We want different things from his inheritance AIBU

[NotSureAboutThiss]

DH and I have been together 20yrs+ with DC. Joint finances. He has received an inheritance that he wants to use to take early retirement. I don’t want to retire yet so will continue to work through choice. I would rather save the money for kids uni fees / help with house deposit and he continues to work. He thinks I ABU. What do you think? There isn’t really enough to do both so no compromise that I can see. His argument is that we have (small) savings already for the kids.

They're MARRIED. If my husband or I inherit it will be viewed as joint money. You can disagree but you're going against how marriage should work.

My marriage has worked just fine for nearly 30 years and with two major inheritances - one each. We both made the decisions about our own money.

Hey, if youre going to quote me, at least do it properly so I see

By a nice coat I mean £300ish, not the whole inheritance lol. That'd just be a treat for me, tbh my husband could get a nice coat too. I think in a marriage everything should be shared and decisions should be made together.

Yeah so you got one each, what if only one did and it was a huge amount? You'd see your spouse struggle and go without just so you can say "it's MINE! ALL MINE" ugh

There’s an enormous chasm between being the decision maker and making your spouse go without. Are you always so hyperbolic? Marriages are different, different people do what works for them.

By a nice coat I mean £300ish, not the whole inheritance lol. That'd just be a treat for me, tbh my husband could get a nice coat too. I think in a marriage everything should be shared and decisions should be made together.

Yeah i get that, I was being cheeky about a coat as it wouldn't even register as something to buy out of an inheritance, its a buy as you need purchase ( for me anyway)

All the things i said in my post are decisions that are made together.

But you don’t deserve the £300k. It makes absolutely no difference who and where the money comes from. It’s unearned money that you personally put no effort in to earning. All inheritance is a huge privilege and all inheritance is pure luck. You have no more moral right to unearned money, than a stranger on the street. To hoard £300k for yourself and your control, over your poor husband, who through no fault of his own was not as lucky as you, is terrible greedy and selfish. You should give him half. Because you did nothing to earn it, except by accident of birth.

I would feel the same! But I accept that other people don't feel the same need to provide for their children when they are adults.

That argument just has no length in it.

By that logic, the man on the Clapham omnibus who didn't earn it has just as much right to it.

You are also subverting - in fact, obliterating - the concept of a gift.

It makes absolutely every difference to whom money is given.

I actually happen to agree with the OP insofar as I believe that it is a natural parental instinct to provide for their dc - at any rate, it is for me and my DH.

I just don't agree she can tell her DH what to do with an inheritance in his name alone.

It’s his inheritance so it’s up to him. How would you feel if he worked for years more to retire later and get sick (hopefully not the case!) and not be able to enjoy his retirement. We’re not guaranteed good health and long lives. Surely you already have some savings for the children if this has always been your priority?

Everyone here is just sharing their opinions. OPs husband retiring early doesn't work for her.

You need to see a financial adviser to see how he could most efficiently put it in a pension pot (you can only put in a certain amount a year) and get some projections for how long it will last under different scenarios. Keeping it in a pension pot for 5 years and retiring at 60 would lead to a significant increase in value.

Inheritance is not a gift. It assets that happen to be left over from an estate when someone dies. You either get lucky and your parent dies quickly meeting little or short term care, and there’s money leftover. Or you don’t. Many people receive zero inheritance because care home fees take everything. Some people are born to parents who are poor their whole lives and get nothing. If I inherit anything, I will share all of it with my DH because it’s not his fault his family has less, or his parent ended up in a care home. It’s utterly pigs at the trough to hoard an inheritance to yourself. No one is more worthy of an inheritance than the next person. Utter greed.

If you got divorced wouldn’t that money be only his as it was left specifically to him alone? I think, as a PP said, you should look toward compromise. I also strongly believe you need to see a financial advisor together.

Essentially this is an argument as to whether the inheritance should go to him or their children. I understand your point but if the children were meant to get it it would have gone to them? I think 55 is a fine age to retire if you are able to.

I mean an inheritance is very much as somebody chooses to bestow it on you. They could just as easily leave it all to charity.

If you are lucky to be chosen as a beneficiary, you are lucky. No more than that. I can’t fathom anyone who would hoard inheritance away from their spouse. Unless spouse was gambler, bad with money, hadn’t shared their own inheritance. But to just get given a lot of money you didn’t earn through luck, and think you are more deserving of it than your own spouse, is just utter greed.

My mum and dad were financially able to retire at 55 (my mum was 52) but my dad convinced my mum to keep working until he was 60. He died very suddenly a month before his 60th. Being in good health means nothing, if I was him, I'd retire to.

Ultimately it's his money and his choice.

Yes. So it’s a gift. They aren’t “hoarding it sway from their spouse.” They are using it to be able to retire early.

Of course he’s more ‘deserving’ of it than OP is, by virtue of the fact that it was specifically bequeathed to him.

Personally I will always put my kids first. However, retire in 2.5 years instead of 5 might be a 'fair' compromise.

Personally I'd be saying you can retire when the mortgage is paid (so tick there)
We can afford an annual holiday minimum
The kids can be put through the rest of school (if private)
Kids can go to uni comfortably
We get help kids get on the property ladder
Both our funerals are paid for
There is a small pot of savings for emergencies like thousands of pound on a broken car / surgery for the dog / need something medical done private etc.

If he really hates his job, maybe change to something that pays less and use some of this to bridge the gap, but I definitely wouldn't be using it all just to be lazy!

B

It's easy to get your head around , this is the husband's inheritance and he wants to spend on retiring early. The OP, his wife, wants to spend it on their children. The OP seems to think because they have been married 20 years that the money her husband has inherited is for her to dispose of, it isn't, it is entirely the husband's decision, because it is his inheritance.

This is one of those threads where I'm instinctively drawn to him needing to LTB/reconsider the relationship. It's not just about her wanting to take his money but the casual disregard for his health and wellbeing