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?

@Pukeworthy no he retrained, got a junior job for less than his existing wage, then they gave him a proper BA job at about £39k, then he moved to a consultancy for a few grand more where he was promoted onto 60k...all within a 24 month period. We live with easy access to London and he had peers fresh out of Uni at the consultancy on the same pay. I’m not saying it’s available to all but responding to those dubious at feasibility of OP on that so young!

I went to a top 5 uni and one peer of mine bagged a 80k job fresh out of uni. Others are either lecturing or slogging away in the STEM industry for a small fraction. Banking and finance simply pay better.

@showmewhatyougot but marriage and kids aren't involved yet. They're only engaged. They have been paying 50/50 for the majority of the relationship and he has only just asked her to pay more now she's out-earning him.
It's reasonable, once they do get hitched and have kids, to reassess the situation, but at this point I don't think she should pay more. She works longer hours and has a much smaller pension than him. And she'll certainly be taking a big hit to her salary when she has a baby.

Not sure you should get married if you are already disagreeing over finances. When I worked full time I out earned dh. We had an agreement that I would contribute to groceries but otherwise save the majority of my pay and he would cover everything else so we could save for a deposit. Now I work part time and cover bills and anything the kids need. Dh pays for the car, mortgage, groceries and childcare as he works full time and earns much more than me. Any savings I build up tend to go towards doing up our house or fun things with the kids. Finances don't need to be 50:50 when you are committed partners ours is more based on earnings but you need to have an agreement that works for you both.

I earned a lot more than DH but then decided that I wanted to be a SAHMum to my long awaited baby. Roll on the years and DH now earns the lions share. We have always regarded our income as a joint pot because we are a team.

I totally see your point of view and nice things for yourself will change when you have kids and work less hours. I do not think both of you are ready for a partnership or family which is unfair because you have to share.

Share when you get married. Both parties then have some degree of protection in event of a divorce (not complete protection but more than just living together).

I think yanbu. I earn 16k and OH earns 30k, so twice what I do. However all bills and mortgage are split 50/50. Why should he pay more and subsidise me? He works hard and that's his money to do as he pleases with. I don't agree at all that the higher earned should be "penalised" for their success.

Not unreasonable, but probably a bit of a deal breaker. If he didn't contribute more when you were the lower earned, he has no real leg to stand on now expecting you to contribute more

I vehemently disagree with anyone stating the double standard argument. They are ultimately forgetting the glass ceiling women are still trying to get through, the extra work being a woman in a male dominated work place ensues and that most of this will be given up the moment I have children because I will take on the responsibility, as a woman. That's standard.

It absolutely matters in this case. Glass ceiling works if we are talking about large scale trends. People are advising based on two people and their relationships.

1. When you met you were a full time student AND he was paying rent in a house share for his own property. But you're choosing to present this as him somehow living off your loans.

It's totally unreasonable to expect a new relationship, especially one when one is a full time student to mean financially subsidising the other.

1. Things change when relationships become serious and couples start looking at making long term commitments. That's reasonable.

1. There's thread after thread on here where posters are told to leave financially controlling men because their DP thinks they should be paying 50/50 when their DP earns 3 times more.

What you're trying to do is argue is:
Because he didn't subsidise me through university when we first started dating, i don't see why I should should have a fair allocation of finances in our relationship 5 years later when we are discussing marriage and kids.

You don't sound financially compatible at all.

You are not at all compatible. You can't discuss this with him in a positive way that is leading to resolution. He's a spender, you're a saver. Your posts basically scream that you don't trust him with "your" money. You resent his comfortable background and the fact he has wealthy parents to fall back on.

Are you ready to be in a relationship? When I was your age and earning your salary I really enjoyed being single and having full autonomy over my money. I made money from investments but bought lots of "nice things", much of which I still have and appreciate today when all my money is swallowed up in school fees and family expenses.

Don't have children until you sort this out. Even go to counselling if you need to.

Why don't you make your pension contributions higher instead of buying nice things for yourself?

Tbh you sound like you have issues over money. It is not the be all and end all of life. Making into SUCH a big deal (relationship breaker really) is giving it more credit than it's due. Working together, supporting one another, being kind etc. are much more important and all those things are lacking from your OP.

Why don't you make your pension contributions higher instead of buying nice things for yourself?

Presumably because she wants to have some fun with her money and "have nice things".

The problem is, if you're going to consider your money your own and there's a huge disparity in wages in a relationship, then one of you can live a very different lifestyle to the other. And that's just not going to work. She'll be a able to afford to do lots of things, like travel etc, and trying to keep up would skint him or put him into debt. And it's not love to watch your partner struggle while you're alright Jack. It seems like OP needs a partner with a matching wage or change the way she views their finances.

YABU and very selfish. There’s no way a man would be told to keep the money and spend it on himself. No fucking way. Mumsnet is getting worse.

They would if they had always been 50/50, even when the now higher earner earned less. Why has he changed his mind?

OP in honesty I would maybe look for someone who earns similar if it's important to you. I understand as I grew up with nothing and now earn a fair bit, and I am still frugal and like to save where I can. My ex quit his job once we started sharing finances to get a lower paid lower stress job as he knew I would finance him, and I did resent him for it, rightly or wrongly. Now me and my DH earnt similar, so we pay half, put the same amount into savings and then keep equal amounts to do as we please with. I save a lot of mine for my car etc, and he tends to spend all of his, which is fine as each way is our own choice. Before maternity I earnt more, and we still split it evenly as I saved every month solely for some extra finance over mat leave, which benefited us both. When I go back we will be on similar again as it works for us.

@FOJeremy so why was he happy to freeload when OP was a student on barely anything and he was earning a wage? It seems his attitude depends on what suits him, if he was the higher earner I doubt he would be as keen.

I really dont understand why engaged/married couples have this issue. Surely ALL money earnt goes into one pot for bills then an equal amount is transferred each for spends and a certain amount is put into a savings account?

Marriage means you're a team you share what you earn regardless of income.

A lot of pp's are missing the point.
OP doesn't want to overpay on the mortgage her DP thinks that's what she should do with her excess salary.
As long as they are both paying their joint bills in an agreed way, which they are then I agree with OP .
Imo OP put part of your excess money in an investment and then eventually use it either so you can stay home with children, if that's what you want or to increase you pension pot.

You sound like you have very different views on money. I think in these circumstances if I wanted a long term relationship with someone but to keep finances so separate, I might stick with cohabiting rather than get married.

YABU, you're trying to compare your financial arrangements early in your relationship with finances when married. Different situations.

I'm the higher earner and we share everything but split 50:50 when first going out.

Why can't you have either all wages paid into the same account and you both transfer the same amount out each month into your own account, say £1000 each so you both have 'fun' money. and the money left in the joint account pays the bills, holidays etc. You wouldn't feel like you are paying more to the bills etc and he may not feel you're being 'unfair'.
Since my DH and I moved in together after a year, we put everything into a joint account and paid from that for bills etc. I've been a SAHM for 5 years so living on his wage. I'm going back to work but won't be earning anywhere near what he does, but the financial arrangement stays the same, joint account, I move some about into different savings (towards car insurance, tax, kids school uniform etc) so whatever is left after bills, is ours to do as we wish. One month I might want to have a haircut, next month he might want some books or new PS4 game etc. We're a partnership so we do everything as partners, no, 'well this is my money' etc.
Otherwise, pay 20% pension to match his and lower what you get paid each month or take what you get extra over him and put it into an account to cover when you eventually have children and need to take a pay cut.
But TBH, I think you both need to discuss how you see the relationship as if you can't agree on money, the rest of your lives together could get pretty difficult.

I think people are missing that OP only wants/expects to keep her higher income until she has children. So maybe only for about five years. That's not a big deal in the overall scheme of things.

My suggestion is that since any savings in either persons name would be marital assets in the event of a divorce, it doesn't matter where she saves, so instead of putting her extra money into the mortgage (as he wants) she should put it into extra pension payments for herself, getting 40% tax relief while lowering her net income remaining to the same level as his.

(In the long term these high contributions now could eventually create issues with the LTA, but for someone who makes contributions out money that would have been taxed at 40%, exceeding the LTA isn't actually an issue until you've exceeded it by enough to have to pay higher rate tax on your pension. Which would be a nice problem to have.)

If he has £1000 left over then so will she, that should be more than enough spending money for her.

I agree with LolaSmiles in that you can’t compare student finances in the very early stage of a relationship, to a situation some years in where you are both working and engaged (are they engaged)?
OP, if you are seriously planning on marrying this man and having children, then, the fact is, all the money will be family money ultimately. You dint know how you will feel when a baby comes along. The best made plans may go out the window for all manner of reasons.

He’s a teacher. Nothing wrong with that and you knew what you were getting yourself in to. You may decide you want to go part-time or be a SAHM in the future - you never know. Maybe he’ll end up as a head of a large school and in a similar income to what you’re projecting for yourself. But don’t go into having children and marriage with all this “my” money “his” money nonsense. It’s just an unnecessary headache. My DH always earned about 50 times what I could ever earn, but it is what it is. Not many couples will earn the same, when you think about it - unless they met at work doing the same job!

I think you aren't acting as a couple. My husband and I have had just one joint bank account since we were engaged 20 years ago. Over that time we earned the same for a while, then he was made redundant and I earned all the money for nearly 2 years, then he found a great new job and we had kids so he earned all the money, now the kids are a bit older I have started a business and some months earn more than him, others I earn nothing. Over that time we've not had one single argument or disagreement about money as we are a team and share everything without question.

I don't think you two should be getting married. You can't be on your way to an institution that splits all assets evenly only to complain about having to do so. If you don't want to split evenly, don't get married and continue as you are