AIBU to totally separate finances from DH?

[Jane054848]

DH hates his job and wants to quit. He does have a plan to retrain in something but will be a couple of years before he can earn anything, and it might always be quite minimal. I can't persuade him to retrain first.

I earn enough to support the family, including supporting DH not working/only working a little bit...but it would impact on things I want to save for such as retirement, kids' uni, helping kids with house deposit in the future.

We've had completely joint money (one joint bank account) since we started living together 20ish years ago.

But if he's going to be significantly reducing his work/income, I'd like to move to having our own separate money. My proposal:

• he'd do more housework/childcare (kids are teenagers)
• we'd contribute to all bills, household expenses, family stuff, outings, holidays etc in proportion to our incomes (so if he's earning nothing he'd pay nothing, if earning 20% of what I earn he'd contribute 20%)
• whatever is left, we keep separately and do what we want with it. So in theory if he did no work he wouldn't have any "fun" money (but he'd have a year's redundancy pay to tide him over the first couple of years).

Why I'm proposing this:

• He's quite unmotivated to earn money (because my earnings cover our needs) and doesn't always place much value on our joint money.
• I think I'd find the situation less annoying if I don't feel like I'm the only one taking a "hit" in my lifestyle/saving goals because of his career change.

But he hates this idea. His view is, we can afford for him to do this and our money is "our" money and we should keep it that way. He says if it wasn't for me he would have quit ages ago - and that if our positions were reversed, he'd be happy to support me. Both probably true.

AIBU? I really can't tell. I'm sure a nicer person would just say that there's no reason for him to work if we can afford for him not to, and no reason why this should impact our financial arrangements.

(And apologies for even asking this question when others have genuine and serious financial problems. I know this is pretty self-indulgent and privileged).

I'm pretty sure there will be lots of reply's stating your way of thinking is financially abusive and not in the spirit of partnership but honestly I'm with you in this one. I would be extremely resentful at my partner unilaterally deciding they weren't going to contribute anymore and that they expect you to just be alright about it.

and that if our positions were reversed, he'd be happy to support me. Both probably true.

I wouldn’t assume this one is true. It’s easy to say, especially when you’ve not asked him to financially support you like that. But the reality is, I doubt he’d be that keen to be the one supporting the family while you decided to piss about. And wanted your spending not to be curtailed.

Well. On Mumsnet a lot of people say all the money is family money but I'm not sure I think that's unilaterally the case.
DH currently earns 3x what I do so I can work part time with a 3 year old but also because I'm retraining. Once 3 year old is at school I'm not sure how he'd feel if I remained on 20 hours a week because I felt like it. The idea is my hours and earnings will match his again eventually.

Is he planning on getting another job? When is he going to start training? I don't think you're out of order at all. I'd be cross anyway that he didn't value my contribution and i wouldn't support him unless he could be trusted to start training asap and return to work as soon as he qualified. Can he train and work p/t?

At first, I wanted to say YABU, because if he's miserable in current job then if I were you, I'd support him, but then I saw "He's quite unmotivated to earn money (because my earnings cover our needs) and doesn't always place much value on our joint money." and I think YANBU. I think he's bit too late to retrain and work PT or nothing, since you have kids to provide for... I also agree with him taking the burden of housework.

I think this is fair. The principle at work is about both of you putting in equivalent levels of effort to the household. You might be working and earning less but your contribution is of incredible value.

The OP is in a situation where her husband has decided that he doesn’t want to contribute to the house hold. He doesn’t want to work but he isn’t offering anything of value in return. He wants to put less in but get the same out. That’s not ok.

I would feel exactly the same.
If he had a firm plan..had retraining organized and had got a small job at weekend or evening already sorted, and he'd been pro active ..showing clear budget of what he was proposing, how long you'd both have to halt pensions/savings etc
Then I'd be happy to support as you are a team..but your post implies he is rather looking to quit as he doesn't like working at current job but plans going forward are vague.
My fear would be he'd drift along rather liking not working...

Our money has been separated for years, ever since H ran up an enormous overdraft on the joint account that I didn’t use at all. I didn’t even have a debit card for it but the bank chased me for the money 🤬because it was still in joint names.
I don’t trust him for a number of reasons so if you have doubts OP you should separate the money now.
I’ve ended up being the major breadwinner and paying for nearly everything because H won’t contribute.
If it wasn’t for the fact that I an damned if he’s getting half the house (that I have paid for nearly single handed), my pension etc I’d have left years ago.

Yeah, I bet he wants to quit and become a stay at home parent now that the children don't need parenting! Would I fuck out up with this. He's effectively retiring early on your dime. It's easy to say he would be happy for you to do it when he know that you can't and won't because he will be unemployed.

This is a tough one. On the one hand, do you really want an unhappy husband who is miserable in his job just so you can have a more financially comfortable life? That doesn't sound much fun. Happiness is more important than a salary. But at the same time, if he brings nothing in and is unmotivated I can see that this would quickly build resentment toward him on your part, understandably. I think if he really wants this new career with retraining and it isn't just a phase that he will lose interest in then you should probably support him with that, given it is affordable, but with some compromise on his part. For example, he retrains before he quits or he works part time whilst retraining so there is at least some money coming in so you don't feel taken advantage of. In the adult world, we don't often just get to chase our dreams with no compromise or consequence so think he will need to change his expectations slightly.

I'm with you. He's taking the piss.

Without being outing can you give us a sense of his current and hoped-for occupations? How drastic a change is it?

I think if I were you I'd be tempted to start putting a bit more into your pension or AVCs.
It's all very well him being unfulfilled but that doesn't mean you should be working past your 60s to make him a bit happier.

Did he support you when you were off work after having your children?

What redundancy money would he get as a proportion of his/your current annual incomes?

YANBU, mooching about without the self respect and social interaction and regular timetable of a job can be utterly corrosive. No good for him. He needs to put effort in and achieve and that will make him feel better about himself. He's an adult, not a pet. He has to pull his weight and stand on his own two feet within reasonable limits.

I'm not saying he's a terrible person for not being, you know, a high flying barrister or whatever. But he needs to wrench that attitude right round. Nor am I saying that it is easy when he has a hateful job which wrecks his outlook and confidence. I have been there and it is tough.

But it has to be done, even though it will take time (so, start now!).

There are millions of different careers out there. He needs to find one that pays something commensurate with his actual potential (not his "what he feels like/hobby job" level, which is likely a lot lower!). Then train part-time or evenings/weekends while doing another job to ensure the family finances don't rely on you 100%.

As a family it's daft to just rely on the one earner long-term. One ill-timed stroke and everyone is in the shit. Much better to have both partners with a foot in the workplace (once the kids can be trusted not to burn the house down).

I think what you’ve set out is very fair. You see on here all the time women who aren’t even married (so no protection in law) living in boyfriend’s house and contributing 50% to everything whilst earning nothing like as much as the homeowner, who gets to keep 100% of his house should they split .

I know that’s an extreme and you might say incomparable but if you were my friend I would say you have to find a way of making him see it’s unfair. I think it would cause resentment in your relationship if you capitulated and isn’t resentment one of the four horsemen of the marital apocalypse?

I think the most worrying aspect is he is quite cavalier about what it takes for the money to be earned, so it doesn’t hold the same value for him.
This attitude and a lot of time on his hands could spell financial difficulties. Which he’d probably expect you to sort out.

This situation is different from the threads we often see (where a SAHP/part-time partner) is essentially being financially abused because they have no joint money and are contributing 50/50 etc., because in those threads the decision for one parent to stay at home or go part time or have children in the first place was a joint one and so should not affect one partner disproportionally.

I do not believe that one partner should be able to unilaterally decide to quit their job and not earn for up to two years. However the approach you've suggested seems punitive, really, and I'm not sure that it will result in a healthy relationship in future. That said, I'm also not sure that I would be able to get past my partner doing what yours is either.

Have you or he floated any kind of compromise solution, i.e. taking another job he can fit around retraining? A different job in a similar area to now but that would cause him less stress?

Seems sensible to me. I'd never do all money in joint account, tried it before and didn't work! We contribute same amount to a joint account for mortgage, bills etc. I earn more than DH but I have student loan and 10% pension contributions (which is non changeable!) so fairly similar take home.

How old are the children? Will you save childcare costs by him being at home and will he take over household management tasks (ie own them instead of needing a list of things to do and constant chasing)? How many hours per week will be used by retraining/paid work?

What matters is that both are contributing roughly equal efforts and time and both feel the benefit of the arrangement. So in the classic example which crops up here where a SAHP manages everything at home to facilitate a WOHP's high paid job I'd say they are sharing the load to mutual benefit (albeit the SAHP is taking quite a risk).

If you still handle much on the home front and the DC are at school and to some degree self managing then it doesn't sound like an equitable split. Plus if he doesn't see saving for retirement and the DC future as important I'd question his priorities.

How serious is the retraining and will it lead to a regular job in a different space or is it just some faffy notion which ends up being a displacement from working or simply never earns any money?

Rightly or wrongly I'd feel exactly the same as you OP!!

If he's quitting why would he get redundancy?!

I agree this doesn't quite compare to bring a sahp as your kids are old enough to not need constant hands on parenting. Before we got married/had kids I quit my job in order to change industry. I took some time out of work before deciding what to do. I didn't expect dh to support me at all, I saved up enough for a year of unemployment before quitting. However, dh did financially support me, but that was entirely his choice and it then meant when we got married I still had my savings to put towards the wedding. But I wouldn't have expected him to find my choice to quit work when I wasn't adding any value to the relationship (ie childcare of young kids)

He should be working. If he can’t hack his current job he should find something less stressful and retrain at the same time. Very easy for him to claim he’d be fine with you loafing around when he won’t have to do it!

What benefit is there to you or the DC of him hanging out at home? You know he wont take over the household stuff, he’ll be “busy” working on some project or scheme or other and you’ll end up doing everything on top of your job and single handedly funding the whole family.

he'd have a year's redundancy pay to tide him over the first couple of years

So is he resigning or being made redundant? If he’s being made redundant your whole proposal is punitive as a pp said. It’s also a major change from how you have managed finances as a couple for twenty years. I don’t think a redundancy combined with a realisation that retraining is needed for future employment really warrants the whole “I don’t trust you to not become a cocklodger” narrative you’ve used to justify separating out finances.

But he hates this idea. His view is, we can afford for him to do this and our money is "our" money and we should keep it that way. He says if it wasn't for me he would have quit ages ago - and that if our positions were reversed, he'd be happy to support me. Both probably true.

Are they?
Because the situation isn't reversed. Words are cheap.
If I won tje lottery I'd send you a million quid, See? It's that easy. So send me a million quid now won'
t you OP? - because you KNOW I'd do it for you!

And he is bullshitting for Britain with his "if it wasn't for you I would have quit years ago". If it wasn't for you, being there to cover all his expenses, he would be able to afford to quit would he?

DH hates his job and wants to quit. He does have a plan to retrain in something but will be a couple of years before he can earn anything, and it might always be quite minimal. I can't persuade him to retrain first.
Don't sit back & let him ride roughshod over you like this OP.
He's not talking about being a SAHP, he's talking about jacking in his job, retraining "in something" (how much happy confidence that nebulous phrase must strike in your heart!), earning fuck-all for 2 years, then probably only earning beans, if he ever gets back to earning.

People can retrain while in work.
People manage entire university degrees while supporting themselves with work.
Why does he feel entitled to leech off you like this?

He agreed to buy or rent your home together. He doesn't get to just jack that responsibility in & live off you.
Do you even have DC? If you do, how does he plan to support them?
If you do not, how can you tolerate this level of disrespect & bullshit?

Don't do it OP. I've been where you are now & it cost me my dream home.

I generally think family money is family money, but that's based on the premise that both adults are on the same page about money, spending, saving, their long term future. Ordinarily it's entirely reasonable to me for a marriage to have give and take financially as life can throw ups and downs at couples.

The red flag for me is when anyone in a partnership wants to opt out of their financial responsibilities indefinitely and assumes that the partner will happily shoulder the household finances.

If he wants to retrain he should make a plan, do what he can whilst working (like most other people) and if he isn't willing to make a plan and keep pulling his weight then it's clear he is hoping to drift into becoming a long term cocklodger.