Wondering … would you stay with someone who is a brilliant parent but struggles with money?

[Broccolicelery]

Someone who is a brilliant parent to two year old but contributes nothing really in the way of finances.

The "general feeling" seems to be that you haven't given enough information for people to give an informed opinion.

But you aren't discussing things?

I don't think anyone can really answer this properly without knowing a bit more. How many days does parent b work? Are they doing the bulk of the childcare of those non working days? If not, what do they do? How much are the nursery fees? I know ours are pretty much the same as our mortgage so not an insignificant amount.

I think this set up sounds fine id be happy as either person.

I’ve answered questions, but I am finding the opinions helpful. I am wondering if parent b should be contributing more, if parent b is being a bit unintentionally leech like on parent a.

It’s not a proportional split of tax though. You can’t look at pre tax salary.

I think it would be fair if B got as much as A paid into their private pension.

Sorry I did miss some questions …

Parent B works three days a week and does all the childcare then, plus before and after work on the working days.

Nursery is around £600 p/m.

A leech?

Well if you want to work that out you need to look at what you both actually contribute. Maybe partner A is contributing a higher amount of their salary, maybe it’s partner b. No one can say because you haven’t given any information.

Yes, it means taking more than getting in that context.

No. I don't think the 24k earner should necessarily be financially contributing more.

In theory a family with married parents is an economic unit. That is the point of it. So the family earns more or less 100k and perhaps the lower earner makes it possible for more of that income to be kept because they do things like childcare and cleaning that would otherwise come out of it and definitely need to be done. Not only that but they allow the higher earner to get on pretty much unfettered by childcare and home commitments, which makes for a more successful career.

In practice people do whatever works - and of course not every single thing has a financial price tag whatever the Tories would like us to think. Being cared for by a parent might seem cheaper than nursery for example, but why should it be and in fact is it? It isn't of lesser value is it? Some would argue it's of greater value.

The main thing is that family units are meant to love each other and make life easier for each other. So if it seems that one isn't pulling their weight and therefore is making things more difficult for the other partner (whether financially or in practical or emotional terms) then this needs discussing. But if it's working then who gives a shit?

Needs more info. On £24,000 and paying all the nursery fees the pt earner probably hasn’t much left. Depending on pension and student loan their net may only be £300 ish a week - if they are paying 3 or 4 days nursery and commute costs, work clothes they may just be breaking even and effectively working to avoid gap in cv/get pension.
If you are married you need to look at finances as a whole and none monetary contributions.

I’m getting just fine advice thanks, notacooldad
You reckon!🤣🤣
It's not even half a story you gave and it's like pulling teeth trying to get info to help you but they need a starting point. The first post in proves that.

I’m incredulous, not unable to understand the disgustingly pejorative language.

I forgot to mention too that a lower earner does not necessarily work less hard than a higher earner! Far from it. Cf nurses vs bankers.

Personally I would find this a fine set up. My husband and I work out our total take home pay (I am part time and he is full time) and make sure we give ourselves the same amount of money to ourselves each month. The rest goes into the joint account to cover bills and all other house finances (including nursery). You could always do something like that if one parent not happy

If they’re the brilliant parent you say they are, and are doing childcare on the two days a week they are not working, they are not leeching or taking more than they give. They’re supporting the family by providing childcare.

If they’re working part time and then fobbing the child off elsewhere on their non-working days so they can relax or please themselves then yes, they’re leeching.

Financially, each partner should be contributing to all bills proportionately to their income so that they each have similar amounts of money for themselves to do as they please leftover.

So 1700 - 600 for nursery and occasionally a food shop. Really depends on how occasionally. £100? £150? Per month.
Partner A is left about 1k to themselves.
Partner B takes home about 4300, they pay the mortgage, internet, car, travel, utilities, the rest of the food shops, clothes, household items, holidays etc. It really depends on how much these come to.
This is basic take home ignoring additional pension contributions or SL.

Imo both partners should be left with the same amount.
Are they?

Sounds fine, you're rolling in it compared to most.

I get that it’s frustrating reading but I want opinions, there are tonnes of threads here I find dull, irrelevant or whatever, I just don’t post on them. I honestly don’t see why that’s so hard. It’s my thread, I’m finding it helpful.

The set up you have described is just a normal family set up where one person earns more. You are both contributing equally in the sense that you both pay what you can towards the household income.

It would be a very shallow thing indeed to break up with your partner and father of your child because you want them to earn more. You're meant to be a team.

So yes …the £24,000 person should be making more of a financial contribution, is that the general feeling?

Not my feeling. My feeling is that there is nowhere near enough info to tell.

One way to split this would be to pool all the costs (including the nursery fees) and split them 1/4 and 3/4. 'Costs' should include all family expenditure, including similar level pensions for both adults.

Then ON TOP OF THAT, you need to balance the hours workedwith childcare and household. So, for exmple, if the person working PT is doing 20 hours a week and the FT is 40 hours a week then the part-timer (for want of a better term) should do around 2/3 of the childcare and housework. The full timer should do around 1/3.

Any left over money after costs have been paid could be pooled, split into 2 and handed back to each person as personal money.

That way, no one is doing better (long term or short term) than the other because of family workload split or commitments.

But, of course, this is just one way of spliting it and makes some huge assumptions. Which is why more detail is needed.

Neither of us have a SL, pension is taken out before it reaches paypacket so figure of around 4.5 and 1600 are roughly correct.

I will confess I am not sure how much mortgage etc is which tells everyone I am indeed parent b, but I know it’s a lot.

With all the money talk I am conscious I am not contributing much and worry about it. I also don’t seem to get as much cleaning and housework done as I’d like.

I am the primary earner in our house (£70k), my husband has always been in less, and has now retired with a £22k pension.

I am awful with money, so leave it all to him. I never have anything at the end of the month (I transfer all the money for mortgage, bills, food etc etc etc, into an account he manages ) - he does all the savings, ISAs, financial planning etc . We are comfortable.

I’m great at all the parenting, and household stuff though …, Play your strengths,