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.

Have you def done the math correctly. 55 to say 95 is a lot of years of costs. If you want to do great things when you both retire I cant imagine having enough in the pot to do that if you start spending now even with inheritance unless it was a very large sum.

Just to give a slightly different perspective. My ex retired at 56. Got a lump sum from work as redundancies going and then drew down his pension too. We share a DD who was 7 at the time. So in terms of financially similar he has a dependent child (he is much older than me). He's married too, to a lovely woman who also retired about a year after.

To be fair it's been his best decision ever. He was offered free lancing but declined.
He sorts DD for school runs on his time, then hits the gym with a few mates who did the same as him. Then walks their dog etc. and seems to spend a lot of summer on his motorbike.
Hes loving life, never looked back and 6 years on doesn't seemed to have changed his lifestyle.

He still meets half of DDs costs (how we've always done it as 50/50). Saves a bit for her. And a mega bonus is if she's ill and school call he always is around to get her. Also massively helped with summer hols childcare too.

I've asked him before if he ever regrets it and his answer is not for a second.

I think inheritance is different from income when it comes to shared finances and the person who inherits makes the final decision. The money’s been left to him, not his children. I’m gobstruck at the deification of children these days and the belief they should always come first and any decision that doesn’t do that is “selfish”. So you can have an opinion @NotSureAboutThiss but at the end of the day the decision is his.

My DH is 55 and gave up teaching this year. He had just reached the end of the road with it. I’m 59 and have gone part time this year, also a teacher, but love my job and happy to carry on. We have 3DC that we’ve put through private school and uni, the last is doing an MA this year

You've done all that on two teachers' salaries? How?

The extent to which people will martyr themselves for their kids never ceases to amaze me. It's all very well breezily saying 'Oh just work for another 5 years in the job you don't want to do', but that could well be a third of the healthy life he's got left. And he does have a life too, he's not purely an offspring comfort facilitator. Plus it's funny that you want him to continue working up to the point where you'll be the same age as he is now, thus giving you the option of doing what you want to deny him. I'd let him jack in his current job and hope he gets some other employment in due course.

Yes I will be helping my kids out but not to the extent it makes me miserable. I'm sure they have smarts sufficient to get a house deposit together if need be.

Is there any scope for DH to take a 6 six sabbatical? The idea of being home may be more appealing than the reality, given that you will still be working and he will presumably be picking up the domestic load. He might decide the grass isn't actually greener, but under his own steam.

I think the least he could agree to is to go to a financial adviser together with you and sketch out options for use of the money. In principle I do believe it is mostly his decision, and also I dont think this is about the kids but actually about how this affects you and him - your heading into/retirement life together. It really affects that, which is a joint time of life. As such it warrants a joint plan.

Well obviously, 'choosing to use the money to retire early' is only a reasonable option if the inheritance covers his expected post-tax income (including pension contribution) between now and when they previously intended to retire.

Just covering minimal costs for those years isn't enough - and that would justify a discussion.

But whatever he does OP, please don't just stick it in savings and live off it.

I wouldn't expect a say in how the inheritance was used even after 20 years, but I'd be pretty upset if he didn't trust me enough to do it in a way which was tax-efficient for the family!

If you're not confident on the options and tax implications, do some reading and speak to an IFA.

May I ask why you think any of this is your choice or that you have a say?

I would think the same as you but obviously it's his choice. It sounds like by default, it is not a marital asset legally speaking, so it is not up to you how it is spent.

However, it sounds pretty wasteful to me! Is he very unhappy in his role? Could he do something else for potentially less money and use some of the inheritance to top up his earnings?

Not everything revolves around the kids.

It's his money IMO.
He should get the final say and be able to benefit personally from it.

I wouldn't ever my spouse dictating how MY inheritance should be spent, even if it was for our kids.

What was your plan for the kid's education before the inheritance?

What a ridiculous response.

Morning all and thanks for the comments. I really am surprised by the number of people saying it’s none of my business. It is a huge decision and will effect both of us if he now stops working completely. I don’t want him to retire but I guess I can’t really stop him. The comments have certainly given me food for thought.

The ironic thing to me is that OP keeps going on about her having a say but doesn't seem inclined to give her husband one, he just needs to do as he's told, keep going in a job he doesn't enjoy (because who cares about what that'll do to his quality of life or MH) and give all his money to the children.

Why doesn’t he go part time for 5 years? Trial it and see if he’s happy.

Is there 5 years difference between you both though? It doesn't sound like it. There often comes a point wbere that 5 years difference seems much bigger than it used to, in terms of energy, health and attitudes.

Yes.

Joint finances over 20 years, is irrelevant. This is HIS money.

I took early retirement at 55... with full benefits and it's brilliant. I can see the appeal for him.

Would be still be able to give the kids some support with university?

As far as I can tell here you’re completely unreasonable OP.
Before this inheritance happened, I assume your joint plan with your OH was to continue to earn to pay your bills, put money in your pensions and save for your children’s futures. I assume as some point you were both planning to retire (him 5 years before you because he’s 5 years older) and I assume you had some kind of saving goal for the kids in mind?!
Now, your OH (not you!) has received an inheritance giving him the possibility of not having to continue to work. Surely as long as he still can meet the demands of the joint plan (ie pays his way including adding to your children’s saving pot) you do not get to force him to work just so your or your kids can be better off than you were expecting.
It’s absolutely his money not yours - whatever you have felt ‘joint finances’ has meant in the past. You cannot think it’s ok for him to use his inheritance to make someone else richer?!
Once you’ve accepted this logic I suggest you both meet with an IFA and ask them to advise on how to invest the inheritance and ask them to run some models. To my mind this is basically a question of simple arithmetic - if the inheritance is equal or more than the income your husband would have earned in his final working years then of course he can logically use it to retire early! If it’s less than that he’ll have to keep working for a while.

im with your do, retire early, enjoy life, take those holidays, make those memories, enjoy every moment. Life is far too short.
@2chocolateoranges you do realise though that I would still be working so even if he did make plans of that nature, he would be doing them alone!

Well there is a compromise. He continues to work a few more years, but brings his retirement forward so you meet in the middle. You get time to adjust and rethink your finances, and he has his goal ahead of him.
I agree with you, it's very much your business after 20 years of combined finances, and the fact his retirement will have an impact not only on those finances, but also on your life together. Life with a working partner is different domestically from one with a non working partner.

No he’s right to leave his pot accruing interest and not touch it until he has too. It’s not an infinite money tree.

I think it is your business and it’s mental that others have questioned you.

If he were my dad I’d rather him enjoy his retirement after working hard rather than pay off my uni fee’s. However it would be kind to put a lump sum away for his kids to give them a head start in the world.

I think there needs to be a compromise, not all what you want - not all what he wants.

Lump sum to help out the kids, keep the rest and speak to financial advisor

Say to him you think it’s an excellent idea and you’ll really look forward to coming home to a cooked meal every day. There’ll also be time and money to get all of those little jobs done round the house. I think it’s time to landscape the garden too and he’ll get such satisfaction from doing it with him own bare hands, at one with nature.

If all money is join, then inheritance also comes into that. Why is it that he should be the one to retire so early?
Him continuing to work could make such a huge difference to your family's life, forever. Him retiring is him being lazy, I'd loose some respect for him.