower earner when you met why would he be expected to pay for everything for a new girlfriend? Now you are engaged you're a committed couple so things are different. YABU

I agree with this

See I'm a joint pot person it all goes in bills get paid, savings, spending money and treats all come out of the pot. That's what I would want and it would account for good times and bad for each individual in the couple.

Your case is slightly difficult I think op, he wasn't happy to pay more when you weren't earning and this makes it tricky. If it was just you weren't as established and he didn't feel mixing money was a good idea I can see that but I would want to know the following before I made a decision. And think you should have if you have already about the following issues.

What is his plan when you drop to say basic mat pay? Or part time hours that leave you earning less than him? Will he pay more than you? If his pension is going to be bigger than yours is he planning on contributing more during your retirement? If the answer is yes as a married couple he is happy with the higher earner always contributing more? He will possibly be the higher earner for more of the relationship than you, from what you have said. If his answer is no that it's only while there is such a large gap then I would say no! Basically going forward whatever is decided has to be fair what's good for you now is the same for him in the future.

What about telling him you will pay based on income.
You earn 100k he earns 50k.
So you pay 66% he pays 34%
But on the understanding if your income goes down due to staying home with baby, he has to return the favour and he might be paying 75% to your 25%,
That any savings you have will not be counted as it will already have been counted in the years before.

Definitely not you. Can't believe he's got the cheek to ask you to contribute more, why doesn't he try and match your salary first and then make such suggestions. Sorry but the person earning less in a household does not get to dictate like that.

This situation is off.

How long had you been together when DP was supporting you through your studies?
Was it a new relationship?
I don't blame him for a 50/50 split if it was, it would be silly to pool (mostly his) money with everything being fresh.

Now you're in a different place. The relationship is stable (?) and you're engaged. It makes sense now to pool your cash and split it.
You're in a partnership.

I can't understand the concept of being married to someone and not pooling the entirety of your joint earnings.
One partner having a large amount of disposable income and the other having a lesser amount just seems wrong.

You're saying your DP doesn't work as hard as you do but if, as you say, he's a teacher and a private tutor (with the tutoring boosting his earnings a significant amount) then I'm pretty sure you're seeing things in a different light to what's really happening. He must be spending a huge amount of time per week at work.

I think you're being unreasonable.

I would suggest this is about something far deeper than who pays for what or who earns what. It is more about commitment and partnership and a sense of equality in a relationship that is not based on what each earns but more on what each brings to the relationship overall. My DH and I have seesawed between who has most money - though he has mostly earned more that I on a regular basis - but we are complete partnership and when I was left money he got to say how it was spent and much as I was when he had. What happened before bears little importance if at that point you were just living together but had no serous plans for the future and if you are in a tit for tat kind of attitude - either of you - that does not bode well for your longer term future. You both need to sit down ad talk about how you view equality within your relationship - equality is not only about money but that can be the catalyst for the inequalities to show in other aspects. Sharing what you have can be an amazing experience in trust and generosity. I would give my husband everything i have if he needed it for a god reason and he the same for me because we are both utterly committed to the greater good of our relationship and each other- buying ourselves nice things would not come into it, neither would he did this so i must have that kind of approaches- sit down and decide what equality and commitment mean to you both, what money represents in your relations i.e a shared resource or a possessive individual thing. You have a real chance here to create something quite deep and special or you can get caught up in the surface details and that does not bode well for the very long term.