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.

I don't know any women who work part time unless they have young children or are semi-retired

^this, essentially.

A relationship is not an arbitrary thing where XYZ is the ideal for all.

Plus, no-one lies on their death bed wishing they'd worked more, if it's affordable to go part time, and both are happy with who gets to do that, why the hell wouldn't you?

Resentment is a term used when someone else's behaviour impacts you personally. The word you are looking for is jealousy.

I think as long as both partners are happy and on the same page then they can choose whatever set up works for them surely?

So what if she does supply occasionally and lives off the husbands money? If she's happy and her husband is happy, what's it to you? You say you don't have that luxury, but SHE DOES.

I did it for 15m whilst I was studying - it was a much lower paid job than my usual salary too (which turned out to be an error, because the lack of authority pissed me off).

I also did a touch more housework during that time, but mainly because I hated my job.

We've both agreed that because I can get jobs that pay more and have the right circumstances, I'm better off holding out for the right one next time than just taking something like that again. So again, taking part time or higher pay around study rather than jumping for the first contract I can get post mat leave.

@Gummybears6 Your problem is you appear to place massive value on a person’s earned income and have no apparent interest in life outside of work. Clearly people who share finances with each other without question assess each other’s value in a completely different way. I would certainly place a lot of value on a partner who had the emotional time and energy always to be sunny and cheerful and good company, rather than weighed down by responsibilities beyond their ability to cope, especially if, as a couple, there was already plenty of money to go around to enable a lifestyle you are both happy with. It really is a weird form of sour grapes to look down on people whose partners are happy with their lot, because you, who are not their partner, would be resentful of them for not viewing the world the way you do, or having a partnership like the one you appear to think superior.

I don’t know if it is “luck” as such (although I do know what you mean, to be fair); I think successful relationships depend on people having similar values and attitudes towards major things (and finances are one of those). So two very ambitious, money orientated people will be a great match for each other - whereas if one person wants something different, or values time more, then that can cause issues. And vice versa. Ultimately, though, everyone makes their own choices based on their own situation and what works best for them.

What - because most people didn't agree with you, and are happy for other people who are lucky enough to live a wonderful part time life rather than be jealous and bitter about it?

I'm quite aware of meanings, thanks though.

I’m the higher earner and DH works part time for himself. The DC are older now but when they were younger I had the luxury of never having to worry about school holidays nor if I needed to work late. The amount of mental stress and money that saved us was worth every penny DH didn’t earn.

Nope don’t agree. Can guarantee the
person working part time, or no time is running the house and that provides a much better standard of living for the high earner.

Also I feel very strongly that if a woman takes multiple maternity leaves, works part time or stays in a lower paid job due to flexibility etc they are making a massive sacrifice so finances should be pooled long term rather than oh, no caring responsibilities anymore tough shit if your wage is crap, you can work full time and also manage the house!

I think shared finances get complicated in blended families with children from other parents. But where that isn't the case, I think shared finances are usually the the fairest way.

I can see what you mean about if one person was choosing to work less hours, I think it is critical couples are on the same page and have the same values. DH and I are both ambitious and have quite a lot of demanding aspirations and as such are on the same page that we both want to work full time and do the best we can in our careers to earn well. I out-earn DH by quite a bit but that's the nature of my career, DH is doing well in his career path and working hard so there is no resentment from me and I have no issues pooling money despite providing more. He has earned more at different stages. If he wanted to take a step back and this wasn't for health reasons or to benefit the household in some way, if it was just because he wanted to kick back a bit...maybe I would want to divide the money slightly differently. But if he was around more to do more with the house and kids, and we both agreed that was needed, I'd still think pooling is fair.

Basically, both parties have to be on the same page, if they both value having one parent at home more, earning less etc, then pooling is fair, otherwise you get the well earning parent getting it all their way leaving the other parent worse off.

Me and DH both work FT but I am a relatively high earner. I pay the majority of mortgage, bills and other household expenses (meals out etc) in recognition of that but we do not share finances. He does pay a share of course. I've worked really hard to get to where I am whereas he hasn't really committed to a career. So I don't see why he should have unlimited access to my income.

I don't work, my DH works full time. My youngest is 15 and he is more than happy for me to stay at home. I'm here for our daughter, I take care of the house, cook meals, do washing.I also follow my hobbies and see friends. It works for us.

I think this is one of those situations where it doesn't fucking matter what other people do. A bit like the thread commenting on people who shop together 😅
Absolutely pointless.

@Gummybears6
In your opinion, I am one of those women "swanning around" on my husband's money. We have 2 children, both part time in nursery, I don't work, just run the household, all family admin falls to me, 60% of the childcare probably falls to me, DH's admin for work comes to me.

It was a decision both DH and I made together before we had children and one we both agreed to. I have access to a joint account that DH tops up and he also pays me a "wage" (spends, pocket money, whatever you want to call it" and that is my money to do as I choose.

It works for our family as we are now, and who knows what will change in the future.

And just to really show how "lazy and entitled" (your words) I am, we also have a pre nup, should we get divorced!

@MsSquiz prenups don't have much power in the UK. They can be considered but not enforced. Have you got a pension?

As I mentioned, it's different if you have children or other caring responsibilities.
'life admin' is no excuse. Many adults both work and carry out this 'life admin' just fine.

What does it matter to you how other couples structure their finances? If it works for them, great.

I work full-time and my husband took early retirement at 50, a few years ago. It works for ts because it means i don’t have to spend my evenings and weekends cleaning, food shopping, etc. We can very comfortably afford it and it works for us. We don’t have any separate or individual accounts. Every penny is shared.

I honestly don't know what you hoped to gain by posting this OP. You sound like you have a huge chip on your shoulder about something. Why do you care how other people run their lives and finances?

And as for it being 'your right not to be sworn at' - it's really not. Not on here.

Your assumption that those disagreeing with you must do so because the straw man argument applies to them is quite lazy tbh.

I don't have to accept being sworn at, please stop telling me how I should or shouldn't be.
I can guarantee there will be another cocklodger thread on here soon, where the man isn't working/only working part time. And no, not all women who work less are doing all of the cleaning and cooking, I highly doubt that.
Anyway, there will be another thread where people will say the man should get a full-time job and he will be called names.

What you don't seem to be understanding op, is that in many couples, BOTH sides of the couple are very happy with this type of relationship.

Of course if the higher earner is not, then resentment would build.

I do think that when I was a sahm the person who was living the best life at the time was my (now ex) dh. He had to think about nothing other than work. Nothing. His whole wonderful life was organised for him. And for many people, that carries a value far higher than the money they earn.

As an example. On a Saturday he wanted to play golf in the morning and cricket with his dc in the garden in the afternoon, a bbq with friends in the evening. He thought not about how the lawn got mowed, who bought the cricket bats, who marked out the pitch in the garden, who bought the bbq food and beers, who invited the friends, who made the salads. He just wanted to enjoy every second of his weekend. And if that meant staying half an hour later and seeing one more patient every day, that is a price he would gladly pay. It would be the same for him now without the dc. He'd give his right arm to never have to think once he locked the door to his surgery.

Interesting, I consider myself lucky, DH and I pooled money from the get go. I mainly worked part time/freelance. Worked mainly for the NFP sector that I was passionate about, retrained at 50 for a job I loved. Did most of the home stuff, did the domestics for three kids. DH thinks he was really lucky, had a great career mainly facilitated by having a wife who did a lot of the domestics. We communicated and negotiated along the way. Nobody felt resentful.

Ive got lots of friends who have a lifestyle due to the dh earning well.
Its just how it goes.