To find this entitled?

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaahh]

This doesn't apply to people with childcare or caring responsibilities, any sort of illness or disability which means they cannot work full time.
But I've seen a few people on here or social media basically saying 'I can do supply/care work/0 hours work and sometimes only get a shift or two a week, because my husband earns well.'

So they're pretty much choosing to swan about and avoid full-time work, because they assume their husband or partner will carry on in their high-earning, full time role.

What happens if this husband loses their job, becomes sick, or just decides they're sick of having to be the breadwinner?

I see it all the time on supply teacher pages,'Oh I've only had 1 day of work in 2 months but it's fine because my husband is the breadwinner!!'

There are other jobs where you could make a living, you just don't want to do them, yet you still want your dream forever house and luxury lifestyle. If it were the wife full-time and the husband taking the piss there would be uproar.

Your point is?

Every couple or family will run their home as they see fit. I agree with your sentiment but, if the husband does not mind his wife working only a few hours here and there, that is their business! If the husband does mind, then he needs to stand his ground and say so!!!

Yeah I get that, I always thought that way but throughout my life I’ve seen that a lot more woman than men would choose this role too.

Banks could require sponsorship if you wanted to bank with them but they did not have to and in fact have never had to. IIRC I opened a bank with Midland because my college grant, and some bursaries, were paid to me by cheque to pay to my college and I needed to be able to write cheques. Cheques cost money then so I used a national savings book account for my day to day money management.
My DH did a joint tax return (married in 1974 but did not work (we travelled abroad) until 1975. I worked in the NHS so never actually had to do a tax return as i had no other income and when the couples extra became splittable, I passed mine on to my husband because it benefitted us financially. An interesting item here. Note that, as I have said, banks never HAD to require sponsorship from a male relative but many (most) chose to. biancawhitewrites.com/did-nineteenth-century-women-have-bank-accounts/

Aren't you happy that this means they're not taking up a job that someone else, who needs the money, could do?

You are assuming that all things are equal- we all know that statistically women carry the load at home and men often don’t pull their fair share. I work FT as does husband but he earns more because I raised the kids and took a step back to accommodate school runs etc (I continued to work throughput however)and therefore my career progression was stunted. It’s not sponging - if he had to pay someone to do all that stuff he’d be worse off. You sound bitter about it - what’s that about? Each to their own and if it works for them what’s it got to do with anyone else?!

That's not actually true. Banks could require sponsorship by a male relative but it was never the law that they had to. By the time the Married Women's property Act was passed at least some banks were stopping doing this anyway as a commercial decision. The law (and yes it was important) ratified and underlined this rather than forcing change.

my dh didn’t have to do anything apart from work - I took care of everything else. He had a demanding job (800 staff and turnover of .75 billion) and no mental load at home.

fortunately I was t married to ac complete bell end. What makes you think in this type of scenario that pensions would not be set up for the non working spouse or that they have no access to money? I will have a full state pension and have a pension too.

paying voluntary contributions into state pension
By setting up a private pension
By having savings and investments in the name of the non working spouse.

I am not sure why you’re so bothered. Some people don’t want to work full time, and if they have a family set up that allows them not to then that’s great for them. I simply do not care.

Now do I think it’s can be a risk? Yes. Relying on someone else to fund your life is always a risk, particularly if there was a divorce. I wouldn’t recommend it nor do it.

That's a "you" problem! It's none of your business. You seem very jealous of others lifestyles.... You could always find a richer husband!

Some of them undoubtedly are, unless the working partner is a very high earner indeed. As an individual you need to earn more than £70k before your tax covers your share of state services (transport, infrastructure, defence, schools, NHS, etc…) even if you claim no cash benefits. These people who barely work are still a cost to the state unless as a household they are paying £20k tax on income per person in the household. If there are two adults and, say, two children, and only one person works they need to be earning around £200k just to be covering their own household’s costs to the state through their tax (around £80k).

That isn’t how the economy works. It isn’t zero sum. There aren’t a fixed number of jobs. If more people work then the economy can grow and new businesses can be set up to employ them because more people have money to spend.

Wrong way round. The economy has to grow to create jobs.

You're both wrong, it's circular.

too bad so sad? Some people have husbands that do want to!

given that the average salary in the uk is way under £70k most people are a cost to the state regardless of hours worked.

Similar situation to me but my DH is v senior public servant. I take care of everything that enables him to do his job, from travel arrangements and packing for him, making and confirming plans for meetings and events, lots of general admin, organising his wardrobe (much more involved than washing socks!), all sorts of logistics, not just running the home and family (which I know all single parents have to do anyway).
Basically the taxpayer pays for him and gets me for free, because secretarial support is nowhere near enough. I am not alone in doing this. Many many women and a few men do this for (or should I say, with) their partner. It doesn't make us "dependent on a man" - heck, I'll be financially comfortable if we divorced, and have buckets of free time! It just means we work as a team, and financially he shares everything with me. Sadly though it's not recognised either by employers or other people. I am posting as an explanatory response to the OP, not as a whinge.

AAh.
I mean yes... if thats what works for people.
Some of us have more self-respect.

Good for you.
There's many many women out there not married to your husband.

is that relevant?

ooooo Judgy McJudgeface is among us

Similar situation to ours except my late DH was in the global private sector.

Basically the taxpayer pays for him and gets me for free, because secretarial support is nowhere near enough.

That's not it works. He's a grown ass man, he should be able to pack his own suitcase and organise how own wardrobe.

My boss is on £500k + and still able to do their job and not rely on someone at home to manage their home life.

The tax payer is not benefiting from you.

its not being unable to its being involved in doing stuff elsewhere at work.