We could afford for me to SAHM but it would reduce DPs savings each month.

[Whatsocurringmervin]

I am sorry if this isn’t the usual query on this forum, I suppose I am looking for some kind of similar experiences. My partner and I (together a long time but not married) have a young child together. I returned from maternity leave recently to my current role as I had an enhanced maternity payment scheme and had to return for 6 months or else pay back my 12 months maternity pay, which made sense to me financially even though it was challenging emotionally. Next month, my 6 months will be up and I can leave without a financial penalty for my work. I returned part time and I earn around £1,400 a month. My partner (who is a much higher earner than I) saves £1,700 into his personal savings a month. I am not super financially literate but trying to get my head in the game with it all. I had assumed he was maybe saving £400/£500 a month, not more than my current monthly salary. It wasn’t until recently I asked him to confirm the amount. He said this means we can do holidays and cover finances etc that we might need. Obviously we won’t spend £1,700 a month on holidays and just to reiterate that this is his personal savings that I have no access to in any way (something that would not bother me usually, pre baby) Some might say that it’s his salary and his right to 1) expect me to contribute financially as an adult in the family and 2) he can do as he wishes with his salary. I suppose it is the age old, what would a SAHP earn if they totalled up all the sleepless nights (I do them all, working or not) meals cooked, house cleaned etc. mental load for the household yada yada. Ideally, I’d prefer to be a SAHM until my child is in school, my partner has felt the same but said we just couldn’t afford it which made me sad but given the current financial climate I figured I had to suck it up. I would like to (and expect to) return to work when the baby is of school age, in an ideal world if I did stop working during this time. I am a bit shocked / upset to learn that he saves more than my monthly salary (this gives an indication of his high salary to you, I think)

And now I’m not sure where the “we simply can’t afford it darling” comes from… am I wrong to think we could afford it for the next few years and reduce his personal savings, or is that totally unreasonable? I am aware that this could all sound very brattish. I know we sound really lucky all in.

For the sake of all information, I do contribute financially to our household currently on my part time salary.

We do not pay for childcare on the days I work, our child is with family.

This money goes into his personal savings, we have personal savings and not combined which is how it has been throughout. His personal savings are around 35/40k. mine around 10k.

If this is TLDR in a nutshell it’s that we could afford for me to stay at home with our child until they are at school. Doing so would mean my partner reduces his personal savings pot for awhile whilst I don’t work outside the home. His salary is will go up yearly, if not biannually at the least.

But it does benefit the family financially, especially as OP is a low earner no?

You always know someone's agenda when their hellbent on deciding it's not worth looking after their own kids when it could be easily done.

OPS wage for part time work isn't really that low £1,400. Honestly MN is always hell bent on pushing SAHM and then it's thrown out that the man should pick up the tab because the woman is looking after the child. This is OPTIONAL though OP cannot afford this life. I'm not surprised he kept his savings hush hush. He should of continued because OP is coming across poorly here and if it was the other way round everybody would saying to the woman she needs to leave..
And the partner is a COCK LODGER!

She takes home 1400 a month after tax. It’s not low income.

A SAHP only benefits the family financially if the cost of childcare exceeds their earning potential, surely? Otherwise, having a SAHP results in a net cost to the family, not a benefit.

Of course, some families might conclude that there are other benefits of having a SAHP that make this cost worthwhile, but the idea that SAHPs save the family a fortune in childcare costs can only really be true for a minority of families where the SAHP's earning potential is low and childcare costs are high, e.g. due to having multiple children needing unfunded childcare.

Wow. Yes no wonder he doesn't want to marry her!

If she brings home £1400 working part time I don’t think that’s a particularly low earner. And yes, the cost of being a SAHM is much greater than earnings minus childcare for a couple of years. It’s very hard to re enter the workplace on the same salary, if at all. Pension contributions and career progression are lost and the impacts of that last long after childcare costs end.

As I said previously, that doesn’t make it the wrong thing to do. But very rarely is a family better off financially with a SAHP compared to two working parents.

As for your second point, I’ll just ignore that nonsense.

My personal opinion is that having a sahp, with one person in the relationship covering all financial costs is only a viable option if both parties are truly happy with the arrangement. It doesn’t sound like this will be the case here and will result in the partner financing everything becoming hugely resentful. I would not agree to this if my partner suggested it.

@Whatsocurringmervin that sounds really positive . Things change massively in a relationship when you have a child and its really good to sit down and have a discussion around future financial and other plans, that 0-5 period can be very tricksy and people do change in what they want out of life. Some people do decide SAHP is the best way for their family, those early years go so fast. Financial pressures are a common cause of relationship breakdown so getting on the same page and working together for your family goals will bring you closer together.

Exactly, she is vulnerable and in a situation which is not great to be a SAHM. But the arguments she is making about sharing his money regardless of childcare are clearly wrong. It would be so wrong for someone to marry a person with these values.

There is a middle ground where neither of these people are financially abusive to each other

How utterly ridiculous. So what if the child won’t remember? Mum will. Besides, everyone knows that children at home with their mothers are happier than those placed in childcare.

Well this is kicking off🍿

"Everyone" doesn’t know that.

Not only that but staying in the workforce has intangible, long-term benefits like building seniority, keeping skills up to date, networking, pension, etc. People who say 'my wages would barely cover childcare' are being extremely short-sighted.

Also those who tout the value of an SAHM never seem to offset that with the expenses of providing a dwelling, food & beverage, vehicle/transportation/petrol, heating, electricity, technology and gadgets, personal clothing/sundries/cosmetics, leisure and entertainment, social spending like gifts for extended family, holidays, retirement savings, etc., for a dependent adult. It's a big responsibility for one earner to be responsible year after year after year not only for their own offspring but for a dependent adult as well.

There are ways to do it such as weekend, evening, opposite shifts that don't necessarily incur huge childcare costs.

😀Quite. Whenever the topic of SAHMs comes up it ends in a bun fight.

Lol, what nonsense some people like to spout!

No, "everyone" doesn't know that.

Women who have taken a permanent hit to their financial stability to stay at home for years their children won't even remember want to believe that though.

Completely agree with this!

Honestly I earn well and it is still possible we would be better off if I dropped a day to 4 days at work with the enormous childcare costs, which would also put us back under the threshold for support with childcare.
But if I don’t grow my career we won’t be able to send them all to private schools, and I’m contributing to a pension etc, my job isn’t really a 4 day job.

Besides, everyone knows that children at home with their mothers are happier than those placed in childcare

can you link to that study please?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the happiest kids are probably those who have a fair amount of time at home with both parents, spend some time in a good quality stimulating childcare setting and live in a financially secure household with two content and fulfilled parents. Who can afford to do more than the bare minimum of scraping by.

Being a SAHP is a great and very valid choice in many cases but can we stop pretending that time at home with a parent is all children need and that everything else is immaterial.

do not marry and stay at home WITHOUT getting him to continue paying into your private pension