To think this level of saving is extreme and I’m right to question it?

[ITru]

My DP earns 3,800 after tax. Although we live together he also owns a home and so our finances have always been separate and we just split food bills and heating for my place. Anyway…

it recently came to light that DP is saving 1,500 from an income of 3,800. He never asks me to sub him or anything so that’s not the issue… the issue is he has often said let’s go somewhere cheaper for dinner or let’s go abroad one less night etc. he’s always trying to cut costs. Now I know he’s saving this it’s really annoyed me. Like I say he does pay his way so that’s fine but I can’t understand why for example we went somewhere average for my birthday dinner recently or why we couldn’t have split the cost of a swanky hotel when we went away in summer rather than camping like we did!!

I know everyone has a different perspective on how to spend money and what to spend it on but AIBU to think this is extreme?

Financial comprehension in some of these posts is shocking.

The living arrangements are equitable.

We live quite frugally but we still do things we enjoy. We are off on a bike ride down the canal and river today. There are 3 pubs along the route. We are taking a packed lunch. I know a spot where the river meets the canal network with the most glorious views. It won’t be noisy, I won’t have to queue, the view is better than sitting in a pub. It’s good to find joy in small pleasures. We have retired early because we had decent enough jobs and been careful and built up a nest egg. DH leaves in a couple of weeks.

Really it’s all about who you share that view with, everything else is just window dressing.

Savings, investments for the future, a pension... It's definitely very important. But life is short! I would open a joint account where both of you could put some money in every month and use it for a more expensive day out, dinners and definitely holidays where you wouldn't feel like you're on a budget.

It really depends. My rule pre-children was put away 30-35% a month and keep living costs to a minimum. With kids, 10-20% if possible. So it depends on who you are asking. For me, not unreasonable if there are no kids. However his savings are not working for him as it is collecting dust in the bank with crappy interest. Better to diversify and invest.

Why he is saving should not really matter as that is what makes him feel comfortable. It does not sound like he scrimps in general as he is paying for his share of groceries and half of the gas when in your home.

So IMO there is a value difference. If being more carefree with money is important to you (ie spend a little extra on occasion to enjoy what you earn now), and for him it is a no go-- there is a clash of values here. And unsure if it can be navigated.

Excuse me, I didn’t say all people who are saving are stingy , we all need to save . I stated that .
OP has said this person have saved 75k for “security” and is continuing to do so whilst not splashing out sometimes . To me that is stingy and I’d rather be called feckless (I am not ) than stingy.

This is a genuine question @jrc1071 - what are you saving all this money for? I can understand overpaying a mortgage and paying into a pension because the objective is clear but saving a high proportion of income and keeping living costs to a minimum just because? What’s the objective?

Not the poster you asked but in my case, I'm a high earner who lives frugally day-to-day because I hope to retire comfortably, I like a big cushion in case of redundancy, I have an ill sister who occasionally needs help, I give occasional large lump sums to charity, am saving for a big kitchen extension, etc.

Could not be with a partner who questioned my choices and values. Or with a spendthrift.

Perhaps the OP should find someone more compatible.

Thankyou @BettyBardMacDonald. I get all of that. What I don’t understand is saving just because. I’m also biased because I know two people who saved and saved and went without nice things all their lives - one dropped dead in their early sixties, the other developed early onset dementia and is now in a care home with all their savings and the proceeds of their flat being eaten up in fees.

so their savings are paying for their care - so it was worth their while. Not sure how you can see that as a waste

I don’t see it as a waste. I think it’s terribly sad that all that going without to pay for a nice retirement was pointless.

Does he have a workplace pension? Some income should be saved into a pension and then for an emergency savings pot. If his pension is 77k its not very much yet. You need to get to 100k in pension savings then it starts to grow exponentially. You might benefit from a personal finance course.

However - a thread about this came up a while ago and OP felt the partner should contribute towards wear and tear of her home. 2 people using the kitchen, wearing down carpets etc., maintenance. It's a fair point as presumably part of what you save goes towards these and they will be needed sooner than if he wasn't there. I don't think that's unreasonable.

In terms of the other stuff that comes down to values and what you prioritise spending on and that has to be negotiated but at the end of the day if going to a fancier restaurant is your thing and theirs then maybe you just go to restaurants less often. Maybe do more cheap brunches and then a fancy night out. Idk. As for holidays honestly the extra cost of one more night often isn't that much or you can go on different dates to fund it cheaper so maybe just do more research to find deals.

sorry to bang on - but why a waste / pointless (same difference) when needed , and used, for dementia care? (Maybe they had a family history and were providing for this possibility instead of hoping for council funded care)

Which is not at all valid, if either of you had actually read the whole thread 🤣🤣

It wasn't pointless, otherwise presumably her family would have to pay for her care?
I have a lot of savings as I want to retire early. If I need to go into care it will save my family money. Or if I die before retiring then my family will get it. The money won't disappear into thin air.

It was pointless. Nobody’s family has to pay for their care. She might live another 20 years and the money will run out long before that at which point the state takes over. All she’s done is save the local authority money. It’s very sad.

What are you talking about “nobody’s family has to pay for their care”??

Plenty of people pay for the care fees of their family members. !

I know people who have paid for family members care, I don't know why or what those people would be entitled to otherwise. But even if it saves the local authority money then they can use that for others/societies benefit.

Yes I had a friend who was so stingy with everything but saved like mad. I took her post divorce shopping, she was happy with Primark, I forced her into some beautiful clothes from coast she had a fab figure and looked amazing. I told her to buy a 2 seater SLK and drive into the sunset with a two finger salute to her abusive ex and controlling parents - she bought a Seat Rio and died of cancer 3 years later. Leaving 100s of thousands in the bank and a home she wouldn't heat because of the cost.
She was 52.
There's a happy medium.

They might well do but they don’t have to. Financial assessment is made on the individual and if they have no assets the local authority funds the care. Plenty of people have no family and no money.

Well, one SHOULD pay for one's own care if possible. That's hardly a waste. Why should taxpayers foot the bill?

Anecdotally a few people drop dead before indulging themselves but I'd bet the vast majority of aggressive savers are pleased with the outcome.

I know that as I approach retirement I am, and I've still had an interesting and experience-rich life in the meantime, and paid a hefty share of taxes to support society.

I'll be enjoying life & won't have the begging paws out for others to pick up my slack.

Come on, who the hell saves for the care they may need? Most people don’t need care, anyway.

Well, one SHOULD pay for one's own care if possible.

I don’t disagree and I fully expect to pay for mine if I need it. I do feel very sorry for someone who went without all their life to put all their eggs in the retirement basket then never got to enjoy a penny of it. It feels very cruel.

Thats council fundedcare, not great. I cannot stand this attitude of expecting free treatment and care, cradle to grave. The country can't afford it and care is rationed because of it. If you can afford to pay for your aged care then do so to take some pressure off- and to ensure that you get the care you want, not what someone decides you can have.

I take it you’re unaware that there’s plenty of care homes around the country that each have a mixture of self-funders and people who haven’t self-funded?

People with a sense of responsibility to the community at large is who. The UK's social support system too often seems to breed an expectation that 'someone else' will take care of costs. 50% of the population working to support 22% on the dole / not looking for work and getting social care.

Well said, @daleylama

So fed up with the "live for today, someone else will pay for my tomorrows" mentality.