DH to pay off mortgage then stop house bill contributions

[Luannaa]

DH will take early retirement at the end of the year from a job he has worked very very hard in and made a huge difference to people’s lives and it has also taken its toll on him with things he has had to witness- hence earlier retirement.

This will give him enough money to pay off our joint mortgage which he wants to do so we can be mortgage free. I am extremely grateful for this as it’s huge security for the future and our dc.

However DH then doesn’t want to go into any work for at least a year, for his hobbies his small pension will see him through but this means he cannot pay anything towards the weekly/ monthly bills.

As it stands we combine £1k per month for all joint and household bills, one of these being the £900 mortgage.
With that gone, technically he doesn’t need to contribute any more as he has paid his bit but I feel a bit miffed to carry on working 40+ hours a week and sometimes overtime while he has no job, no bills to pay and just enjoys his hobbies (they are free/ low cost).

AIBU?

Please share your opinions and be honest as I want to get this right for us both.

I'll repeat something I said above as it's got lost in the melee.

If you have a stressful job working shifts seeing horrors other people don't have to see and facing threats other people don't have to face, then stopping doing those things would, for most people, be sufficient to sort out the burnout from that job. I have seen 2 close friends who were police officers do exactly that at 55.

Working a set routine in a calm environment would be mentally restorative in itself. Possibly far more effective than having all day to yourself to keep thinking about what you've seen and done, with a group of colleagues to keep you engaged with the world rather than be alone.

And since he's a father of young children, unless he's ill to the point of requiring hospitalisation or very strong medication, then imo that's the path a reasonable man and a good husband and father would have taken.

If it was the other way round l doubt posters would be encouraging a situation where the woman was proposing o take early retirement so that she could pay off the mortgage and take a year off, leaving her partner with the sole responsibility for covering the rest of the household expenses indefinitely because her pension is tiny and she intends to use it to fund her hobby.

Add to that her DH’s stated intention to be a ‘house husband’ and the expectation that OP will do everything child related while working full time to support them all, as well as the fact that at age 56 and having been out of the job market for a year his prospects of getting a job at the end of his year off are poor, and it becomes clear that the main beneficiary of being mortgage free is DH.

I’m at a loss as to why anyone thinks this plan is in any way reasonable. Paying off the mortgage doesn’t represent any kind of security or peace of mind if you can’t afford to live in the house you’ve paid for without the remaining partner working full time to pay the remaining bills. They may have lost 50% of the expenses but they’ve also lost 50% of the income.

As well as reducing their immediate circumstances, the plan will also have the knock on effect of reducing their income in retirement because the huge lump sum needed to pay off the mortgage has massively reduced the pension income he would have had if he had simply found another job before taking the retirement package, and they had both carried on working and paying off the mortgage. He’s effectively put their finances on a knife edge because they’re now reliant on a sole earner for everything.

The ‘plan’ hasn’t been thought through beyond what’s best for DH. What is the point of paying off a mortgage on our home if you’re jeopardising your ability to actually live in it afterwards ?

This. Well said.

He's older, sound like he has had some issues, the alternative is he doesn't pay off the mortgage and takes the amount each month to cover his 50%...

If he were to do the majority of household duties I personally wouldn't have any issue with this.

The outcome would be the same if he has to take a lump sum to be able to contribute to the same level. He’s reducing their circumstances in retirement. I’m astounded that the selfishness of this man isn’t evident to everyone. He’s manipulating the situation so that he can take it easy for a year while OP runs herself ragged supporting them all. He’s also stated that he wants to be a house husband so l wouldn’t trust that he intends to return to work at all - or that having intentionally made himself unemployed for a year at the age of 55, that he would easily find another job. @Imdunfer has it absolutely spot on. A responsible husband and father would find alternative employment away from the stress, not insist he have a year off at the expense of the rest of the family.

You’re astounded that everyone doesn’t agree with you @Rosscameasdoody? Despite you banging away for days.

This is so over the top, I was a SAHM for 20 years, I wasn't selfish or irresponsible, my husband worked hard and looked after the house and kids, there are different ways to support a family than just financially.

We don't have all the details but would seem that he can take his pension at 55, if his pension is contributing to the household income either as a month amount or by removing the mortgage payment I really don't see the issue, my only requirement would be that takes on the household duties.

I think the issue is that op is worried that he won’t be doing household duties, and she’ll be doing all the childcare etc, including taking off annual leave.

Plus, they’ll have no money for holidays etc.

Plus he’s not looking at the long term picture regarding pensions, proper retirement finances etc.

Money wise, this is only not an issue if his pension provides at least as much money as his old salary minus the £1000 he paid towards the bills. That was only the basic bill payments. Outside that, in a family, there are all sorts of other expenses

If the family can't now afford any holiday at all, never mind the foreign holiday they used to have, then the situation, talking money only, is grotesquely unfair his wife and his young family.

Really?? Going over the higher rate tax band has a massive impact, anything he earned would be taxed at 40%, and doesn't need the additional money to live comfortable life.

To retire from the fire service on full pension aged 51 he must have had ill health retirement.

His pension might be about £40k I guess. I doubt it was more than £50k. But, yes, income over that is taxed at 40%. But the first £40k/£50k is not.

He's 55 currently still working, retiring at the end of this year. That's a standard normal pension at 30 years service for fire and police.

OP has clearly said that he won’t take on the household duties, she is expected to do it all as well as working full time.

She is even expected to pay for childcare and use her annual leave to cover it during holidays despite her DH being sat at home.

Not sure why some posters are choosing to ignore this in not understanding what the issue is !

I’m not talking about your friend. I’m talking about the post here

i think it’s clear that he can’t really afford to retire and keep a quality of life

No OP you need to go halves on the other bills. He needs to get another job part time. If he can’t afford 500 a month for bills out of his pension he cannot retire.

Completely agree.

Both of you need to speak to a financial advisor about his immediate retirement plans and the longer term plans for both your retirement and long-term ambition. Do this before making any changes.

If he is not working he does everything round the house Monday to Friday cooking, cleaning, the kids, garden etc while you work 40 hours. Weekend chores can be shared. It won't be much of a retirement for him but do not agree to do chores on top of his job while he enjoys his hobbies.

Agreed he needs to do the household and childcare stuff.
But really not understanding why PP think he needs to keep contributing half to bills if he's paid off the mortgage.
Although it's not clear from the OP, it looks like bills are £1K per month and mortgage currently £900.
So each of them contributes £500 for bills and £450 for mortgage.
He then takes the mortgage out of the equation. We don't know exactly how much that is - but we can do a calculation based on £50K or £20K or whatever we like. But we do need to do that calculation. He doesn't get to keep paying £500 for bills if he's just saved OP £450 every month.

Ha! Imagine a man saying a SAHM needs to do all the housework, look after the kids, do the cooking plus the gardening because he works 40 hours a week.

That's without her working prior or clearing the mortgage.

Double standards indeed.

Exactly! It's embarrassing.
The sahm needs the six hours the children are in school just for " life admin"

Because the bills are joint as was the mortgage. He has chosen to use a lump sum to pay it off early, lovely. But he doesn’t get to live for free as a result from that point forward. When the OP retires and gets a lump sum that they use to buy a new car who pays the bills then? Do they both live for free?

Paying off the mortgage is part of preparing for retirement. The actual source of the money is irrelevant. The OP now needs to save that 450 a month towards her own pension, not least because her DH is showing serious signs of being really tight.

This is truly not what normally happens. I think it was some ‘year out’ to go fishing or something but he’ll find it hard to get back into work after it. And do you trust he will?

Clearing the mortgage doesn’t mean he gets to live for free though. He’s relying on OP to be the sole earner and pay all the bills and other expenses going forward, doesn’t want to do school runs and expects OP to take annual leave for childcare.

Paying off the mortgage on their home isn’t the best use of a pension lump sum - it reduces their circumstances overnight and going into retirement and there’s no financial benefit to it because without OP continuing to work they can’t afford to live in it. They may have cut their expenditure in half, but they’ve reduced their income by roughly the same amount. He would be better finding a less stressful job before taking the retirement package and investing the lump sum to provide an income.

I was replying to the post I directly quoted.

I've already posted before that about OP's options.

I can't imagine a SAHM refusing to do any school runs getting much sympathy. He's also not even suggested he will do "life admin" never mind anything else.

Most SAHMs outside of the wealthiest circles have preschool children at home (or perhaps a disabled child) rather than becoming a SAHP when older kids are at school all day.

I was a SAHM for nearly 10 years and of course I bloody did 90% of the house stuff. At one point I had 4 kids under 7 and it was still nowhere near as hard as working outside the home, alongside parenting, is.

I was replying to the post I directly quoted.

I've already posted before that about OP's options. Where did I say it's ok to reduce to do the school run?