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?

He stated that they have been having discussions and he was blindsided by her intention to keep leeching, and that resentment has been growing. So it sounds like he's tried using his words.

But yes, he does need to actually insist upon her getting a job since he doesn't want to fund her unemployment.

Yeah. SAHP only spent 20+ years being available for several children 24 hours a day. What a lazy beggar. It's not like they facilitated the career of the working parent. Nah!

They need to get out to work, NOW. Lazy fuckin parasite.

I'm being sarcastic there, for anyone who thinks I mean that.

Likely nobody will want to employ them with a career break that big and almost certainly not for a decent wage.

There's been an awful lot of demeaning the SAHP role this last few days. Even more than usual.

The working partner has rocks in their head. Why they would agree to split household chores 50/50 in that scenario is baffling.

Her SAHP role is now finished, and most believe that choosing to be an unemployed leech for the next 15 years - per one of OP's posts - while he continues to work to fund their retirement - also per one of OP's posts - is absolutely unacceptable, so she will just have to do what most people do, and get a paid job.

Likely nobody will want to employ them with a career break that big and almost certainly not for a decent wage

That’s what volunteering is for. If they are only doing 50% household chores, they could take up volunteering 3 days a week. That would mean stuff for a resume, references etc. No, they won’t get a high flying, highly paid job, but surely being productive in the workforce and earning some money to contribute to the couple’s retirement fund is better than nothing.

Not to mention, the ex stay at home mother doesn't need a high flying career, they just need a job.

The fact that she chose not to update her qualifications and skills is on her. The fact that she will just have to take an entry level job is just life.

At the end of it all, she will still have a nice retirement. Any job is better than being a leech.

Not my marriage.
Not my retirement.
Not my business.
I’ll be this evening’s flat tire.

Do you feel the same way about every single post on mumsnet - all of which are designed to elicit a response and most of which ask for advice? I don't really see the point to reading any of them if that's the case?

I think it needs a discussion now about what they mean by retirement. What household jobs will they continue to do and how much free time will they have vs you ? What do they plan to do with that free time?

Also, do you need financial help to support the children through uni as that can be expensive if dc are not eligible for a full maintenance grant.

if you are not comfortable with the answers, then start to discuss what partner could do to contribute financially either before or after they are at uni and start to put a plan in place for that now esp if it requires retraining

He wants her to go back to work and she wants to remain unemployed, per his posts. So she just has to get a job as he's not required to, or willing to fund her being unemployed while he continues working for the next 15 years (as he's mentioned in his three posts).

That's not retirement, it's called being unemployed, it's very unfair to the working partner who is then expected to fund the life of the unemployed one who obviously no longer has a reason to just be at home all the time, of course if the working partner is fine with that then thats upto them but if they don't want to be sole earner then discussions need to be had about returning to work

It’s not like the working parent has been doing nothing either. Not like they haven’t spent 20+ years working week in week out to provide for their family and make sure the sahp can afford to not work. Probably seeing less of their kids.

if one “deserves” a break, so does the other.

so better both pitch in then they can both retire early.

someone will employ them. And even if it is minimum wage job in a supermarket 10 years of 25k is £250000 to contribute to the pension pot, assuming they keep living on the equivalent of one wage.

it’s the difference between the working parent retiring at 60 rather than 70.

bit shitty to make someone you supposedly love work until they’re too old to actually enjoy retirement because you cba to work.

They are taking the piss (as in joking and trying to wind you up) if they have used the term ‘retirement’ surely?

I jokingly said I’m ‘retiring’ early when I became a SAHP after not returning to work after my first maternity leave. I used to say it to people who I knew would be seething inside and also gossip about me using this term.

Both parties could be women btw. I'm struggling to see what 'retirement' means in this context, is it just carrying on as you are ? Or stopping even doing household stuff. Either way seems unreasonable and unjustified.

I went from SAHM to working very part time as the children grew up a bit to working full time when they started university. The reason for going full time was that 2 kids at university is bloody expensive. And no, I don't earn very much but I need to contribute as I am not a lazy git.

I'm assuming it is a man working and a woman who wants to be unemployed now until retirement, since women being sahm while men work for money is more usually the case - but if the OP says otherwise I will address accordingly. Either way, it doesn't matter.

The working partner, has said she wants to do nothing now and let him keep working for money while they are unemployed until he retires. Which is pretty appalling tbh.

I don't think the OP is coming back anyway, so I'm off.

I don't think the OP is coming back anyway, so I'm off.

Tbf to them @realitydoesntcare, they're probably asleep. Got to rest at the weekend when you're earning for two!

And it feels goady, like a bloke looking for ammunition from the laydeez.

The stay at home parent is not contributing as much to the partnership if he or she plans to retire yet the other person.continues working full time. Why would they not want to contribute in some other way once the necessity for regular child care has gone?

To me, it feels like a man who is trying not to say too much in case he's called names for not wanting to fund his wife who believes she has the right to be unemployed for the next 15 years, while he continues to earn money (according to his posts).

All anybody can ever do is take posts at face value, since there is no possible way to hear the other side and he has been deliberately sparing with details.

Either way, it cannot be argued, whatever the sex of the OP and his wife/partner, if she wants to remain unemployed for 15 years at the OPs expense, and against his will, she is a leech who must be told no and must get a job, since he's not willing to fund her unemployment until he retires.

If there is no massive reveal or drip feed waiting, that's just reality

I would recommend seeing a financial adviser. I reckon your partner is early/mid 50s. This means she has yet to accumulate enough NI credits towards a state pension (she would have some, but not enough, credits if claiming child benefit while the children were under 18). You’ll not only need to discuss financial projections for retirement, but also likely upcoming costs, which can be significant. House deposits and wedding costs for the children? What if all the windows in the house need replacing? What if you become very ill?

If she’s early 50s, possibly menopause is kicking in and if the parenting was hard going, then that’s a double whammy of tiredness. Maybe a compromise? 6 months of carefree catching up with friends, not constantly cooking and cleaning, some new hobbies - like a sabbatical, a well earned one.

Generally, I think most SAHPs go back to full time work when children are at secondary school. Your partner is unusual. Most people have to put pedal to the metal on trying to pay the mortgage off. In your situation, there is the possibility that an additional wage will help you both to retire early.

Has she said what she will do with all her time? Many people who retire early get utterly bored. Complete retirement in the old fashioned sense (sitting down and putting feet up) is also associated with significant cognitive and physical decline. Does your partner realise this?

Really, you both just need to talk about this. She’s assuming you will be bankrolling her lifestyle. That’s not fair. It may be that she’s predicting a tsunami of elderly parent caring responsibilities, or wants to do future childcare for grandchildren, so sees this time as an opportunity to catch breath.

My husband faced exactly this situation with his ex. She was a spender. When the children went to secondary school, he asked her to return to full time work. She refused, thinking that she’d somehow earnt a retirement. She sat at home drinking prosecco and reading trashy magazines. The tax bills mounted and the mortgage interest rate went up and up. He was beside himself with stress, at an age where you can’t bounce back from redundancy (a big risk for men in their 50s). Needless to say, the situation ended in divorce and I met an amazing, kind man. We both work full time and we’re in a proper partnership, where risk and reward is equally shared.

The income earner is not being unreasonable. The former SAHP is lazy, entitled and expects the worker to carry on providing for them financially. I would separate finances at this point.

Night wake ups? For teenagers about to go to university?

I wondered that too. Long time retired here, but there’s still a home and garden to be cared for. Our finances have always been shared, DH earned more when the DC were young, I mostly had some sort of low paid, part time, job. By our fifties, I was the main earner, he had quite a lot of time at home for health reasons.

When I initially retired, DH still had a part time job, and how much paid work one of us did was always balanced out by the division of labour in the home. Now we share chores by preference, no resentment, and we both have time for leisure, volunteering, hobbies etc. Not sure what the OPs partner is going to retire from?

On the contrary, it's written very calmly and factually, compared to many OPs.