For wanting my partner to pay more of the mortgage?

[AnyPomegranate]

My fiancé makes about £90k pa plus bonus. I used to earn extremely well as a lawyer but decided to career change as I loathed the work and long hours. I now earn £35k with good future earning potential. We live in London and pay about £3000 pm for mortgage/bills which we split mostly 50/50 (see below).

Currently I'm about £200 short per month. I'm doing my best to increase my income and reduce expenses, but ultimately £35k doesn't go far in London so I'm finding it a little stressful. Part of the problem is that my partner isn't making it easy to budget - he insists on staying in London (I want to move) and because he earns well he wants to regularly eat out, go on holidays, buy what he wants in the food shop etc. It feels silly to say that I'm finding it hard financially on a household income of £125k, but obviously the vast majority of that money is my partner's and not mine.

I was reading online that some couples split bills as a proportion of their income, rather than 50/50. So today I asked him if he would mind paying a little bit more of the mortgage so that I have enough to break even, just temporarily until I'm able to get a promotion. He told me no, it was my decision to take a pay cut. He also pointed out (reasonably) that the bills have gone up so he's already paying about £200 more than me as it is (the bills come out of his account so I wasn't aware).

I can see his point of view so I'm not sure if what I'm asking is cheeky or reasonable. Please be gentle, I'm aware that I'm in a privileged position compared to a lot of people.

This

Tbh I see his point and think maybe you just aren't suited to eachother. I would be pissed if my equally earning partner just decided to quit their job and earn less and expected me to subsidise them. In a serious relationship that would be a discussion, "can WE afford for me to change career".

You have chosen a lower income. Which means your lifestyle needs to match, you need to live somewhere cheaper, not eat out etc. You need to spend less. If he doesn't want to change his lifestyle then he doesn't have to.

You guys just don't seem to want the same life.

This is such bullshit and if you believe this is how a loving couple functions I feel you are misguided! At best it’s ignorant but at worst it’s damaging to women actually because there is no accounting for children, ‘women’s’ work’ and the general unfairness that exists in marriage and children - which in this case sounds like it is on the cards… so if you take this stance now and continue with it into family life, op will be hugely disadvantage actually.

I don’t understand these posters saying op is take take take. Equality is not the same as Parity! We think equality between men and women is parity - ie being and doing the same. That’s not equality. And when family life is involved it’s even further from being equal.

Sorry that was meant to quote someone but I can’t find the post now!!

But if he had been given a choice he might have concluded that he didn’t want to throw his lot in with someone who didn’t match his financial aspirations. That is fair enough, surely. She went ahead even though he objected. If her actions were temporary that would be different. He has no obligation to subsidise her just because she wants him to.

You seem to getting a lot of stick on this thread about changing your career in order to improve your mental health and wellbeing. Some posters talk about lifestyle as though it all hinges on money. Whilst being comfortably off makes life easier, the biggest thing that makes life good is your health. Changing career to something that doesn't make you feel that a nasty accident might be preferable is definitely not a bad choice.

My DH and I have a different set up to many, but it works for us. We each put any salary into our joint account and we each draw from it an agreed equal amount for personal spending. Joint account pays bills and we agree what goes into joint savings or bigger purchases/holidays.

We have done this throughout more than 25 years together, during which time I have been the higher earner, I have been the sole earner while he completed his degree, we have both earned similarly, he has been the higher earner, and currently he is the sole earner. We have both been able to quit jobs that were burning us out and have supported each other to do so. We have had brief periods when neither of was was earning.

We have, through communication, a mutual desire for the other to be healthy and happy, and careful financial planning, to maintain a good lifestyle, bring up two children and buy a lovely house. We live in a relatively cheaper area of the country, and do not come from money, we've had plenty challenges and some strokes of good luck, but are content.

I'm just putting this forward as a counterpoint to the idea that each partner should be earning their maximimum at all times, regardless of health and wellbeing.

You seem to getting a lot of stick on this thread about changing your career in order to improve your mental health and wellbeing. Some posters talk about lifestyle as though it all hinges on money.
You appear to have missed that you are on a thread where the OP is saying she wants her DP to in effect give her money.

I do find it a bit sad to go onto thread after thread of women choosing the route of having less money, then moaning about it! These are supposedly educated women, with all opportunities lying at their feet yet rejecting decent wages and picking selfish men. These are the women who a few years later turn up wondering why DH ia off on holiday when they are 36 weeks pregnant, then a few years later complaining they have to do everything at home because of the DH's big "man" job. Then the ones a few years down the line from that moaning that he's wandered off with a woman from work and how can they make sure they get enough money from him to live on, and how hard done by that they "gave up" so much "for the family". Take some bloody responsibility for yourselves! And yes OP, that starts with you.

If he has such a huge issue with the ‘financial aspirations’ then HE should step back and separate before getting married.
Not say Yes to tge comfort if marriage and then force her/treat her badly to ensure she matches his aspirations. If he already expects her to get into debts or cut down stuff that won’t affect him so he can buy his more expensive food because ‘he’ has money so won’t cut down’, then what will happen when they have children??

As for deciding unilaterally and not taking him into account in the decision… I didn’t realise that when you take a decision about your HEALTH, you had to take into account the desires of your partner. Like ‘no you can’t have this surgery because we can’t go in hols/buy this nice food if you dint work’. Says any caring partner…..
If the OP had carried on, she’d just have had to stop work completely instead. And then what? Would it have been ‘braver’ so better? F** that game of soldiers.

I don’t think she really is asking him to subside her. She’s asking him to make some compromises so that she can afford to pay her way.
And my main point still stands. You don’t marry someone purely because they fit what you want right now. You marry for the whole life you may encounter together. Everything about this person may change over the 40 years you hope to be married for- job, health, wealth, looks, weight……
He doesn’t have to subsidise or change his life if he doesn’t want to but I’d suggest it probably isn’t very good idea to get married to him right now either.
In the time we’ve been married both I and my DH have had changes in income, health and the way we look! Not to mention what our children bring to the table. We didn’t ’sign up’ for any of those things. But we’ve had to make it all work, make compromises.

@GRex expect she didn’t chose did she? She was ill and had to adapt.

As fur expecting her fiancé to give her money …
1- she isn’t. What she wants is to move out of london. But she is staying for him. She is trying to match his lifestyle for him, on 4 times less money.
2- they are gettimg married. When two people lived together, the highest earner paying more - what you call ‘giving her money’ - is normal. That’s call support. Same with adjusting your lifestyle etc….

Your views are actually deeply misogynistic. Still finding a stick to beat women up and keep them at their place. This time because she dares not earning as much as him or chose a lesser paying job FOR THE MOMENT.

I'm not sure if you don't understand or just recognise yourself here @MoveOverToTheSea. It is not misogynostic to describe the route of the well-worn path that starts with asking a selfish man to pay for you. Try reading some threads. Women are out there right now at each stage of that path, it's terribly sad and conpletely avoidable. OP is stood at the threshold. Step 1 is to not marry the man because he's selfish. Step 2 is to understand that her financial decisions will have consequences for her that can't be negated by relying on someone else unnecessarily. Step 3 of finding a better man would be lovely, but how do we even begin to describe what that looks like to women who can't even take enough responsibility for their own happiness to follow the first two steps?

I wouldn’t get yourself into debt to marry him, that doesn’t sound right. I can see his point re food shopping, he doesn’t want to buy the budget stuff when he’s earning well, so maybe a good compromise would be he pay for all the food shopping, holidays and meals out, while you pay 50/50 on the regular bills. Then you’re paying your way in the house, he can have all the luxuries he wants, and you're not getting into debt to keep up with discretionary stuff.

Dont prioritise his potential resentment re buying cheap wine over your resentment re getting into debt to keep up with him. Right now, your grounds for resentment are very high. Don’t ignore that.

@GRex thank you for your very thoughtful answer.
It helped.

I think your error is that you do not seem to have had an agreement about what would happen BEFORE you dropped your income. You discussed it, he wasn’t supportive of your plans- but what did you agree would happen? If he said he wasn’t prepared to make up your shortfall and you went ahead and reduced your income, then I think you were foolish. There had to have been a conclusion- how were you going to manage the change in your finances? If you just decided to muddle on, without any agreement on what would happen, then I think you are the author of your own difficulties, tbh.

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t have changed career, that’s entirely your right- but when you have financial commitments you have to be able to meet those or have plans in place to mitigate your reduced income. It can’t be unilateral decision making but then joint finances. Either joint decisions and joint finances, or each doing as they wish and finances split as agreed. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

Your partner could choose to compromise, but I suspect he does not wish to have to cut back and probably resents your choices, much as you resent that he won’t move/cut spending/pay more. I’m not sure either of you are wrong or unreasonably selfish, necessarily, but you clearly want different things and it sounds as though what you want is not compatible. You want to leave London, he doesn’t; you want to cut back on meals out/activities/holidays and he does not; you want him to support you financially and he does not. You can’t “compromise” on these things- one of you can’t get what you want.

You made the changes for your benefit (not unreasonable), but now you want him to compromise by moving somewhere he doesn’t want to or cutting back on his preferred lifestyle or by reducing his disposable income- I think it is predictable he is not keen on any of it.

I would also add that I think if this were the other way round- a woman facing a male partner (not married) voluntarily reducing their income and expecting her to pay a higher proportion of their mortgage, she’d be told to financially protect herself by ensuring their shares of the property value reflected any change in mortgage payments going forward. Would you be ok with that? Maybe put that to him and see if he’d be happy to pay more for a greater share going forward.

I'm still not sure what to do about the shopping situation!).
my partner and I take it in turns to pay for the weekly shop. This could work for you both. That way he gets his treats during the month, but it can be on the weeks he buys the shopping. It works for us. Maybe it’ll work for you

She's not "chilling out" she's just not working until 2am on a weeknight or u expectedly on the weekend. Which I understand. It's easy to get mentally or physically burned out by that which wouldn't be good for anyone.

What I find disgraceful here, is how many people think you should keep working at a job you hate so much you actually fantasised about getting run over by a car! FGS life is not all about money, and if your partner cannot help support you for a few years whilst you climb a new ladder, he’s not worth being with. I can’t imagine how he’s going to be if you have children. He sounds like a bit of a baby himself, I want, I want! That’s the impression he gives off. What he’s currently paying out of his salary is hardly a lot, he’s has a massive amount of left over salary at the end of each month. Why do you need to borrow of your mum for the wedding, why isn’t he contributing to it? Good luck with your new career, you’ve done the right thing putting your health and wellbeing before money.

Considering all the details OP, I would be genuinely thinking about your future together.
If you have children together, there will be many many financial decisions and decisions to make that might impact you both differently. Marriage involves sacrifice for the benefit of the person you love and vice versa. It’s the very nature of family life - you’re a team. It works out in the end as you’d both do what is necessary for the team at any time.
From someone at the end of a divorce after 22 years, please think carefully about your shared values.

I’d set a certain amount of budget per month for going out / towards holidays and then decline further invites. Food - he should be paying more if he’s wanting expensive stuff. He might be earning well but you’re not. I’d be considering my future with this guy, especially if you’re going to have DC etc. Yes you took a pay cut, but the job was making you miserable. So miserable you dreamed of getting hit by a car on the way to work. He could help you out a bit whilst you build back up, but he won’t. Not sure he is someone i’d want to marry.

Are you married? This makes a difference of what you can expect from him.

@AnyPomegranate I had a very similar experience. When I was with my ex he earned around £80k including his yearly bonus. I earned considerably less. I retrained and earned about a third of his wage. I always paid 50/50. He wanted 5* hotel holidays, eating out etc and always expected me to pay half. He didn’t drive and everywhere we went I drove and had to pay for petrol and car upkeep. He never contributed. We had the same issue with food. Before we had kids I made him buy his own food as he wanted steak etc and I don’t eat much meat. I still paid half for all bills during my maternity leave for both kids. We bought a house together that stretched me. He would go out on weekends because he had money and I didn’t. He cheated (I only found out years after it started. He wanted his cake and to eat it!). We are no longer together but I am now much happier. I cut my cloth accordingly. Funnily enough I’m the one who takes the kids on holidays etc whilst he still spends his money on him and his most recent affair partner (there were lots). The current AP earns more than him which he hates so he tries to ensure they go swanky places to make him look more interesting.

My advice is don’t waste 13 years (like I did!) of your life on this man. You are financially incompatible. Things will never improve!

Objectively, your values have diverged and you want different things.

A high-earning London lifestyle is more important to him than supporting you transition out of a very stressful career into one that is more sustainable. You say that the financial hit will be short-term. You're not dropping out of law to write a novel or doss about, you're changing careers and your earning capacity will eventually be restored.

Of course he is entitled to his own priorities, but your health and happiness are obviously not high on the list. His unwillingness to make any sort of compromise doesn't bode well for the two of you as a team.

This sort of question comes up fairly regularly on MN and the replies seem evenly divided between 'if you're a team, you share everything' and 'why should one person subsidise the other's lack of earning ability/ poor career choices/ artistic aspirations?' followed by the classic 'cocklodger' parallel.

I would never expect anyone to subsidise my modest career or financially ill-advised life choices. Then again, after being in a relationship with a man who was much wealthier than me, through both work and inheritance, who shared only the cost of living (strictly 50/50), I have to say that a lack of generosity eventually rots right down to the roots.

I wouldn’t marry him. The relationship doesn’t have legs, short answer.

You say it will take you a couple of years to work your way back up to earning. It is still too years of “penny pinching”.

I would be pissed off if I worked my way up to a nice income and then had to live as I did when I was on a lower income.

Also, I would feel miffed to have to do that just before the commitment of marriage and children which are a necessary drain on the purse strings. He will have wanted to have time to play before that financial commitment. Many couples get in some great travel experiences etc before settling down to family life. He probably feels cheated of that opportunity.

I couldn’t agree more. I must admit I am shocked by the number of responses attacking the OP. I thought Mumsnet would be more sympathetic. Many responses are pure projection and assert opinions which are not based on the OP’s post.
Comments such as ‘She chose a lower income’, ‘She just wants her partner to give her money.’ ‘I’d be pissed off if my partner unilaterally chose a low paying job’
I suggest some of you should read what she actually said.
Her fiancé is a selfish, greedy man. I wonder if some the people defending him are men. All this criticism of her and defending this graceless boor. She did not act unilaterally. She did not choose to have a lower income. She chose to prioritise her health.
This man sounds like the kind of c**t who says he babysits his own children. He is building up a high value pension. She has stopped paying into hers to try to save money. Women anyway have smaller pensions as you all know because their unpaid labour does not pay into an auto-enrolment work place pension. He sounds like the kind of man who would not help her because it’s ’his money’.
I thought Mumsnet would not come out with this misogynistic nonsense.