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.

If you go ahead with this plan, at least make certain you claim your child benefit (and let him pay it back if he's too high an earner) - if you're a SAHP caring for a child under 12, you get NI credits towards your state pension for every year you're at home.

(It's criminal the government don't advertise this more widely as many SAHP are going to find themselves with a shortfall of contributions and not able to get the full amount.)

I think it’s unfair to expect a family member minds your child for free when that much income is being put away each month

Good point. I would lay odds this is a female family member, this man seems quite happy to be benefiting from free female labour in order to boost his own savings.

He's thinking like a single man, and doing only what many of us relatively high earners would do in a relationship - if that relationship did not involve kids. To be generous to him, perhaps he simply hasn't realised that having a child is a seismic shift, because his own life has changed very little so far.

I'm seeing very little evidence that he's building up these savings in order to create a nice life for you both, OP. They are his personal savings and you have no access to them, or any say over how they are spent. There does seem to be a bit of him saying what you want to hear but acting in a different way (e.g. yes it would be great if you could be a SAHP).

You've sleep-walked in a position of considerable vulnerability, don't make it worse by becoming a SAHP.

Re talking to him about finances, I would set it up that you think you should have a financial meeting at least once a year. Dh and I did this from day one before we were married and before we moved in together. We looked ahead and laid down plans for what we would be saving toward, divided the household bills on a percentage of income basis. We talked about how we would finance my maternity leave, how it would work afterwards with me on part time wages.

I have been a SAHM for a long time and attitude to money can be an absolute deal breaker. Your Dp sees his money as his, his savings as his. Even with you on reduced income he hasn't been honest about his finances. This is not a good start to being a family especially when he hasn't been open and honest about what he earns and his savings.

Setting aside the very valid points others have made, I think different people have different views on how much savings are necessary.

These days, a holiday that isn't camping is easily £2-3k.

If you're not DIY types, it's often £1k a year easily on home maintenance. We have spent more than that this year just on two plumber call outs and a slipped roof tile.

Then if you want anything for emergencies/to prepare for interest rate rises, it starts to look tight.

Now some are so keen to be a SAHM or to have their partner be that they will do without holidays etc, scrimp and save, but others don't think it's important enough. And I guess your DP is in the latter place.

Simply put- you can't afford to and he won't fund you. Do you currently contribute 50/50 to household bills? I would be asking for 50% of any child related costs- so many women seem to completely fund kids which I really don't understand. But if he chooses to save his money, that's his choice. What you then do yourself about his choices is up to you.

I understand why you feel the way you do. It's a lot juggling work and home when they are still so little but those years are short, even if they don't feel it.

You have a reason paying part time job. How would you find another one? Very few posts are offered part time from the off.

To look at it another way, if you stay you can be part time for many years. It's still great even when they are at school as you have the flexibility to shift a day for the school play, sports day etc.

I took the early hit to allow me to continue for many years on a part time basis. It's a good balance. Why take it all now when you have child care and then have to take a full time role in a few years (where your earning potential won't keep up and you've missed pension payments).

Plus as everyone else has said you are completely vulnerable unmarried and it never works if the other person isn't on board.

To be honest, I'd be tempted to go back to work full time.

The problem with even part time work is that everything becomes your responsibility, so if you want to go back full time later, the pattern is set that you will be doing all the pick ups, responsible for emergencies etc

It doesn't sound like he's pulling his weight at all at the moment, apart from squirrelling his savings.

It's a hard pattern to break.

Also, don't be fooled by starting school. Childcare is much more complicated when they are at school.

Nursery 8 til 6 is a breeze by comparison.

Whatever his background or attitudes to money, even if admirable, he sees you and your child as a threat to that.

Please take on board the comments here. Assuming you are in the UK if you separated your partner would only have to pay less than 10% of his earnings as maintenance. Look up the calculations, it's a tiny amount.

What is your housing situation? If he doesn't want to get married then I bet its because he understands the financial implications.

No one assume they will separate however the stats are not in your favour and as someone else mentioned the power balance changes when you are dependant on a man. Also don't assume you could get a job easily after 4-5 years at home, especially part time.

I'm speaking from experience.

Sorry- I saw you do split household bills 50/50. Some people do seem to do a percentage of income for bills, if there is a disparity, but you are still using half the amenities so to suddenly decide you won't, I don't see how that works either. By all means have a conversation, but I do t see how with your situation giving up work is an option.

Is the house in both of your names ?
If it isn't you need to be careful
If you have no wage coming in you are leaving yourself very vulnerable if you split. He doesn't sound committed. He has all that money and he still wants you working. Your child is only little once you can't get that time back. You need to have a serious talk about this relationship

I would say you didn't realise he was earning so much and you don't think it's fair that you're on a really tight budget each month to contribute an equal amount to the family pot when the same amount is a much smaller proportion of his income.

You say you work part time. How many days/hours a week are you working?

Because if you work, say, three days a week, you are spending two days a week providing free childcare which benefits you both, or if you prefer to divide it up, one day a week providing free childcare which solely benefits him. So for those days, you would be justified in saying, "If I was working on these days, I would be earning £X amount extra each year, which I could put into my savings. But because I work part-time and care for our child on those days, I'm losing the potential to earn that money whereas you don't lose anything, and are able to easily pay 50% of the bills with plenty left over for your savings. Since we're not married, this benefits you and not me, because in the eyes of the law, we're not a single financial unit but two separate individuals."

Also, whose family is providing free childcare on the days you work? Yours or his?

I'm not saying I blame him, btw, for acting in his own personal interests. Some people do.

But you have to recognise that. There is no 'team'. There is him, then you, then your child. He is working to support him. You need to work to support you. Both of you then need to support the baby. That's how your relationship is set out. Don't fool yourself.

So if you contribute towards the bills do you really have an understanding of how much that is? If he is a really high earner presumably you have a lifestyle which is fairly expensive - cars, big house etc? I think you need to sit down and understand how much it costs to run your family and maintain your lifestyle? I think it's ok to put that amount of savings aside if he has to pay for large expenses like repair bills, holidays, new cars etc? On the face of it he saves more than your salary but if you became a STAHM you wouldn't be paying into a pension etc

I definitely wouldn’t be a SAHM with this attitude on top of the circumstances. I personally also find his commitment to his personal savings and no mention of joint savings (even if only a small pot at this stage) a little dubious for want of a more accurate word. Is this why he’s dead set against marriage perhaps? But maybe this (saving together) is something that happens with marriage… A lot of couples split their savings, even when married, which is fine and each to their own but given the context here and what you’ve told us, I’d be wanting to ensure I can build my own savings in some way each month too. My husband and I have our own smaller savings and combined savings. I’d like the same in a long-term partnership even I think as there are always joint costs like home improvements when living together.

Final point: I felt potentially financially vulnerable as a short term SAHM despite my own savings and our literally 50:50 ones as a married couple.

What is your housing situation. You pay £500 towards bills a month - so I’m guessing it’s his house and you just live there.

If so, you are already in a pretty vulnerable situation: working PT with a small child while your partner saves more than you earn for himself.

You might need to properly come to terms with the fact that there is no ‘we’ about the finances in your household. There are his savings. They aren’t yours.

He obviously doesn’t want to marry you and take you on as a financial dependent to whom he has legal obligations. That is OK - so long as he’s properly meeting his obligations towards his child. But you both need to make that boundary explicit and make you decisions on that basis.

Even if he were to decide you are allowed to be a SAHM, you would be silly to do so in this situation.

Exactly.

You have no right to be supported by him, and what he does with his earnings is his business.

My DH was saving a similar amount. He's much more cautious with money than me and said we couldn't afford for me to be a sahm. But when I showed him the price of childcare vs my salary he agreed that me working was financially pointless. We are managing fine on just his salary, just going on fewer holidays. It's definitely worth it to me, I love being at home.

However, I agree with others that it's a very vulnerable position to be in. I wouldn't do it if I wasn't married either.

Compromise by going part-time?

I think it would be far worse if he didn't want the OP to be working, actually.

If he said, "Yes darling, you stay at home and I'll take care of the bills" she might do that without a seconds thought, leaving herself completely without any income if the relationship ends. At least this way she is still working, if only part time, and has some financial independence.

Yes, their child is only little and she "won't get this time back". But she won't get this time back in terms of her savings, career progression and pension either.

Their child most likely won't remember these early years. My mum stayed at home until I was five, although I did to go nursery a little bit after my brother was born. I have literally no memories of being at home with my mum, and only a handful of memories of going to nursery. I think staying at home when your kids are little is ultimately more about the mother wanting to spend that time with her child than it is about the child needing it. So the OP needs to decide what is more important to her. Being at home for these years (which might sound lovely in theory but could in reality become quite repetitive and boring if she's doing it every day) or being more financially secure. She can't rely on her partner for financial security because they're not married, so she needs to take care of her own financial future.

If I were you OP I’d be saving at least half of your earnings each month into personal savings and if he won’t get married definitely don’t give up your job.

Is it your family who provide the child care? If so they are saving you as much as he saves. I would make that clear to him.

You just need an honest conversation. Savings can stay at the same amount but need to be split equally between you. This may appeal to him at the moment as some of the best interest rates are available on balances up to 5k (usually attached to your main account like the Barclays rainy day at 5% or at one point Chase were offering 7%). Spreading things round also makes the most of the tax free allowance on ISAs.

Swot up a bit. Is it a case that he worries you won't save? If so he just splits the direct debit and you set up a savings account it goes straight into.

Some people consider savings to be a non-negotiable monthly expense, and that's admirable.

Can't "afford" something because it would detract from savings is a legitimate stance.

@ZeldaWillTellYourFortune this is true. But OP should be building her own savings pot in that case.

Do not give up your job.

What a nice set up he has for himself.

He has someone paying half the mortgage (even though he earns far far more), free childcare, someone attending to his child for him even at night, cooking his meals and cleaning his home.

He can climb the professional ladder completely well rested and supported, never having to think about or stop to care for his child.

And no financial liability at all! He can walk away (or more likely send you packing) and keep his home and his nice big savings pot and his very high income- all of which you facilitated for him with your unpaid labour.

You have every right to raise finances with a man you have a child with.

Do not become a SAHM. Go back to full time work, get moneybags to pay for nursery unless he wants to take an equal amount of time from his career to care for DC.

I'd honestly wonder if a man loved me at all if he was taking advantage of me like this.

It’s so easy to assume you’re being overly uptight about finances. But just sit with the possibility that he leaves tomorrow. These savings - are they in joint names? Or just his? Who owns the house? Whose name is on the account the mortgage is paid from?

On the reverse side, whose “half” is the disposables? The nursery fees, the food, the spending which is not investing, once it’s gone, it’s gone?

If he really wants finances to be separate, and it is as I suspect, there needs to be a total overhaul. Half of childcare fees need to come from his account. The amount you save from that, goes into a savings account or a pension in your name only. If he fights like a tiger on this, calls you paranoid or unreasonable or mercenary, or says you’re in some way putting the relationship at risk, stand your ground or suggest mediation. Or marriage. Anything else - well the threads on here with cohabiting SAHMs asking about their rights post-separation are some of the saddest you’ll find