cock/fanny lodger versus family pot

[smudd]

Where does a family pot of money end and a cock/fanny lodger begin?

I've been on this forum for a few years now and I've noticed that some posters whose names I recognise as being very helpful and consistent on other boards (not going to name anyone obviously) are quite inconsistent when questions are posted about household finances. Beyond that the majority of responses on these kind of questions are usually very divided.

So my question is, what do you really think is fair or right?

In one way, whatever a couple decide is right for them is right for them as long as both people are happy. So you might have one person earning all the money...when people post about this kind of thing the responses are very divided between "the non earner is taking the piss" and "it doesn't matter, it's all the same pot."

The reason I ask is that over the past two years myself and my DP have had to make changes to the way we approach finances. We used to pretty much split everything down the middle and we earned pretty much the same amount. We then went through a period of time where he put more "in" than me, which he was OK with but now we're going through a period of me putting more into our expenditure than him. He feels this reflects badly on him and I see it more like we have the same expenditures so it doesn't matter who pays them.

@FierceBarrie the thing is I've seen people on here respond to OPs as though it is....and I mean posters who give great advice on other topics. There's the "one pot" theory and then the theory that you should remain totally financially independent from your partner. I see the latter argument but I don't think it's realistic, especially over a long time line.

A friend of mine actually got divorced because her husband would not accept her not having a job under any circumstances even though he had work/savings. She did work but lost one job and wanted to wait until a worthwhile one came up (we're talking months, not years). He seemed to think if he "allowed" her to take her time off work then she would never work again. I've known her most of my life and can't see where he got that idea from really.

Basically it seems like many people feel that paying for more, especially unexpectedly, is an immediate "red flag" in and of itself.

SIL has had a series of cock lodgers, she was quite a high earner in the past. No children at all. The current one now cares for her multiple pets. She has now lost her job and has just managed to get money out of MIL.

So she has let this series of men live off her and drain her of funds, one owes her thousands because she paid for him to do a course. I despair how passive DH family is about her behaviour especially now she is tapping an 80 year old woman.

When FIL died a couple of years ago he left everything to her, in laws have been divorced for 20 years. I assume he felt sorry for her but she is the maker of her own demise.

Why is she like that ? I assumed low self esteem but DH reckons she is a total control freak so can control them with money.

Theoretically to have a 50:50 split on all expenses is fair. But, couples decide to have children and they have to be looked after, also earnings are rarely the same between both people.

We've never split expenses 50:50, we've always done it so that we each have the same money left over for our personal spend after bills. We actually have always earned pretty similar amounts so maybe that's easier, we've both been the highest earner at different times.

There's a bit of a moral judgement in determining who is a cock lodger isn't there and it's not just about differentials in earning. So, e.g. someone working FT as a nurse or teacher married to someone earning £500K in the finance sector: definitely not a cock lodger.
Someone not working but caring for 3DC under five married to a solicitor: not a cock lodger but once the kids are at school and refusing to go back to work even if their spouse hates their job then becoming a cocklodger.
Someone not working while endlessly 'writing their novel' living with a care home worker: a cock lodger

I agree with those saying that cock lodger is very well defined as someone who contributes neither money, emotional labour, childcare, support or anything else.

Every other variation, where a partner is bringing something to the table, whether it’s money or just love and emotional support is perfectly valid and appropriate if both parties are happy.

@Shareddriveagghh that's really sad however you look at it :(

CL/FLs tend to target people with a nice set up already and move in by stealth, ensure they are there at meal times, and then doesn’t reciprocate.

I have been worried about this happening to me being a single mum.

I have dated men who were tight in early months dating that I brushed off that then lead to quite enraging behaviour once we were an established couple. Eg going out for a meal but refusing split a bill to pay half for DCs nominal priced meal or kicking up a fuss that DC was to come on holiday and needing 2bed accommodation and him kicking up a fuss HIS a holiday cost more.

Perhaps he was just tight or a cocklodger in waiting who knows. I ditched him.

I prefer to be in a relationship where the couple is a team throwing both their skills and earnings into the pot for mutual benefit.

When it’s not for mutual benefit then we’re in taking the piss/cocklodger territory.

Right now I’m an unpaid carer but work my arse off in other ways. Any bloke coming into my life must understand this and if we were to move in together then of course the benefits I am reliant on to top up carers allowance would disappear and he would take on that financial burden. But I’m an odd case as it’s not a case of can’t be arsed to work but can’t work and that puts a lot of men off except those who think they can send me out to work and adopt the ‘carer’ role. I’ve had that suggestion before.