Am I being unreasonable about not sharing income

[mummyclimbingframe]

So my husband and I have two children and put 55% of our income into a joint account to pay household bills, Rent, childcare etc. The remaining monies are our own to pay for things such as phone bills clothes etc.

I earn close to 10k more than my husband per year and he is now saying as I have had to reduce my hours (losing 5 hours per week) this is to be able to drop our children to school, that we should split any remaining monies down the middle.

Now Iam happy to still contribute the same amount to our shared account Even though I have had a drop in salary. I just don’t see why I should have to share my higher income i have a much more stressful job than my husband and feel I should reap the rewards of that.

Iam not sure if Iam being out of order but for the first 8 years he was on very little money and worked very little hours until around 18 months ago so I have always paid the lions share. So much so I could only afford to take 8 weeks maternity leave with our first child.

So you earn more, do more childcare and buy kids clothes and household things out of your money?

HIBVU.

I think your joint account needs to be for all joint / household expenditure which covers all household and kids costs.

Work out how much this is: all bills, an amount for food, kids activities (including presents for them, for taking to parties) an amount for repairs, boiler service etc. Once you both get your salaries put the agreed amount into this account.

Then manage your own spending and saving.

I expect he thinks he will get more money. Id be questioning why his 45% simply for his own spending, giving he doesnt contribute to kid or house stuff, is now inadequate.
Id look at the figures closely, because, as upthread, once you factor in all your extra spending, he may well end up worse off, in which case Id go for it, as would equal things up a bit.

DP and I put a % of wages into the joint pot which includes additional payments towards my pension which took a hit with me going PT after having children.

Why do so many women in particular never include things like children expenses in household budgets? I don't understand it, they are a joint expense afterall.

@canigooutyet

Why do so many women in particular never include things like children expenses in household budgets? I don't understand it, they are a joint expense afterall.

This always puzzles me too. Often it seems toddler groups, kids clothes and haircuts and toys are some sort of thing only mothers would choose to spend on, in the same discretionary category as make-up and magazines or a Starbucks habit, rather than predictable and necessary costs of having a child. Very odd.

@OllyBJolly

I don't get married couples with kids not sharing money in one pot. All this "that's mine this is yours" is ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous at all, just a different way of doing things.

Why bother, just get a flatmate and half all the bills.

Now that is a ridiculous statement! Couples should do what works for them. (and the overwhelming message from these boards is that women should make sure they are protected financially. The "family pot" won't keep you housed and fed if the relationship breaks down)

I never thought I would agree with this but I do and I am old school where all the money went into a joint bank account and then whatever was left over was saved. It works unless one of you is not being honest, and my husband ran off with all of our money leaving me with three children and no support at all.

I'd say joint contribution to bills. A separate and equal contribution (and account) for children's clothes, furnishings, meals out, takeaways etc, then whatever is over should be divided equally (even if one is a higher earner). I just feel both people are in this marriage and one person shouldn't do better out of it than the other. Provided the marriage is good, and mutually supportive, then spending power should,be equal

If you have disagreements over money and he feels disadvantaged then maybe he is right to feel this way? Would you feel annoyed if he had far more disposable income than you? You both work hard (you can't say, my job is more stressful, it's your choice and some stress is enjoyable in a work environment) therefore it should be equal.

I am in the same situation and resent it deeply that I have to use credit cards and have less expensive hobbies than DH, but he says it's equality.

Now let’s all imagine if this was posted by a man......just saying.

We put all our money together in our joint account. It works well. We are married and love each other so are pleased to help each other out in many different ways.

We put all our money together in our joint account. It works well. We are married and love each other so are pleased to help each other out in many different ways

We also love each other and are so pleased to help each other out in many different ways. I can hear the birds singing and see the flowers blooming... But we have separate accounts because that's what suits us.

As so many posts on here prove, joint accounts are absolutely no measure of undying love!

I'd definitely go for splitting 'spare' money down the middle. HOWEVER, that would be AFTER kids clothes and stuff for the house had been purchased. That shouldn't come out of your money but should be a joint expense.

I’ve yet to see a thread on here where a male higher earner would be expected to do anything other than share everything they earned, or pay proportionally more into the pot...

@sst1234

Now let’s all imagine if this was posted by a man......just saying.

True that 😂😂

Regardless of the accounts the money is held in, it should be family pooled money.

If you weren't happy with his attitude to work/money/spending, then maybe he wasn't marriage material.

@BillMasen

I’ve yet to see a thread on here where a male higher earner would be expected to do anything other than share everything they earned, or pay proportionally more into the pot...

Maybe because most male earners don't also pick up the childcare slack or buy everything else needed for the kids/household,while the wives only contribute to bills and then keep all the money for themselves? OP already pays more than her husband on bills.

Likewise, there is a pretty strong distinction between giving up full time work in order to do child care and pick up all the household management tasks too, and so earning less outside the jobs. In this scenario, where the person is facilitated to WOSH, it seems reasonable to share the financial benefits

That's really not what OP had described.

OP described earning more, and doing the childcare/household management. The costs associated with the children all coming out of her 'personal money' and then her lower earning partner wanting a slice of her earnings.

I find it so interesting how people deal with finances differently - I earn almost £40k more than my husband & it's unthinkable to me that we would do anything other than share money equally. We have 2 bank accounts which are both joint accounts where our wages are paid into each but all the bills, mortgage etc come out of the account my wages are paid into - we can each just money from either account anytime, it would be ludicrous to me for me to have more disposable income than my own husband because I had personally earned more.

The problem you have here is you married someone who wasn’t a team player. Whose work ethic does not match your own. You are resentful and don’t want to subsidise him.

I would also caution anyone who thinks that someone who earns more than another must do so because they work harder. Often lower paid jobs are Physically exhausting, and it’s a stereotype that runs through our society not just within marriages. Look how middle class professionals look down on working class folk. You can only really compare hours worked and then that’s not great.

If you were to divorce you’d both have to declare your assets and then some arrangement made either via courts or not to split the assets between you. Nothing after marriage is truly yours alone anymore.

Earnings potential throughout a lifetime of marriage can vary quite considerably for each spouse due to circumstances you never even thought of when you agreed to marry. Many beyond your control. Just because one is the breadwinner today, doesn’t mean disability or redundancy wont make you future dependent on the other spouse tomorrow. If you foster feelings of ‘this is mine, I’ll share the minimum with my spouse.’ That may come back to bite you.

Not all people view marriage as a life long commitment though, not all people who do find their spouse didn’t at some point along the way. But I don’t think many marriages weather storms of life well if you don’t truly communicate properly and share the burden and costs of child raising and the fruits of Each other’s employment/salary.

Talk to your husband honestly with as little finger pointing as possible. You chose to marry him after all, and try and work out a way forward that suits you both and discuss the what if’s (redundancy/sickness) and hopefully move forward together. If you don’t think you can ever truly agree, I would do some serious soul searching as to why you still want to be married to this person. A marriage should make you feel stronger, and the longer you wait to get a divorce the harder and more costlier it will be to you in the long term to start again.

When people choose a career that doesn't pay much, you're rally signing up to live a certain lifestyle...or hoping to live better by being with a partner who earns much more.

I've always been firm, in that I do not want my standard of living to decrease by having a partner that earns significantly less than me.

OP..your H sounds lazy. Working part time when you had no kids, with you supporting him was a sign of who he is.

I'm not sure why his current request surprises you based on his past and I'm wondering why you were okay with financially carrying him even before you had kids. That attitude of his is a very unattractive quality in a man for me.

If your DH has chosen to be the lower earner by working part time and not putting the same effort into his career as you, then he has chosen to have less money than you.

It's a completely different situation when one spouse has reduced earnings capacity due to childcare responsibilities etc - they earn less (or norhibg) to the benefit of the family as a whole so the family income should be shared. The OP's DH lower earnings benefited himself only, to the detriment of the family, so he doesn't have the right to an equal share of the pot.

We pool everything but I wouldn’t share everything if I were married to a selfish lazy man like you are.
In this instance I’d open up a separate account in my name, put the extra per month I spend on house and family in it, point out very clearly if that meant I had less left over than him because I look after my family and he looks after him, and that he owed the family pool more.

For me it would be whether you had savings or not. If your dh is the type that spends everything he earns, then I'd want to save the extra. Him having extra cash to blow on trivialities isn't necessary. I'd want an emergencies fund in the bank before letting him spend more.

@Marchitectmummy

Just don't understand how you can be married to someone and want to squirrel your own money away.

Because unexpected things like divorce never happen ...

@Lazypuppy

Split it by percentage. I agree with you, you earn the money, you should get benefit of it. If he wants more money he should go and earn some more.

Exactly. He's had quite the cushy ride for years.