To think shared finances are not always fair?

[Gummybears6]

If there are children involved and one person is doing more of the childcare that's totally different, also barring disability and such.
But if there aren't any... I've heard of situations where one party (usually the man) earns well. The woman maybe less, or just works part-time or not at all.
However since people 'should' pool money when married, the woman has access to the same high earnings as the man for little of the work.
I would love to swan around with access to a lot of money and just work part-time. I haven't got that luxury and probably never will.
It's just one of those things in life I suppose. I probably sound resentful, but I am. If it were a high earning woman marrying a much lower earning man, people would be calling him a cocklodger and saying he's taking her for a ride. However the other way round it absolutely must be shared finances as they're married. I don't get it.

Meh, I think it's for every couple to decide individually what they do financially and it's not really your business. You sound jealous that your friend doesn't need to work as much.

@PetitPorpoise if someone is earning so well they can afford a PA/ housekeeper to take care of those things. They don't need their partner to do that.

Most people who don't work and don't have caring responsibilities or a disability, are just plain lazy.

I'm would definitely have a conversation if my dh was working very p/t with dc in school & I worked f/t. Tbh I think the ideal situation is both parents work p/t.

This is a MYOB situation. People are allowed to not work, people are allowed to work less than their partner, so long as the two in the relationship are happy.

The op sounds like they're inviting an ethical rule to cover up feeling annoyed others don't have to work.

We don’t pool money. Never have. We contribute depending on income, my DH is older than me and had tons on savings before we met. Why should he pool them with me? When we met he earned 3x times my salary, now I am outearning him. I wouldn’t want to pool my income, I want to beef up my pension and savings.

How many childless women who do no more than 50% of the household management and workload AND work part time AND are married to high earners do you know.... because i geniunely cant think of any and i am not sure i even know any one in that demo....

@MiddleParking
But that's definitely a personal decision.

My ex (high earner) definitely would rather have done more paid work and absolutely nothing round the house. Nothing. I mean given the choice he wouldn't even want to open a letter or buy some milk. Just wants to not dedicate any brain space to that. So he would say yes please to someone who was happy to take on 100% of domestic work, however little that might be, in return for sharing his vast salary.

So, my point is it absolutely depends and the only relevant thing is whether both parts of the couple are happy with it.

Goodness, you can't just dismiss people you don't know as 'lazy'.

Work is not a moral imperative.

I work, but if I didn't have to I could find many alternative things to fill time, and tbh it would be no one else's business.

I don't think relationships need to be 'transactional' in that sense, different situations suit different couple at various times in their lives. I have studied, worked full time, and worked part time before DC. I was a SAHM (with a school age DC) for many years, my DH chose to become self employed for a while and worked less than full time hours, he is now retired and I work part time. We both look after the house and chores (although he does a lot more than me).

Maybe it suits us because we respect each other's strengths and don't need to 'calculate' who does what or earns what and neither of us feels taken advantage of by the other.

Unless they're living off your money, how people arrange their finances really isn't any of your business, is it?

DH and I have had various different arrangements (we've only been married five years, but have had a big variety of situations within that time). We've been happy, at the time, with each of them, and have adjusted as required if and when we've needed to.

I think the idea that people are lazy if they're not permanently in full time work is actually very detrimental to society as a whole, and also frequently to individuals.

To add, not only am I the larger earner, but my big goal is to increase my income so that my husband can retire. His job is physically demanding, and I’d much prefer him to be home. Unfortunately, it’s not possible n the cards yet, but I tease him about being my sugar baby in the future.

We’ve been married over twenty years

If someone is not working full time and the other half is then it should be mutual agreement within that couple and there can be many reasons why it might work

In our case I (f) am the higher earner and Dh (m) swans around as you put it

To assume it's laziness is making a judgement

If however you are currently working your guts out and your partner is refusing to take extra work then I could see you getting upset and angry

• and I have seen resentment eat away at people when there is a load , a responsibility , when your options are limited to bringing home the rent because the other won't contribute

Lol. Or - they're living the dream. It isn't a race to the bottom.

I have worked in the past, no inheritance or family help. Entirely self-generated.

@chopc they could, and if I had that sort of money to play with, that is precisely what I would do because neither me or my husband would enjoy such tasks and would always want to be working even if money was no object.

But actually there is no shame in domestic work, and some people may be quite happy to do all of those things, much more so than doing paid work.

@chopc *if someone is earning so well they can afford a PA/ housekeeper to take care of those things. They don't need their partner to do that.

Most people who don't work and don't have caring responsibilities or a disability, are just plain lazy.*

If the high earner wants their partner to do those things, and is quite happy to share their ft earnings in return, what’s it got to do with you? People can find plenty to do, which is not paid work, but is just as much work - say cooking and baking from scratch, maintaining a fantastic garden and allotment, doing voluntary work are all hard work, aren’t they? It’s not the action of being paid, that makes work hard. Personally, I think office work is far easier than digging a garden over?

I went part time when we were trying IVF, and even after we gave up, I stayed part time.
It helped keep weekends free for fun activities.
It also meant that when DH's parents got old I could help out. They were an hour away, but I could e.g. pick his DM up and drive her 30mins further to a hospital appointment and back (including going into the appointment.)
It worked for us.

Marriage is a partnership, you agree between you who works / doesn't work / works part time / looks after any children etc.

Got to be honest, I don't know of (and never have) known any married women who work part time, swan around living off their husband's earnings without doing the lion's share of childcare/domestic stuff.

I always worked P/T due to husband being a high earner, but have always done 90% of everything else. I still work p/t even though the kids have left home, and wouldn't consider going F/T unless he started doing 50% of the mental load/chores (which won't happen)

I think 'sharing finances' fairly looks different for every couple, we pay proportionately for bills, into joint savings and have the same left over to spend on ourselves or save for personal savings which for us is fair. DH earns more (he will admit though he doesn't necessarily work harder!) but I work in a job I love, find rewarding and thankfully offers flexibility in regards to DS; he brings more money in but is supportive of my career and me doing what I'm passionate about and at times when he works away he benefits from my flexibility at work. He's a spender and I'm a bit more frugal so equal spends suit us, and it's not like we count pennies if one of us picks something up or whatever.

Making a commitment to someone is a big decision and I think some don't discuss stuff like finances before making that decision to entangle their lives. If someone is a wildly bigger earner and there aren't children involved I think it can be more complex for some, I wouldn't for example subsidise someone financially who saw pound signs and went into a part time very low earning job just because they could and I'd pick up the tab (unless of course medical reasons or whatever).

There are a few other motivations.

The job is a valuable one/the person enjoys it.

Huge swathes of the arts, education and healthcare would probably collapse without cross subsidy within households from the higher earner. If you do a highly paid but soul destroying job, you may be OK or even pleased with your partner doing something more obviously useful/beneficial to society.

Schools would be pretty stuck without supply.

Some men (it's usually men) take pride in their wives "not needing to work" or in the family being able to manage without that income. The woman's earning potential can also be limited by lack of flexibility (highly paid jobs often require long hours, lots of travel etc - even if there's no kids involved without any flexibility, the couple would never see each other?)

There can be a balance over time with the two people in the couple supporting each other in different ways. You're just seeing a snapshot of a particular point in time.

This.

It's weirder for spouses to have dramatically different lifestyles - the husband swanning around in luxury cars and designer gear while the wife takes the bus and has to scrape together the cost of lunch.

I work PT with no kids to look after. But I still pay half of household costs.

Huge swathes of the arts, education and healthcare would probably collapse without cross subsidy within households from the higher earner.

This is me! Thankfully with my qualifications if we ever split I'd be able to secure well paid work, but I love what I do now, its valuable to society but crap pay (of course). Thankfully DH who does the same job but in a different sector earns a decent wage and luckily he enjoys it so we have lucked out to be honest. You are right though, studying for the jobs above which many do as mature students and actually doing them often requires a high earner in the household to live a comfortable lifestyle.

If you both see yourselves as a partnership facing life together, with a shared home and lifestyle, then can one partner really have less spending power just because their job pays less?

Being in less well paid work, or even choosing to work fewer hours, doesn't necessarily mean that person works less hard. Even in the absence of children, the person with a part time job, or no job at all, might spend a commensurately greater amount of time and effort on running the household. Or a couple may decide that one of them will continue in a certain job because it is an important contribution to society or because it is a rewarding role in other ways than financially.

As long as they're both people in a relationship are happy with their financial arrangements, why does it matter whether you consider them to be "fair"?

Yes both people in the couple would be happy with their unbalanced financial arrangement until it comes to divorce. Then you will get a large proportion of these people on here lamenting their vulnerable positions..........

Of course there are loads people could do outside of paid work to fill their time. But we are not talking about that are we?