Finances- why 50/50?

[Boxingshibes]

I know im lucky but I read so many threads about having to split everything 50/50 even when on maternity leave. I genuinely don't understand.
Why us it not 'our' or family money as you are a family?
When is got married 20 odd years ago i had a just above minimum wage as id lived abroad for years. Dh had a good job ( not mn good but around £40k)
I worked and also it was enough to support us, me and 2 children. I went back to work and we got a nanny as it was cheaper than nursery.
Now im the sole earner as dh is now medically retired. I'm on £70k but all our money is ours? I do pay for everything but it's not a problem as we are a family?

I read so many threads where people are using their savings/ going into debts just to pay 50/50. Why?

Barring abusive relationships, why?

I was young and in love and swept up with new house, new baby etc. I lived off my savings through mat leaves (consecutive) to fund 'my' 50% share as I had more money at the time. I assumed that this would even out when my savings had gone and he had 'more' financially. How I was wrong. Our children are 8&7 and I've worked 2 jobs since I returned to work to keep up with my share. I currently work around 60 hrs a week and I still earn less. But I'm trapped.

Whats offensive about saying it’s a ridiculous proposition and why do it? There were choices about getting in the relationship, getting pregnant, not having an abortion, not going back to work more than 2 weeks after the birth (2 weeks is the minimum legal maternity leave for most people etc etc). Unless a gun was wielded every pay day to obtain the 50/50?!

It really depends on circumstances. I wouldn't be happy about money being 'family money' if my partner wanted to go part time, become a SAHP or proactively chose to do a low level job for an easy life. Your situation is entirely different because of medical retirement. Would you still be happy to fund his life if he had just stopped working because he didn't want to?

surely it depends what your mat leave provision is? My cousin's is full pay for a year, mine isn't quite as good but still very generous - so it would be unfair for me to save that money and expect DP to pay for everything, when I'd be earning exactly the same for most of my ML than I would have been when working - if anything saving commuting costs, etc.

Obviously it's a different scenario if the woman is only on SMP, but that's the whole point - every family is different and does what works for them. 50/50 isn't automatically abusive. It's completely dependent on circumstances. For women that significantly out-earn their partners (who, despite the majority of posters on this thread, who are apparently stuck in 1852 and don't seem to be able to conceptualise this as a possibility, do exist) 50/50 would be a good deal!

We have a joint bank account for household expenses like mortgage, food, utility bills, costs relating to DD, days out, etc.

We both pay an amount into the joint account to cover those costs and a little extra to create a buffer. DH puts in 60% and I put in 40% based on our earnings.

Everything else we earn stays in our own account and we spend it on whatever we want for ourselves.

On ML I had six months full pay, so still paid in then, and then three months half pay. For that three months DH covered the full amount.

It's because men rule this earth still and their views on life take priority and are considered "the way things are". They have very eagerly embraced the whole 50-50 concept for finances (only- not other aspects of life) and have also spread the view that any woman who does not go along with this is a gold digger. So there is a societal pressure to go along with this.

None of that is true and society as a whole needs to push back on this. Its selfish and its a key reason for the plummeting birthrates.

Not 50/50 but a equal proportion of their relative earnings is what I mostly see. So if the woman earns £100k and he earns £50k they both put in, say 60% of earnings to the pot. And if on maternity leave the woman is suspended from contributing (or if benefits good enough then 60% of whatever it is).
Or 50% or what they need to keep things going.
This is not what my DH and I did though. Any money was our money (after the expenses required for alimony and what his older children required). And my mother would take my fathers earnings and then give him money he could spend that week! She ran the finances.

These kind of relationships always seem like business transactions to me. Imagine being such a piece of shit to your partner when she’s just had your child, and needs your financial support the most. You can’t get much lower than that. Many women have been conditioned to believe this is acceptable. Just like many victims of domestic abuse don’t see the abuse, so is it with victims of financial abuse.

Same here. Nothing to discuss - we're a partnership, it's all pooled.

I always think that these relationships sound like house shares, not marriages, and not to the woman's benefit.

So when does this arrangement end?
Or is it always the man earns and the woman spends it?
Yuck.

Erm. Bullshit. No man has ever ruled my world. My husband and I were 50/50 on everything - money, childcare, housework, running the hone etc. The only time I did more of the cooking/cleaning etc was when I was on mat leave and had the time to do it.

Men only run your world if you choose that lifestyle.

@HoskinsChoice Agreed. But unfortunately lots of women still want to be lazy "kept" by men rather than earn themselves so they do embrace that lifestyle.

Makes absolutely no sense to me either. For my first maternity DH paid everything as I only qualified for MA. Second maternity we were in a better position as a family financially and he actually "paid" me what I'd lost in wages by taking Maternity leave so that I had my own money and wasn't reliant on him every time I wanted to go the shops or get a coffee etc. 50/50 & going into debt as other posters have said just feels like a power move when you're at your most vulnerable

We split bills proportionate to our respective earnings, and then allow ourselves personal spending for our hobbies. Everything else goes into a joint pot. It works and it's fair. That joint pot paid to top up my maternity pay whilst I was on leave x2. Husband's salary would have fallen well short if not. We both still got personal spending. Again, it worked and was fair.

If it matters, I earn more.

Because the world was sold the idea of ‘equality’ but can only see finances and not unpaid labour

@GoldenCupsatHarvestTime 'Equality" isn't earning nothing whilst your husband earns everything, though. Permanently in some cases.

Maybe next time the man can become pregnant and stay home. Then the woman can earn, and the man can spend. Sound fair?

I'm guessing he agreed to parenthood, though, which would involve the woman having a career break of an agreed length. Unless he doesn't understand what maternity leave means.

It does if you’ve agreed that someone’s time is better spent being a homemaker… some men can think of nothing better than supporting their wife to do all of the domestic labour. I’m currently a student again and DH adores doing no laundry, cooking or cleaning in exchange for working and paying.

Please tell me you are married.

This with bells on. A lot of men seem to want 50:50 for bills but not for the housework / child rearing etc!!

It really is mind-boggling and the idea that women have to save up to cover their own maternity leave.
If any man suggested that to my daughter, he wouldn’t be able to sit down for a week after I shoved his suggestion right up his arse

I agree it’s not quality at all and I would hate to think of any of my children in that position.

However, I will also point out on this thread as I do on every thread on this subject that when you get to court, childcare counts for nothing beyond the pre school years in the eyes of judges.

Also depends on circumstances, surely? With my first child I was on full pay during maternity leave.