To think it's ok not to share money

[ToooRevealing]

Right, so this thing about "family money". My DH was one of those, a long time ago, who wanted to keep absolutely everything separate. We got a joint account for bills when we had DS1. Then after two years we sat down and recalculated things because I was always having to ask him for more money each month (I was the lower earner and on mat leave). He was happy to sling me an extra thousand quid every few months ad hoc, but that didn't work for me, I wanted us both to contribute to the children's upkeep more obviously, so he could see clothes trips treats football lessons etc all coming out of our joint money and never have any vague feeling that I'd just "overspent". He was of course fine with this (this isn't a thread about financial control, our communication is fine & power balance good!)

He still says, though, that he has "chosen a higher earning job than me"; which to be fair he did, before we ever had kids or even met each other. So while we should contribute proportionally to our joint family, we should each keep our discretionary money for ourselves. In practice he puts loads in his savings (so I'm sure I'll get it in the end, ha ha!)

But is he right? Part of me thinks yes, as long as neither if you is in financial trouble or hasn't got enough, and if you take the long view, the higher earner can stash their spare cash away in accounts the other has no access to.

But then I think it's a grey area- I'm not progressing as fast in my career as I would have done if I didn't have children, and that's not quantifiable. I am part time, so we know what we save on childcare and the value of that. But... I was part time before kids too! I like being part time & would want to stay that way. He likes being full time.

If we were both full time and both absolutely went for it, he would be earning say £100k a year and I would be earning say £90k a year. As it is, I earn £50k and he earns £100k. So this AIBU isn't about being tight for money. Am I BU wanting our discretionary personal money to be equal; or is he BU, saying that once we've provided for our family together and proportionally, we can have different discretionary amounts for fun and savings, because we have different careers? I think his view is fair, but because he loves saving money, and it's always me who pushes to spend money, that can muddy the waters.

Yabu because you worked part time before having kids so by working part time after having children you haven't limited yourself anymore than you had already in terms of pay or career progression. If your partner has a job that pays proportionately more than yours, that is life and I don't see why he should make up the shortfall for you

Knowing how hard it was to find part time work after I had children, I think the OP was NBU but bloody sensible in securing part time work before having kids.

@Juliette20 meh, I think I could just about manage the SAHM lifestyle if I had full control of some of the salaries on here! 🤣 In reality I managed it for 3 months on SMP and then went back to my minimum wage full time job working nights while my husband worked full time days because we didn’t earn enough to pay for childcare.

It doesn't really sit right with me, I'm 100% on the all money is family money.

There is a big difference between working part time to facilitate chidcare and working part time by choice and that is essentially what the OP chose to do long before she had childcare and before she had met her partner. She has already said she could almost double her substantial income by working full time. She chooses not to so I dont think we can say she has chosen to facilitate her DHs career anymore than you can say her DHs choice to work full time has facilitated her wish to work part time.

Hope the pro bono advice is useful

Thank you but it’s not remotely useful. I have no intention of walking away from any % of our marital assets and every intention of being a merry widow!!

"When I became too disabled to work at all, again I managed on my savings until my disability benefits kicked in."

That shocked me
That sounds like FWB, not marriage

What if your savings had run out before benefits - would you have asked him for a loan, to be paid back later from benefits ?

Also, reliance on disability benefits would lead to a very different standard of living to a high-earning spouse who didn't share

Ok, so here's a little legal reasoning that seems to be missing here. If you're married (in England and Wales) you are both entitled to 50% of each others income, savings, assets and debts.

Can you cite the legislation, please?

Protecting yourself from a cocklodger / henlodger / gambler / spendthrift etc is sensible
as is safeguarding previous assets or inheritances

However, sharing of "worldly goods" is in the marriage vows, so not sharing income seems odd in normal circumstances.

For me it’s fair, i don’t think you should get to work part time and spend his money on yourself.

If this was a simple you went part time for child care reasons, it would be different, but this is you don’t want to work full time but would like some more money, you can’t have it both ways.

My DH and I are on exactly the same salaries as you. Just under 100k for him and slightly over 50k for me.

I agree with your DH. I am a saver and my husband is a spender. Despite earning twice as much as me he has less disposable income every month. He also pays for child and spousal maintenance to his ex which brings his actual income closer to mine.

We keep separate accounts and each handle our ‘leftover’ cash. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect one person to cover another person’s spending habits ( eg clothing, eating out etc). We only help each other out in emergencies so for example if a car breaks or to cover family expenses eg school trips etc.
We wouldn’t share money just because one person is left with less for everyday spending.
If I decided I needed more money for whatever reason I would apply for a higher paying role at work.

It is completely unreasonable of him to expect you both to contribute money equally, and then just be left with what's left (which sounds like not much for you, and lots for him).

You have contributed maternity leave and part-time, both have reduced your earnings not just right now but long term. This is on top of unequal pay for women, particularity mothers who can't hop jobs for higher salaries like men can if they carry out the bulk of childcare.

On top of this, it is just very unrealistic to expect both partners in a relationship to earn the same let alone 100k each.

It sounds like he would be happy for you to work full time and that you being part time is your personal preference. So I don't think it's unfair for you to pay for it

OP increase your hours to full time and you will have more money.
Why do you think your husband owes you his salary?

@icannotremember this is a good if you're interested in understanding the legislation governing marriage better:

www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/overview/lawofmarriage-/

@BigChocFrenzy when I say “managed” I meant managed my contributions to the household budget. The question I was answering was about what would happen if one person couldn’t “pay their way” when you keep separate finances. The sad fact is, we are (and always have been) working poor and my husband just doesn’t earn enough to keep all of us. When we both worked full time, he paid CT, utility bills, food, a larger proportion of the mortgage, and all car related expenses. I paid a smaller portion of the mortgage plus an overpayment, phone and internet bills, savings and kid related expenses. Obviously when I couldn’t work any more my share of the expenses didn’t just vanish, and my husband’s wages didn’t suddenly increase to cover them. He did manage to get a slightly better paid job and I cut everything to the bone, but the reality is that the majority of people just don’t have sums of money that seem to be commonplace on here.

It’s way off a FWB situation. We’ve been married nearly 30 years, and money is about the only thing we’ve never argued about 🤣. We didn’t make any of our life decisions (buying a house, having children, saving for retirement) based on me ending up like this. Who does?

Interesting to see if people think CSM payments should come out of the bills pot or personal spends?

I don't think there's a clear right or wrong anwer here. But I'd say your husband isn't automatically entitled to keep loads of extra money because he's paid more. Especially as, like so many families, you're earning less because you're parenting your children and it's only because you're doing that that your partner has as much disposable income as they do!

A lot depends on degree. If you're still able to live and save well yourself it's not such an issue. But if you're living paycheque to paycheque while your partner is racking up big savings I'd say that's clearly unfair. (And even with an income as high as OP's here, high costs could easily eat the money up and those costs could be driven by the higher earner.)

“My personal opinion is everyone has a ‘role’ in a family. Typically the man is the main / higher earner but that usually means the woman does more of the child care / raising, meaning she doesn’t have the same earning capacity but she still ‘works’.”

THIS

If we all stopped using the word ‘job’ and started using the word ‘role’, and appreciated the different roles required to make a successful home and family, and how they are equal in worth (the word ‘worth’ having nothing to do with money!) then these questions would all be moot. Of course you should have equal money. In the same way as you should have equal say, equal power, equal rights etc etc. You are a team with two different but equally valuable roles, and you shouldn’t go without because it so happens that your role inevitably equates to having less money.

For me, the question is 'is it your choice to be PT/earn less'? If you could go FT next month, would he be happy about it and would he split the childcare etc equally?

If the answer is yes, then you're choosing to be PT in a lesser paying job... so he has a point (even if I don't agree with it ethically).

But if he would refuse to pick up his share of childcare if you went back FT, then you're facilitating his earning power. Which means he can only earn that much because of what you do for the family, and in that case I feel he can't claim that it's his money alone.

...having said all that, I still feel that a family should share their resources. I earn double what my husband earns, and we've always taken the same spending money. I love him, we both pitch into family life, and I want the best for my family, not just for me.

If you are making a life together, have children and are married then all money belongs to both of you. Why would one of you want to have more than the other? How can that even work? If you go to a restaurant does one of you order the steak and the other a pizza? Does he wear more expensive clothes than you? Do you go on separate holidays? Or is he just saving more than you? If he is just saving more than you I don't think it is as much of an issue. Those savings belong to you both whether he realises it or not. They are martial assets and would be split in two of you split up.

It doesn't really sit right with me, I'm 100% on the all money is family money. What about time? Is he entitled to the same time off work as the OP? What if he decides to go part time as well?

QueenCoconut what happens with holidays if one spouse can’t afford the family holiday, do they not go?

What about different jobs? You can be a high earning accountant, investment banker or a carer, nurse, teacher, paramedic. The latter jobs are obviously much lower salaries but much worthier jobs, and I say that as an accountant! Should they be penalised in a relationship because they don’t earn as much as their city job partner?

Hi PP
For us holidays if planned together are budgeted for and we agree how we pay for it beforehand. If I can afford to put £300 a month towards the holiday, my DH can put £100 and we save together. We treat it as a family spend.
If I suddenly decided I fancied to go to Maldives next year and take DH with me, I would personally budget for it (from my money as a treat to DH) as it’s something I want to do.
We agree holidays together.
As I said we share family expenses and help each other in emergencies.
Me wanting a coffee or a new pair of shoes doesn’t fall into either of these categories.

Having different jobs is normal, you make a choice when you go into specific career based on a number of factors , this includes pay.
You don’t choose to be a nurse hoping it’s going to be ok because I’m gonna marry reach!
I think if I was a nurse and my husband was a city banker i would imagine that we would spend our money however we please. If he WANTED to spend his on presents for me , on nice holidays or anything else that’s fine, absolutely lovely.
I don’t think it’s ok for anyone to EXPECT the higher earning partner to share their money and top-up their spouses earnings because you fancy to work less hours, deserve the money for the pure reason of being his wife or feel ‘penalised’ as you describe it.

But family holidays are surely a joint expense that comes out of joint money? Same as meals out together, day trips as a family, etc?

Personal spends are just that: personal. They're for stuff on an individual level, personal hobbies and interests, etc., not for stuff done as a family. My DH spends his on trading cards and games, mainly. I spend mine on books

And I am currently on holiday without my DH as I fancied to go alone with my DD. He’s home with his DC.
No I don’t feel sorry for him and he’s not penalised.