If your SO pays their share of bills and does half of childcare and chores, do you care if they work?

[nonchalant]

As long as your SO/DH contributed half of the bills and mortgage, did at least half of taking care of the children, and at least half of household chores, would you care whether they worked or not or if they worked just one day a week for example? This is on the assumption that you keep finances separate so their level of income does not impact you.

In my relationship fair means equal effort/free time.

All income is then shared.
Effort may include childcare/chores/paid employment.

If one partner can contribute well financially without working, then I would expect that person to be doing the majority of housework.

I think a couple should normally be doing equal amount of "work" (paid or unpaid) and have equal amounts of free time, regardless of ability to "pay your way" through unearned income, wealth etc. Unless one just likes working more than the other does. I'd expect both partners to benefit from the wealth of the other. I'd expect to be having a conversation about whether both partners wanted to reduce their working hours or move to a lower paid but more enjoyable job (they may not want to, but the possibility should be there). And I'd expect the non-working partner to do more domestic work. Or at least offer! I could imagine an imbalance as a temporary arrangement, but not long term, unless the working partner was genuinely happy that way.

I think income/wealth should be shared. Everyone should benefit equally. Including in time!

If one retires before the other they should start doing more at home. Unless unable to on health grounds.

@Hollyoakswatcher

So you would be happy potentially working a 40 hour week, then doing say another 10 hours on top around the house, whilst your partner does just 10 hours a week?

I wouldn't care if they worked, no but if it was me or DH I'd be a bit concerned about them being fulfilled if they didn't. I'd expect them to be doing more than half at home if they had so much free time.

I'd expect them to do the bulk of the childcare and household chores if they weren't working. Both partners should get equal down time.

DH will retire before me. I expect a big change in the division of labour if I am working FT and he's not working at all. As long as he is healthy and able of course.

DH is a little bit like this, in that he is self employed and only works as much as he needs to to pay the bills.

In theory it is fine - our finances are separate so it is none of my business. In practice, it has an impact on join financial decisions such as mortgages. And the expenses which are “mine” has expanded since we had DS, to include me paying all the household bills, grocery shopping, all the nursery fees, paying for holidays, and any and all costs associated with DS (clothes, toys etc). So he now only works enough to cover his fun money. And no, he doesn’t do solo childcare, or extra housework. DS is in nursery whenever I am in work.

I wish we had had joint finances from the start - DH is not willing to change to a fairer system now. But I didn’t want joint finances earlier, as DH would just have worked less and lived off me.

He actually earns a very good salary (would be six figures if he worked full time). Just not willing to contribute to the family. That is an extension of his whole attitude to me and DS though - I am not sure we will still be married in ten years.

It's not a question of money, but time.

At some point I'd like to cut down to 4 days a week but if that just means taking on more chores then I wouldn't bother. I'd want that extra day to relax, not pick up more chores.

I'd worry about the impact on family lifestyle- if they contributed more, the dc could have more advantages re holidays, hobbies etc.
Also that the working full time person was missing out on time with the dc.

If the full time person would like to reduce hours but can't afford to, then I'd particularly think it unfair.

If one person works less, they should be picking up more than 50% of the household chores/childcare etc.
Or, as someone else said - is leisure time equal?

to pick an extreme example for effect, if one person is on minimum wage and works 50 hours a week bringing home around £450 a week, and the other person could earn that in a day's contracting, I don't think it's right that the higher earner has 4 days "off" while the other person is at work. of course, the waters are muddied if you throw in things like the lower paid worker loves their job and the higher paid worker hates theirs so sees the time off as justified.

So I think the answer is "it depends".

perhaps different but i dont work.
my parents died when i was a teen and left me everything. we brought our house with cash and both have a pension. we also have 4 kids and i do thw majority of the childcare/chores etc.

Am currently in similar situation. Would like them to be doing something more with their brain. And maybe taking on more than 50% of the school run.

If they're not working, they should be doing the vast, vast majority of household chores, life admin and school runs.

The scenario sounds like the arrangement you'd have with a housemate, not with your partner and definitely not with a co-parent. I think a lot hinges on the financial arrangement. Are both quite wealthy so a increase in earnings wouldn't materially impact on lifestyle much? Are they so wealthy that paid staff can cover many household tasks, leaving the working partner free to enjoy their leisure time? If those two criteria don't apply, then absolutely the partner who doesn't work much (presuming the kids aren't pre-school age) should at the very least be doing more of the housework and childcare.

Turn this on it's head, I don't need to work but if I got in a relationship with someone I would not expect to have to cover more than half of the outgoings or to do more than half of the household management. Why should a man be able to basically scrounge of my previous hard work or get out of having to pull his weight in the home? It's reasons like this that I wouldn't live with someone again.

@sweeneytoddsrazor yes I would, being an adult means doing all of these things, it would be lovely to sit back and let someone else do it all for me but if you want that you need to pay for it, unless I would be willing to up my financial contribution to have these things done it’s not fair to basically have everything done for me.

I can see that point, but isn't refusing to do more than 50% off the household tasks just a bit selfish? If they lived alone, they'd have to do all of them. Don't people do things for the people they love just out of generosity? So they can spend more time as a couple, without the working partner spending a big chunk of their free time doing housework. I think it's less about what is coldly fair, and more about working together for the good of the family unit. Is it good for the family that one partner has loads of free time and the other has very little? If they're volunteering or something then fair enough, but if they're just enjoying leisure time, they're a selfish arse.

@BaronessEllaSaturday

Turn this on it's head, I don't need to work but if I got in a relationship with someone I would not expect to have to cover more than half of the outgoings or to do more than half of the household management. Why should a man be able to basically scrounge of my previous hard work or get out of having to pull his weight in the home? It's reasons like this that I wouldn't live with someone again.

Pre-children I would totally have agreed with you, but post-children it really comes across as laziness/avoiding childcare.

I'm currently between jobs having come into a lump sum. Taking a bit of time off before doing some training.

Regardless of income, I have 37.5h more in the week than my husband. I don't remotely mind having an uneven split. 4 days me/2 days him/1 day cleaner and takeaway.

I find that the sum total of my household duties is about 4h per week anyway.

I think so much hinges on if there's children/grown up children. I do agree that without any children in the picture at all it's much less of an issue. I think more details about the scenario are needed. Are there possibly grown up children, and one partner is now able to semi-retire and one can't? How has having children affected the earning potential in the relationship? Has the current full time worker made career sacrifices in the past, for the sake of the children, which no means that they don't earn enough to reduce their working hours? That's just an example, but when children are involved, they do very often disrupt the financial equality in a relationship.

I wouldn't care if they didn't work but I'd expect them to do most of the housework to be honest. I'd be annoyed if I was out at work all day and come home to housework if my partner had been at home all day.

It depends. Where is the ‘not working’ person’s money coming from?

If it’s from independent wealth and they have an independent means of supporting themselves in retirement, that’s one thing. If they are not working and depending on the working person’s pension to support them both, then no-that’s not fair.