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 agree there are definitely double standards. Of course couples should be able to decide themselves what they want to do, but if you wouldn’t approve of it if the sexes were reversed then it’s sexist imo.

I personally have taken a bit of more relaxed job recently. Still a single mum but I’ve built enough that I can relax a bit. I’m proud that I have been able to provide for myself and my family on my own. Yet on mn many posters (probably the majority) tell women to marry for “protection” and on one thread a poster told me if she was me, she would have had an abortion rather than be an unmarried mother!

I encourage my daughters to work and provide for themselves and I think there’s a lot to be said for that.

I work part time and had zero time at home that didn't have the kids so wasn't "swanning" around, I literally did drop off, work, kids' activities, cook dinner, tidy up, bed... DH doesn't finish reliably for asc pick up time meaning it's all my problem ..

So working part time isn't necessarily the easier option if kids are of childcare/ferrying age!

Yes, with kids it's totally different.
So imagine for whatever reason you met a new partner. You work full time and he tells you he only works part time (no children involved) and expects to live on your salary, has no intention of taking on more hours. Would you honestly sub him?

If he was only working part time when we met and I was happy with my full time job, why would I want to insist on changing this? Access to money does not oblige someone to spend up to it in any event. Why would he suddenly feel the need to spend all our joint money? It would be a weird “partnership” if you didn’t let someone live in your house, because they couldn’t have afforded it without you and you don’t want to accidentally enable them to have a better lifestyle than you, weirdly, think they deserve, despite the fact you have chosen them as a partner. And in what way is your life not improved by his extra income and the financial savings made on being a couple?

🤣🤣🤣I extrapolated nothing. I have called out controlling, shaming, demeaning behaviour, which you have exemplified perfectly with your “trophy wives,” “hated” higher earning women and people who just want to “enjoy life.”

Of course, it’s possible I hold a non-judgemental opinion because I have never actually been friends or associated with any women who don’t do paid work or anything else useful with their time, so I’m not inclined towards resentment of people I don’t know exist, or with respect to whom my only experience of their existence is via other people resenting them. Why would I care about people who have nothing to do with me and who actually exist in tiny numbers, so far as I am aware?

Uh, I’ve already clearly stated that’s my freaking goal, to have my husband retire and be the sole earner.

@limons well considering the prenup we signed means I get less than I would in a 50/50 split, I wouldn't be in a worse off position.

Our pre nup is fairly likely to be upheld and the amount I would be given is on a scale, increasing with the length of our marriage (which makes sense to us), as well as 50% of any property and any funds I have in my own name (approx £70k at the moment from my DM's inheritance)
It also covers maintenance from DH to me for our 2 children and that he would be responsible for their school fees until they leave full time education

As my BIL and SIL are currently getting divorced and seeing it get so messy over the children and finances, it makes me glad we have our pre nup even as a basis for a divorce, should it come to that.

I have a very small pension and DH covers my NI contributions

As an accountant, I hear similar arguments a lot about when a business partnership or limited company is set up between a husband and wife, but where it's (usually) the husband doing the income generating work, and (usually) the wife appearing on the surface to do nothing, but take a wage/dividend/profit share "just for tax reasons".

It's usually completely a wrong assumption. That's because usually the spouse earning the income can only do that because of the "hidden" support of the non earning spouse in terms of support, both in the home and towards the business. The income generating spouse often works long/random hours which means less/no time for household chores or even business admin, so the "opportunity cost" to them is huge if they can earn a few hundred or a few thousand pounds for being able to work a weekend or work away for a few days, which they wouldn't have been able to do if they'd had to do their "fair share" of household chores, business admin, etc. If a small business admin/book-keeping etc takes a day per week, that's a day's less earning if the self employed person had to do it themselves, so based on a 5 day week, that's a loss of income of 20% - if a "non earning" spouse does that, the earner doesn't lose 20% of their income, which is a lot more than the superficial "value" of a day's admin at say minimum wage! Like I say, opportunity cost!

Same with the spouses of senior/managerial employees. Usually you don't get to be a manager/director by just working a 9-5 week, it usually involves long days, evening/weekend meetings, working away, etc., etc., so they can't help with the housework, shopping, childcare, home DIY, even just arranging workmen. It's unfair for the other spouse to have the burden of all that on their own and try to work full time, in fact, it's probably impossible without other paid help (childminders, cleaners, gardeners, etc), so when one spouse can't do their "fair share", then it's only right the other spouse reduces their working hours so that they can do their own share and the other spouses share!

I've no doubt at all that "some" spouses are just spongers who spend their days pampering themselves and other nonsense, but in the majority of situations, I think the non-earning spouse will do a lot more than their "fair share" of household tasks, taking that burden off the full time (or more) spouse, which enables them to work longer hours/work harder, etc., and thus have a higher income.

We don't have kids but I work part time due to disability (know you were excluding that OP) However our long term goal is for both of us to work part time and we will get a smaller mortgage etc to accommodate that.

Anyway, I know of a few stay at home wives without kids. Husband is in high stress job and looked for someone happy not to work and manage the home. He doesn't care if she spends any spare time going to lunches or the cinema etc as long as he doesn't have to do anything at all in the house.

My other friends, both women agreed she would stay at home because my friend hates housework with a passion but also doesn't like strangers in the home. Works for them too.

I think all that matters is that both parties are happy and everything is paid.

I know a couple who have this arrangement, no kids, she works part-time in a low stress job and he is a high earner, second marriage. He is much older than her and presumably likes having a wife to do all the household things. She has a lifestyle way above what she would be able to afford by herself and plenty of free time to do lunches etc. However I have witnessed him making comments about it being his money and her hitting his credit card hard, her thanking him on sm for holidays, meals out etc and seen her running round like a servant at mealtimes. It's not a relationship balance that I would feel comfortable with at all. If they had children together or caring responsibilities I agree it would be different. I also feel in today's society it's rather old fashioned, surely women should be looking to further themselves not rely on an older man. However it's their choice and presumably works for them.

We've never completely pooled money but always had a joint and our own accounts and paid into the joint account to cover bills and joint expenditure. I think it's much better to keep your own account as well.

Exactly 🤷‍♀️

I've had comments from some people about "spending my husband's money" when I've made a larger purchase. I didn't point out that I am the higher earner (by some 40%) but just said, "Er, no, it's definitely my money."

DH and I were earning fairly similar amounts when the kids were small.
DH asked if I would quit my job, and follow a dream of his to work abroad. After a 5 year gap, my earning potential is shot. I'm earning half my previous salary.
As a team, we are better off. As an individual, I'm worse off. Why shouldn't I have equal access to the money?

Surely that's how partnerships work.

I think this situation is quite rare - but if one half of the married couple don’t earn much / anything and there’s no health or caring reason for it, it’s probably because it suits them both.

I don’t think most people would call a man a cocklodger in that situation - that usually gets used when the female partner is being taken for a ride.

Firstly, you only need so much money, so if one person is a high earner, a second income can be simply superfluous.

Secondly, life can be more stress free if one person works and the other manages home life. (And if you see very well off there can be a lot of home life - properties, travel, a busy social calendar - to manage).

And thirdly, a lot of non working women who appear to have no responsibilities outside the home do do a lot of free work within the community. I think that unless you really are rich, it’s foolish to give up your career, but community life usually benefits from people with lots of time to give.

But @Gummybears6 you don’t really need to worry about any of this, you need to focus on sorting out your own life so you aren’t jealous of a small group of the population. It’s never a good look and it’s hurting only you.

I think how you manage your finances reflects how you view your relationship and the approach you take more broadly in life.

If you view yourself as a team and a unit then it makes sense that you would pool all the 'work' required to run the family unit (domestic, childcare, employment) and allocate it effectively amongst the team members. In this kind of scenario it makes absolute sense to also pool the outcomes from the work whether it be the enjoyment of a nice clean home, happy and content children or the salary from paid employment. In this kind of setup it is pretty easy to see how a unit may decide that one partner should do more in one area of life (e.g. more childcare) whilst the other does more in another (paid employment).

If you view yourself more as individuals then it is much more likely that you will want to make sure that all parties are doing an equal share of each element of 'work'. So both partners should be in paid employment for the same amount of time in similar paying jobs, doing roughly the same amount of domestic chores and childcare. In my experience, these situations often in reality mean that the woman ends up working the same amount as the man in paid employment and still ends up shouldering the majority of the domestic and childcare burden.

@Gummybears6 and how many times have we heard people saying how stressed they are due to spinning too many plates at once? Work, kids, life admin, social life, etc.

DH and I have made the decision that in our relationship, we play to our strengths and doing what we enjoy. He enjoys the work he does and I enjoy running our household, the organisation, the admin, etc and we both enjoy spending time with our children. So that is how we have chosen to work it. And it works for us.

Should we divorce, I will of course go back to work. And I am fairly lucky that my career skills are fairly transferable and I have also been able to undertake courses that have helped those skills develop.

Truly high earning men benefit from having partners who devote themselves to the home / making their lives easier. In this case the at home partner is their cook, secretary, the person who hosts or networks with their colleagues’ spouses to get them jobs, housekeeper and ( when they finally get it up) a convenient fuck too. It’s often a full time job in itself. But most men on MN aren’t earning that much. I don’t understand why people give up work when their partner earns less than 200k.

You should definitely have equal right to your shared money as stepping down from your career has enabled your family to benefit, but this post isn't about couples who have children together.

@PetitPorpoise has described the arrangement that worked for my mother and her friends, even after the children left home. It cannot be replaced by hired assistance unless you are very wealthy indeed. Pieces of it, yes, but the cost is the frenetic and exhausted lifestyle familiar to many of us in households where both adults have demanding jobs. You can be very luckily economically (top 2% or 5% by income) without being able to afford the multiple staff roles to replace the work of one intelligent woman or man dedicated to making the home run smoothly.

I think it is difficult in our world to keep your edge and your self respect in the homemaker role and that the role can be quite stressful. I have taken a very different path. But I have huge respect for those who do it well.

I also said on a similar thread yesterday that I believe marital partners should share a common standard of living, though how they achieve it may vary.