Stay at home parent looking forward to retirement

[Equalitystreets]

One partner is and has always been the sole breadwinner.

Other is a stay at home parent who as the children have gotten older has gradually had more free time during the day.

They always share the household chores equally.

When the children go to University, the stay at home parent has said they will be retiring and ‘they can’t wait’.

The partner with the job has at least another 15 years of work to do (and all their retirement funding will come from this partner’s investments, or investments set up in the stay at home parent’s name that were set up and funded by the working partner).

Is the stay at home partner being reasonable to declare their job is completed when the children are 18, even if the other partner has another 15 years of work to do?

I don't understand what your partner means by retiring though. Do they mean drawing down their pension? What exactly are they going to stop doing, if household chores are already shared? Are they going to stop doing their share? Who do they think will do them?

I don't necessarily think it's reasonable to expect them to go back to paid work at this stage, but equally I don't think they can just down tools at home either.

SAHM daughter of a SAHM here. (My mother taught for a decade before I was born and I’m a licensed attorney, lest anyone think we’ve never left the kitchen.) I think your partner should either do more of the work around the house, or else find some kind of useful activity, paid or unpaid. After I left home, my mother got involved in local politics and spent twenty years either holding office or campaigning for someone else. Your partner doesn’t have to do anything that intense, though. Would she be interested in doing any volunteering? Big household projects?

I don't get why you tried to camouflage which member of the couple you were. It never works, your own viewpoint is always going to come through.

Anyway, I am surprised the SAHP wasn't encouraged back to work as soon as the youngest child reached school age.

By now though I think it would be incredibly hard for them to find employment. And I imagine they would feel pretty nervous about trying to find a job. So some of this may just be bravado.

And if you agree to one partner being a SAHP then of course all the investments etc from the working parents salary are joint.

And I would say all that regardless of the sex of each partner.

This seems highly unfair

That’s not retirement, it’s not wanting to work. Fine if the working partner doesn’t mind but if not, then it isn’t fair. I know someone like it, adamant that she didn’t want to work and expected husband to fund her lifestyle. Husband got fed up of that and ended their marriage. Now she has to work.

On what basis is the sahp ‘retiring’? They can retire from being a sahp, yes - and so they should once children are adults. Why do they think they should not go and work outside the home?

OP, are you a high earner such that what your dp earn in comparison after so long out of the market is peanuts in comparison?

It sounds like if you have to work another 15 years to retirement with no option of retiring earlier despite your dcs being in uni, then your dp should go out to work to entire both of you to retire earlier together.

You cannot 'retire' from being a SAHP because SAHP is not a job. Certainly the SAHP has had a good run of it in the leadup to the dcs going to uni because the hands on 'parenting' aspect of it would have massively reduced from when the dcs were little up till A levels.

Your dp should go out and get a job and earn a pension. It will help to stave off dementia caused by an early 'retirement', which will be a double/triple whammy for you.

I'm not clear why the OP has had so many posters reply in a harsh way, he hasn't said she must go out to work or anything not acknowledging that she will have had a long time out of the workforce because of their set up etc.

What his wife has said about now "retiring" is incredibly insensitive though and gives an impression of failing to acknowledge that one partner has been carrying all the financial burden and is not at this point retiring or anytime soon. It is an end to one stage of her life but she is misjudging things if she thinks it is now straight to a retirement that doesn't include contributing in as equal a way as possible but that doesn't necessarily need to be financial, it is entirely reasonable to expect her to pick something else up in its place whether at home or in a workplace

It's not straightforward.

The sahp took a hit to any career or potential earnings and pension and enabled the working partner to work without having to do a lot of parenting.

So t's fair that the sahp gets income from investments. Does the sahp have a pension?

I wonder how many hours the sahp worked or was available, on call, ready to spring into action caring for children through the night and weekends and on holidays.

Are the children adults and starting their own families, and expecting the sahp to help with grandchildren? If so, it's not really going to be retirement, is it.

SAHP has had a good deal by the sounds of it. Perhaps it should be presented more as a redundancy situation and therefore a need to find a new position!

My parents had a pretty traditional set-up but when my younger sister was nearing the end of secondary school, she got a job and effectively had her career (albeit a bit of a shorter one) then.

Yep

I'm a sahm and I'm definitely forward to retirement! DH will retire at the same time though to keep me company, and I've always maintained a separate income and investing strategy so I have as much retirement income as he will. Youngest dc will start school next year and I have no plans to get a job as I have enough income from investments not to need to, and it would be annoying to have to ask permission to be able to go to school events and be around for every school holiday and school run.

I think if the family income can maintain having a sahp and the wohp is happy in their job it's fine to continue as they are.

I worked 14 hrs a week when our children were younger but as soon as they were more independent and both in high school I went back to work full time I couldn’t let my dh earn all the money without me adding my own money into it all because that’s unfair.

i would feel resentful if I was the only one working and the other was having a lovely leisurely time to themselves. Even a part time job would bring some money in but not working even for all these years is not an equal partnership.

“And if you agree to one partner being a SAHP then of course all the investments etc from the working parents salary are joint.”

For the period of time that both partners have agreed that one parent stays at home for the benefit of the family, yes I agree. I also think it’s fair enough to say you won’t be contributing to their investments, pension funds etc if they don’t go back to work once the children don’t need them at home.
Of course if career has stalled then provide support and encouragement for interviews and applications to get back into the working world. But the sahp will have to step out of their comfort zone as it’s not fair for all the financial burden to fall on one person with no good reason why both can’t work.

I’d wager it was never 50/50, (the mental load and admin that comes with raising kids is relentless) but let’s re-frame the situation.

One parent gave up any chance of a career in order to raise the children which by all accounts they did very well given they are going to university. That’s no mean feat, how many children are we talking about?

One parent was therefore able to go off and succeed at their career, free of the responsibility that comes with being on call 24/7 when you are the primary caregiver, because they had a partner who dealt with all that stuff.

Partner 1 who now has less of a role with the children now is expected to go out and do something else to earn some money. They have no skills or experience so it won’t be a particularly good job but Partner 2 insists on them doing it because they think it is only fair. It is unclear whether they need the money.

If there is resentment it is because there wasn’t clear communication.

Excellent question

I wonder how many hours the sahp worked or was available, on call, ready to spring into action caring for children through the night and weekends and on holidays.

So OP never had to spring into action as the other parent? What sort of weird family set up is this? In any case, children are little only for short time. This does not hold true for teenage dcs.

Are the children adults and starting their own families, and expecting the sahp to help with grandchildren? If so, it's not really going to be retirement, is it.

So the SAHP of grown up children sits around idle in anticipation of their dcs sprogging and being needed to help with grandchildren? Talk about having no life. Life does not go on hold to serve adults who are perfectly capable of sorting out their own lives. Unless this is some kind of weird dependency that is being foisted on the dcs to justify a SAHP's existence.

No this isn't even. Why would you choose to 'retire' when your partner is working for another 15 years. This isn't retirement it's doing nothing. Wouldn't you want to have financial security of your own? Surely this leaves you really vulnerable? Also how much money is in this household that there is also enough to support kids in their lives - house deposit / help with a wedding/ small car and fund a retirement years before state mention age ? This just doesn't add up.

Was in a similar set up. As the children got older SAHP increased volunteering, some self employment and dealt with all the aging parents while continuing to do bulk of cleaning, cooking life admin….

It might be fine if they agree but it's definitely not fair or equal. Tidying up and cooking (even if they do it all) doesn't take 45 hours a week. It just means one person is unemployed and the other is funding it - obviously totally different if you have children or other caring responsibilities.

Disgraceful and gives women a bad name.

once the children are independent, both parents should contribute towards the household income

Agree.

I wouldn’t financially support a lazy entitled slob.

Divorce time.

Oh what a complete crock of shit!

They might both be blokes