Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Finances post baby - how would you split?

185 replies

Jeje100 · 10/04/2025 16:18

I would welcome views on this - pre baby/mat leave, DP and I both worked full time and split mortgage/bills equally - he earns double my salary.

I’m going back on roughly 50% of my hours on the same salary (pro-rata’d of course), with DP’s salary still double.

Would you expect DP to now pay say c.75% of all bills, or more given that now I’m earning less each month, I won’t have much left over post settling my share?

OP posts:
cestlavielife · 10/04/2025 18:13

Why doesn't your dp want to maximise time with child?
You could both cut to 4 days a a week. Child is in childcare x 3 days you one day dp one day.
Much fairer and great to ensure dad gets time with child

Vaxtable · 10/04/2025 18:15

If he earns double your salary you should never be paying 50/50 anyway but proportional to your salary.

as to when you go back the same should apply

goldenretrieverenergy · 10/04/2025 18:21

I think YABVU to decrease your hours and expect him to pick up the slack without discussing it and both agreeing. I think he will become resentful and it will 100% affect your relationship.

I am in a similar situation (wanted to go part time after maternity leave), but I’d never do that if I knew my partner would not be supportive as that wouldn’t be fair.

Leafy74 · 10/04/2025 18:37

redphonecase · 10/04/2025 18:13

Your mistake was getting pregnant before you got married. I'd be making it clear that either you get married now, or he owes you half the equivalent cost of the childcare you'll be providing.

The problem with ultimatums is they can backfire... badly. And it's the OP who is in the weaker position.

Ineedanewsofa · 10/04/2025 18:41

Regardless, splits should be proportional to income so you need to revisit that. The decision around you reducing your hours should have been joint (although given the cost of childcare it’s probably a good one financially). All child related spend should come out of the joint account, children are a joint expense. So many women seem to get saddled with paying for everything for the baby…

nutbrownhare15 · 10/04/2025 18:42

We work out what we need in our joint account each month and then add money to it proportionate to our income. That does mean that the higher earner has more left over each month but that's not an issue for us as we see all money as jointly ours anyway. I would be wary of giving up earning potential though given that you aren't married. If marriage isn't for you would you do a civil partnership?

Martyjake · 10/04/2025 18:45

My husband earns double my salary but we are a family so everything goes into a joint account that pays bills savings etc. once they are paid the money that is left is used as we need it.
i don’t understand people that are in a long term relationship with children and still have separate money, you are a family so you should just use what you both earn.

nutbrownhare15 · 10/04/2025 18:45

scotstars · 10/04/2025 18:13

I don't think you can expect to.pay less as you have decided to work less. What if your partner did the same and cut his hours to spend more time with baby would you pay in more to subsidise his choices?
I went part time after baby but it's a sacrifice financially and I only did it after doing a budget to make sure I could pay my bills from my wage. It was a good job really as we split before baby was 2

Decided to work less...to do more of the work parenting their child? and yes obviously it would need to be discussed but just as I would expect my partner to pay more if I worked less to spend time with our kid I'd be happy to support financially if he wanted to. In my house it's not his money and my money, it's our money.

QuickPeachPoet · 10/04/2025 18:46

So you are expecting him to fund your ‘I wants’…

redphonecase · 10/04/2025 18:47

Leafy74 · 10/04/2025 18:37

The problem with ultimatums is they can backfire... badly. And it's the OP who is in the weaker position.

But then she'll know where she stands and can get her ducks in a row and stay FT at work

MumbleBumbleAppleCrumble · 10/04/2025 18:48

The trouble with money is that it creates divisions. It builds classes. That’s just as true in a relationship as it is in wider society. However, in a relationship it can (should) be far easier to change things.

I’ve never understood these sorts of relationships - especially once two people start a family - where each person continues to act as an individual. In which money earned by each person is wholly theirs and they will contribute a certain amount to the agreed costs of living and the rest is theirs while the other person has to struggle to keep up.

Why would a couple - and certainly a family - not have a shared pot from which to fund the things that are required for the family to survive and support the lifestyle they want?

Why would you want a family or a relationship that runs along the lines of a house share or perhaps a small business in which a few people hold shares of differing values and so have x number of votes in decisions. And besides, so often in these situations neither partner seems wholly happy in how things are managed.

And, I’ve never understood how it works when people don’t pool their money as a couple. What is the higher earner doing with all their spare cash? Are they spending it all on solo holidays and fancy clothes while telling their partner that if they can’t afford these things they can’t partake? Treating the lower earner like a second class citizen in the relationship.

Are there loaded people walking around in Gieves suits and cashmere overcoats while their partner follows behind in some ancient and unsubstantial jacket they got from Primark 15 years ago and have never been able to replace? Are they going off on wonderful holidays while their partner, and maybe children too, have a rainy week in an ancient leaky tent on the south coast? Perhaps these higher earners also insist on a special room in the house into which they occasionally retreat to dive into their vast hoards of cash like Scrooge MacDuck!

And what about when children come along? Children are wholly dependent upon their parents, they cannot by definition contribute either financially or practically to a household. They do, of course, bring something far more important and wonderful.

And it’s silly, if not dangerous, to only think of what people can contribute to a family financially. Things are not just about money. People provide all sorts of things to relationships and families, money, child care, emotional support, household tasks, the list is endless, and none of it should be seen as more valid - or worthy- than anything else. Certainly, money shouldn’t trump all else. And besides, beyond all this why should the aim of a career be to make the most money, sadly the majority of jobs that do some actual good to the world and to society are usually some of the worst paid. Should someone be forced to find a better paid job, possibly doing something they hate and they see has less beneficial to society, just to find equity in their relationship or should the bigger earner perhaps decide that they should do all they can to make their partner happy and supported?

If your partner were not in a relationship, was a single parent, then what would they do? They’d have to earn less and work less or they’d have to spend more on child support and such.

Surely one of the joys of becoming a couple is that you discover the brilliant thing when two people coming together creates something far more powerful and creative than any individual can manage? Dreams and joys are shared and the couple acts as a support to the individuals involved and work towards their goals together. Sure, one might be able to contribute more financially, but the others bring other things.

OP, you seem to be stuck in a position of helplessness. You view yourself as having very little power in this partnership. You say things, like you hope you might get married one day but that decision sits with your partner. That’s nonsense. This is 2025 not 1825. You are an equal player in this relationship. What you both need to start doing as a couple is having proper grown up conversations. Absolutely, you should both agree or find compromise in things such as your decision to go part time, but you only talk about that in terms of you being able to contribute financially. I assume that in going part time you are doing so to spend time looking after your child. That’s a huge thing to do and needs to be considered as just as important in the running of your family as any money. When you are not working you will not be spending money on childcare, so it’s by no means only financially burdensome.

At the very least, if you cannot make your partner understand he needs to stop using money as a tool to make you feel like a second rate player in this relationship, then he must at least pay you for the childcare you are providing.

SouthLondonMum22 · 10/04/2025 18:48

nutbrownhare15 · 10/04/2025 18:45

Decided to work less...to do more of the work parenting their child? and yes obviously it would need to be discussed but just as I would expect my partner to pay more if I worked less to spend time with our kid I'd be happy to support financially if he wanted to. In my house it's not his money and my money, it's our money.

It wasn't discussed which is part of the issue.

HappyHedgehog247 · 10/04/2025 18:50

He'd rather pay for inferior external childcare?

MoserRothOrangeandAlmond · 10/04/2025 19:01

sorry OP this sounds like a recipe for disaster.
He’d rather pay for external childcare than chip in more and pay for a higher percentage of the bills???
No talk of when he had his pay rises of what is fair to pay?
No commitment of marriage and he’s the higher earner??
No hope in hell would I have a baby in this relationship.

We jointly own our home (I put more down on the deposit), we are married, have joint savings etc.
The main thing for us was our child. I work shifts at first I went back 24 then to 30 hours ( 2 shifts 1 week and 3 shifts the next week) and work some weekends.
He works from home on compressed hours and has flexi hours.
He earns about 20 grand more than me. So pays more into the bills and savings and I get the child benefit as it’s mostly me that shops for our child. This way we only need 1 day maximum of childcare per week and some weeks none.
He is an equal parent our child and we were married way before we had her.

Riaanna · 10/04/2025 19:02

Everything goes in one pot. Bills etc deducted. What’s left is divided up.

Riaanna · 10/04/2025 19:04

Jeje100 · 10/04/2025 16:57

Thank you for the replies. We did have a discussion about my hours and weren’t in total agreement, but we can cope financially with my reduction and it means I can focus on being a parent as much as possible and not have to pay excessive amounts for childcare. The only issue is that we ideally want to move house which would mean a bigger Mortgage so we’d be more stretched if/when that happens.

That is a challenge. You should not have kids if you weren’t on the same wavelength.

Hobbitfeet32 · 10/04/2025 19:05

Being a working parent doesn’t mean you focus less on being a parent. Providing for your child is a major role of being a parent

Pamspeople · 10/04/2025 19:07

You're putting yourself in such a vulnerable position by not being married in this situation, OP. Of course you don't doubt his commitment, no-one does until something goes wrong and they've lost their career to bring up his child and have few rights to what they thought was shared. Everything changes for women when a child comes along, whether we like it or not. Don't sleep walk into a really powerless position.

AffableApple · 10/04/2025 19:08

Leafy74 · 10/04/2025 17:07

You are in a very vulnerable position and you plan to make yourself more vulnerable.

This. Until I read you weren't married, I was going to suggest you factor in the cost of wraparound childcare - including contingency for your baby being ill and you both potentially needing some unpaid time off to cover, and anything else you can think of which he may not have. But you're not married. You need your own income. Just read the hundreds of threads on here of women who started in your position. You have bigger problems here - you're messing with your whole future. Only be a SAHP if you're married. Marriage gives you more financial protection.

howshouldibehave · 10/04/2025 19:09

I would expect my partner to pay more if I worked less to spend time with our kid I'd be happy to support financially if he wanted to.

OP-would you be happy for your partner to work part time and you pay more of the bills?

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 10/04/2025 19:11

If he doesn't want to get married then you can't force him, but in my view the moment you decided to have a baby together was the moment you should have started behaving like you're actually a family.

Paying 50:50 towards everything when you both work full time and one of you earns double what the other earns isn't behaving like a family, because you have one partner with much more disposable income than the other partner. It makes you more like flatmates who pay the same market rent regardless of how much each of them earns.

So as a starting point I would say that as soon as you went on maternity leave you should have both been getting paid into a joint account, and both transferring an equal amount of spending money to your personal accounts each month. Splitting bills proportionately to your income is the next fairest solution, although it still results in the higher earner having more disposable income.

The complicating factor here is that you now want to go back part time and your partner isn't fully on board with this. This means there's now a question mark over how much you are earning compared to how much your partner thinks you should be earning. Really you should have discussed this before TTC and made sure you were on the same page.

However, it's not as simple as saying that you are choosing to earn 50% of your previous salary therefore you should take the hit, because if you went back to work full time you would presumably need to pay for more childcare.

So, say your full time salary was £40k and you're dropping to £20k by working part-time hours. First you calculate the difference in net pay each month. (If you're working 50% in terms of hours, you will be taking home more than 50% of your full time net pay because you would have been paying more tax on the other 50%.) Once you've calculated how much net pay you will be losing each month by working part-time, then you work out how much it would cost you to use childcare for those extra hours. Then deduct what you're saving in childcare from what you're losing in pay, and what's left is essentially the salary that you are choosing to forego by working part-time. It is most likely less than he thinks it is.

In your situation I would be pushing for you both to get paid into the same joint account and both give yourselves the same discretionary personal spending money each month. But, being realistic, if he wanted to share his money with you in this way you would probably be married.

The next best solution is to split all your shared bills (including any money spent on your child) proportionately according to your actual net income. This results in him having more discretionary spending money than you but is still fairer than your current setup.

If he won't agree to that, the next best solution would be to split all your shared bills (including any money spent on your child) proportionately according to your hypothetical net incomes, but adjusting yours by the amount you are choosing to forego each month by working part time (the lost salary minus the cost of childcare). This means that he doesn't "lose out" because you have chosen to work less and spend more time with your child. However, in this scenario I would be insisting on him doing 50% of household chores. This option isn't compatible with you doing all the wife work.

The least fair option is that you continue to split everything 50:50 despite the fact that his income will now be four times what yours is. That's not being a family, that's being housemates. And you shouldn't have a baby with your housemate.

If he won't budge from 50:50 then in your position I might reconsider going part time, and go back full time and make sure he pays his 50% of childcare costs. Because in this scenario he doesn't see you as his family and will keep all his lovely money for himself if you break up, so you can't rely on him to look after you.

What has happened during your mat leave? Has he been covering all bills? If you've still been paying your share despite being on mat pay then he has already profited financially from your reproductive labour and you should definitely point this out to him.

Chungai · 10/04/2025 19:14

scotstars · 10/04/2025 18:13

I don't think you can expect to.pay less as you have decided to work less. What if your partner did the same and cut his hours to spend more time with baby would you pay in more to subsidise his choices?
I went part time after baby but it's a sacrifice financially and I only did it after doing a budget to make sure I could pay my bills from my wage. It was a good job really as we split before baby was 2

By that token SAHM would be in debt every month

Espresso25 · 10/04/2025 19:22

AmIHumanOrAmIAYeti · 10/04/2025 17:34

What’s that?

Raising your children is actually a nice experience.

Riaanna · 10/04/2025 19:24

Chungai · 10/04/2025 19:14

By that token SAHM would be in debt every month

If it’s not a decision that’s been reached together they should.

BethDuttonBaby · 10/04/2025 19:28

We nerve did his and her money - we did our money.

as a family we pool our resources together and share.

Swipe left for the next trending thread