Unfair splitting of finances.

[tiredandemosh1]

My take home pay is £1300 per month. DP earns £2500. He does have lots to pay out, ie maintenance amongst other commitments he can't get out of.
He pays tv bill and £800 rent. I have 3 children who live with us. I pay all food and all other bills. Eldest has started working, just turned 18 so pays £30 per week rent which I put towards food.
Does this seem fair to everyone? I'm curious what others think.

Housework is a different issue. If you feel he’s not pulling his weight, especially around work and mess related to his children, then you to tackle that and consider going back to living apart if he doesn’t buck up his ideas. He must have managed before.

So you do everything. You have to ask him for help which sometimes is forthcoming. He is better off.
And you’re pregnant with a surprise unplanned baby.

And you’re pregnant with a surprise unplanned baby.

Huh?!

Your take home pay is similar to mine but my dh earns slightly more than your partner. My dh pays the mortgage which is just a bit less than your rent and all food, his car and all related costs. I pay for all the bills and house improvements type stuff(which can be more some months and almost zilch the next). Stuff for the kids is split 50:50 as they are both of ours.

I would expect him to go halves on the food bill at the very least or pay for the extra food for his kids. Tbh in your situation I think it would be easier to do a one family pot of money scenario that way you are both likely to feel less resentful of each other long term.

@LovingLola

So you do everything. You have to ask him for help which sometimes is forthcoming. He is better off. And you’re pregnant with a surprise unplanned baby.

Wrong thread or op posting elsewhere?

@AlexaShutUp

the what months???

In every county I've lived in, council tax is only paid for ten months of the year. I have no idea why. I think you can apply to split it over twelve, but the default is ten.

I think our default is 12 or I ticked a 12 box years ago and can't remember lol.

They aren’t his kids and he shouldn’t be subsidising them, just as you shouldn’t subsidise his, and have no intent to. Bottom line is four of you, one of him. Your bills will always be higher. It’s up to you and their father to support your three kids, not him, if you’re both unable to, then you both need to get that sorted, not decide he should step up and do it for you both,

Him? 2500 - but less...£390.
Her? 1300 - but plus £120 board, around £120 child benefit, that’s £200
and you could be looking at £2100 vs £1740 which is much less dramatic.

But his costs account for likely most of his spend on his kids "needs". His ex will be expected to buy the bulk of the kids clothes etc with that. So in fairness OP balance sheet should include these costs too. Even if you assume the ex pays half the these costs, Anne it's never really that much, that's £400 off so at best it's £1700 each.

And his outgoings are likely to have dropped and her incomings have dropped from benefits

They aren’t his kids and he shouldn’t be subsidising them, just as you shouldn’t subsidise his, and have no intent to. Then frankly they should have kept their own homes and not pretended to be a family.

@SleepingStandingUp

They aren’t his kids and he shouldn’t be subsidising them, just as you shouldn’t subsidise his, and have no intent to. Then frankly they should have kept their own homes and not pretended to be a family.

I think that depends on whether you think if you move a partner in then that partner has to start coughing up for your kids or not.

You clearly do, I don’t. I feel it’s the parents responsibility.

The government expects him to cough up though, the OP will have lost tax credits when he moved in, due to his income.

In a situation like this, they need to consider the house, OPs DCs and maintenance paid for his DCs, plus any costs when they're with them, as joint costs, to be paid out of joint income. Then they can split what remains as personal spending money for adults. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't live together.

On the matter of working hours and housework, cooking etc, the OP can work full time and they share it 50/50 and if he doesn't want to do that, then that's justification for the OP working part time to reflect this. He can't expect to benefit from both the OP earning full time wages and doing everything at home.

I think that depends on whether you think if you move a partner in then that partner has to start coughing up for your kids or not. I think if you want to live with your partner and her teenage kids (and even if he hates them, that's the choice he's making - live together now with kids or don't live together) then it's pretty shit if the arrangement leaves her permanently skint and you better off and you don't care.

I'd expect them to work or what it cost before and what it costs now. I'd he's 100 better off and she's 100 worse off then be pays 100 extra. If he's 100 better and she's 50 worse he pays the 50 so she's neutral and he's better off, or 75 so it's even. That isn't about him paying for a model of food her kids might eat from his money

But his costs account for likely most of his spend on his kids "needs"
Same as the maintenance OP gets occasionally should do. This should be added to her income and if he doesn't pay she should go to CSA.

So taking his income minus maintenance and comparing with OPs income, plus maintenance plus CB, they are left with very similar and even more of that is OP's income or rather what she'll be earning ft.

The government expects him to cough up though, the OP will have lost tax credits when he moved in, due to his income.
The government expect some savings through economy of scales.

It really annoys me when people assumes that single tax credits are the baseline to go by and therefore if lost, the other partner should make it up. They should work out a system that is fair, but that certainly doesn't mean the new partner topping up the loss of benefits.

Doesn’t sound very fair or particularly pleasant. And I wouldn’t be a skivvynto a partner who wasn’t doing their fair share of housework, shopping and house maintenance. All of which should be shared and costed out equally.

This very my money your money I think benefits no one unless there is FULL transparency and equity.

I'm not going to talk exact numbers op but I do think the split is unfair.

When my partner moved into my rented property we had a discussion beforehand. I showed him how much it costs to run the place , told him how much I took home and explained that I would lose my single person discount plus TCs. I then said that if he agreed to move in it'd have to be 50/50 , or I couldn't make it work , it wasn't an ultimatum , it was fact. A TAs salary doesn't stretch far this area. I also said that we needed to share cooking , shopping and general housework. He agreed and it works well.

One factor here is that we had similar earnings , I know that the op's situation is different.

What I see here is that your life has got harder , you're accommodating his kids , doing more housework and more work outside of the home. He hasn't sacrificed at all and has actually benefited from a nice home for his kids , housework on tap and lower bills.

@Zerrin13

Ofcourse this isn't bloody fair!! He's basically getting a roof over his head, all his food, all bills, all home maintenance bills, all furnishings and his kids fed when they come to stay for £200 a week!!! Where else would he be able to find a bargain like that? You say you are alot worse off now than you were before. Why should you have to work more hours? He should be covering your losses not expecting an easier financial life whilst you are struggling.

And OP is getting all of this and her three children fed and provided for for just £300 a week. What's your point?

OP has been more than shy about saying what she receives as maintenance for her two (she won't get maintenance for the one who is no longer in education) or what her partner is paying for his own kids.

We know she has income of £1300 + £120. I'm going to assume that she gets at least £120 from the father, and gets child benefit at £150 a month for 2 children, so her income is £1690 a month.

Assuming the partner earns £40k pa, and that he pays maintenance for two children who spend at least a night a week with him, he'll pay around £400 a month for them, so his net income goes down to £2100 a month.

Those are the two incomes that should be compared.

OP,

Why would you knowingly choose to go into a situation that would put you in a worst position?

For 200 a week he is covering all his responsibilities and providing a home for his children when they need it.🙄

It is a really great deal for him. He must be thrilled.
And you are also the house skivvy.
Super arrangement for him.
But you really wanted him to move in on any terms.
These are the terms.
He must be thrilled.
He's obviously very cute financially.
More than you are for sure.

The question is could he get this deal anywhere else if he moved out.
A home, all bills, shoping, taxes taken care of, with house skivvy included for 200 a week?
I very much doubt it, but you chose to give him this great financial deal, against your own best interests.🤷‍♀️
Wishing you the best in this situation that you have chosen.

@Bluntness100

They aren’t his kids and he shouldn’t be subsidising them, just as you shouldn’t subsidise his, and have no intent to. Bottom line is four of you, one of him. Your bills will always be higher. It’s up to you and their father to support your three kids, not him, if you’re both unable to, then you both need to get that sorted, not decide he should step up and do it for you both,

This ^

Only parents should be responsible for financing their children, they then make a choice as to how many they can afford based on that.

It’s not down to a bf/gf to support them or you.

@tiredandemosh1 why are you being so vague?

What’s the point in answering that “it was agreed that our differing incomes will be taken into account” without saying what the actual agreement was?

There are as many opinions as there are ways to skin a cat.

Personally, I don’t expect my second husband to pay for my young son’s expensive hobby, and he doesn’t expect me to pay towards his older son’s uni accommodation. I earn more. I have more disposable income. But I am worse off for him moving in and he is better off. We were completely in agreement before we married on how we’d manage finances.

If he has gone back on actual agreement - he is wrong, unless you both messed up your sums and he now has less than you.

If you’ve realised the agreement is unfair... well, we can’t help you with what is a fair agreement unless you’re willing to be more detailed. With 2 lots of maintenance not explained, everyone would be pissing in the wind 🤷🏻‍♀️

If a PP is right that you’re pregnant (oooops: I said in my first reply that you should hold off expanding your family until this is sorted) then you need to sort this out NOW.

Usually my opinion is a child together makes you one family, one pot to share... but it’s complicated if you him to pay towards keeping your 3 teens too!

Same as the maintenance OP gets occasionally should do. This should be added to her income and if he doesn't pay she should go to CSA. Yes but people were saying he pays out 200 and she gets 200 as if she wasn't using that money plus 200 of her own for the kids costs. If you account for his kids costing him 200 them ops cost 200 and the maintenance covers them too. It isn't income

It really annoys me when people assumes that single tax credits are the baseline to go by and therefore if lost, the other partner should make it up. They should work out a system that is fair, but that certainly doesn't mean the new partner topping up the loss of benefits. No but it does men of one is worse off overall because of cohabiting, that isn't fair. DH lost £100 single person payment when we lived together. O wasn't more. We split bills 50/50 minus the £100 from his side because he didn't get that because of my income.

Those are the two incomes that should be compared
And it's not clear whether the £1300 was OP's PT salary and whether it's gone up now she is FT.

It isn't income
What do you mean it isn't income? Its money coming in to OP to use for her children that doesn't go to support her oh, so he doesn't benefit from it.

No but it does men of one is worse off overall because of cohabiting, that isn't fair
No one disagreeing there but the way to calculate things is not by looking at one has lost and therefore should be compensated equally by the other.

They should be left with similar disposable income once ALL income is counted and ALL regular outgoings, not joint joint ones, are counted too.

Wouldn’t OP have lost this anyway considering her son has just turned 18 & is working full time?

Not necessarily.

Op hasn't said if 18 year old is working full time - despite being asked several times

It also depends on ops particular circumstances plus she may have still received benefits for the younger 2 and maybe council tax benefit.

Isn't it £1,623? Oops! Yes appears I made a mistake even using calculator not sure how!! Sorry

However he's still paying £800 and op £823 plus other costs that should be shared. Plus there's however much op has lost as a result of dp moving in

How are you spending 100 quid a week on food ? Name brands and Waitrose I expect ODFOD! That's for 5 people!!

Op you're also worse off in terms of how much work you're doing? I'm really angry on your behalf that's not on! The very least he should be doing is pulling his weight on household chores!

"How is this benefiting you? Its certainly benefiting him."

Totally agree!

It's not working for you though is it op? And are your kids mainly in their rooms BECAUSE he's there? Do they not get along?

Do you now have sky tv BECAUSE of him as in you didn't before?

"Then frankly they should have kept their own homes and not pretended to be a family."

Agree with this too.

Yes the 3 dc are ops but also he's on a significantly higher salary so on balance things should be roughly equal in terms of costs.

But also a decent man who cares for his dp would NOT see himself better off, her WORSE off AND not be pulling his weight on chores!

"The government expects him to cough up though, the OP will have lost tax credits when he moved in, due to his income." Exactly!

Her income has dropped because the govt assumes both incomes are fully included within the household.

"and if he doesn't pay she should go to CSA." Slightly off topic but frankly that comment is laughable! It's cms now not csa and bluntly they're pretty fucking useless!

"Why would you knowingly choose to go into a situation that would put you in a worst position?" I don't understand such a decision either, but it happens frequently.

People follow their hearts/hormones rather than being practical and particularly considering existing children - maddening!

Seems fair to me, I'm guessing you were in receipt of benefits before hand and now a partner who earns above the threshold has moved in you are no longer entitled to said benefits, did you have a conversation before hand telling him that he would need to subsidize the benefits you would no longer be entitled to as you are now worse off?

it's really difficult to say without a breakdown, but on balance I'd say it sound like he has £1200 pm disposable income, so it seems unfair to you. I would complete below:

Rent - £800
TV - ?
Bills - £200
Council tax - £165
Insurance - £25
Food - £400
TV license -
DP's child maintenance -
OP car insurance -
OP car finance -
OP phone -
Home improvements -
Furniture -
OP lost benefits -
Op lost council tax discount