He won't share his money

[NotEqual]

My Dh has a high earning secure job(earns £80K a year) and recently sold a share of a property and got another £80K. However he won't entertain the concept that half of this is mine(or to put it better,it is all OURS).We do not have a joint account,he puts money into my account every month plus I have a part time job and child benefit,so I am not short of money.He doesn't thimnk I can be trusted with money as I do occasionally run up credit card debts which he then pays off.I know this is stupid of me but I feel sometimes it is the only way to spend what I consider to be my money too.If we were short of money or had loads of debts I would not do it but we are not.Sorry I sound like a spoilt bitch but I am not,I just feel that I am not an equal partner and he cannot love me as much as his money!!

Xenia, I don't know what it is but I really find your attitude to women replusive

I didn't squirrel my money away in case of divorce because I never imagined I would divorce but all this trust on this thread frmo the point of view of someone divorced just makes me fearful for you as sadly if marriages break down (and people saying their marriage won't have no idea if their husband has a secrey mistress or next year will want someone 15 ears younger or fall in love with someone else as they might, happens all the time) hidden assets is a major problem. If you only just have enough to pay the mortgage hidden assets don't become an issue. Lots of self employed men manage their income so it plummets after divorce so they don't have to support ex wife and children too or give up work so by this trust and reliance for money on men ou are not just risking your own future financial security but perhaps even more importantly your children's. Most women after divorce are plunged into poverty so the choice to give up work may seem to be best for the childnre but if your marriage breaks up the expensive teenagers wanting new trainers like their friends may be metaphorically kicking you in the shins because their father has disappeared and you can barely afford the Tesco value potatoes never mind anything else as your earning capacity is zero.

Getting your name put on the deeds as a resident is a logical thing to do, if your dh wants to control his income.
doesnt say much for a marriage though, does it.

xenia, ironically, my ex is now in the position you describe...just punishment for making me go out to work all these years while he stayed at home

Q: "The society you promote, where men and women both earn their own salaries, is a desperate one where no child is fully raised by its own parents because they think earning money and preparing for the day their marriage fails is more important than one of them being at home for the child. Bleugh."

Blimey Freckle - I could not agree more.

There is so little importance placed on the children in all of this. OK, some people don't think being at home for pre-schoolers or doing the school pick up, taking to activities, chilling after school with them is important - but I do. The thought of putting my small children in nursery while I go to work and then sending them to breakfast and after school club makes me feel sick. It sounds very old fashioned but I think it's very important for someone to be at home for the children and the attitudes of cochlear and Xenia really make me feel quite sad.

Oh I find this so depressing.

Yes of course marriages break up all the time. And yes, some vile men do 'lose' their assets in order to deprive their ex wives and children. But not all do and not all marriages fail. I do think the sahp should make sure they're as protected as can be by knowing what money comes in and what assets there are and I also think they should ensure they're protected by being married or by some other legal means (i.e. shared ownership of any property, a PR agreement etc).

But Xenia, are you saying you think ALL women and men should work oth at all times? I think you're also saying that no-one should stay at home to look after children, ever, because it's a) a risk in case the working oth partner buggers off and leaves and b) it's not a appropriate economic contribution to a marriage anyway because only CASH counts. Gosh. Oh well, I disagree but then I don't measure success in purely monetary terms.

No, I was just enjoying annoying stay at home mothers and also more importantly trying to make people realise there are downsides to giving up work they may not have thought of. Obviously all couples have to work out for themselves whether to work or not.

I do find it strange some women can't understand or have no interest in money, investments or pensions (and some men) beause I thnk you almost owe it to yourself and your children to have an interest and knowledge of those areas even if you don't like them otherwise your lack of knowledge can leave you exposed and at risk. Women who don't konw what their men earn or what bank accounts the men have are a bit of a worry. One answer is to do all his filing and admin at home which a lot of women who don't work do do so they know as much as their husbands what money there is, what accounts they have etc. It is quite rare for married adults to do financial things in secret so it's not really a major problem for most people.

ALso when we were married we shared everything. I didn't feel stuff was mine or his so I can certainly understand couples in that position. It's the nicest way to be in a long marriage.

I think if the husband does earn a huge amount (or the wife) and the other is at home thern really that is not equality - one is making a super contriution as it were which the other doesn't match. Whereas if he's on £50k and she does all the domestic stuff then that's a fair deal. It's when he's getting £1m bonuses and is one of the best in his field in the UK that I can see him (or her) thikning - I earned that and it wasn't because you enabled it by washing my socks.

this discussion has gone off on all sorts of interesting tangents, but then the relationship between love and money is a pretty big subjet!

NotEqual, just picking up on a detail you gave. You say your dh brings in £5,000 per month after tax. £500 goes on your mortgage and £1000 approx on bills. He gives you £350. So that leaves about £3,150 of his earnings plus your earnings. So if he is unaware you have run up a credit card bill and he is suddenly told there's an extra £2,000 owing, that's quite a chunk of money out of your joint monthly income. I know you say there is a lot of money in savings accounts, but does your dh try to pay all bills, including his own credit card bills, out of your monthly income?

You say he is prudent. If he has a strict policy of living on the monthly income, then a sudden need to pay out £2,000 in one month would represent a big dent. I know it wouldn't leave you destitute, but it would be noticed.

Living off the monthly income and leaving the savings untouched could be a really big deal with him? If so, then your credit card bills are challenging this. To you he is blowing this occasional debt out of all proportion but to him, it's a big threat that undermines his trust in you.

I am playing devil's advocate. If sides are to be taken, I am more on your side than his as I agree you have much too little financial power.

I get the impression he really does keep you in the dark about the finer points of your family financies. That is wrong IMO if you see him spending far more money on himself than you are 'allowed' to spend on yourself. I think you really must force him to talk to you more, about monthly income, savings, plans for the future and you must tell him your own views in a non confrontational way.

If he is as prudent with money as you say, then it can't be part of his plan to pay needless interest to your credit card company. So what is really going on there?

Also, you keep saying you really are comfortably off and he can afford to give you more. Are you totally 100% sure this is the case? Have you read his recent bank and credit card statements?

You say that your dh pays his credit card bills monthly. I am not very au fait with the way credit cards work, but really, if he can do this, why does he need them in the first place? I apologise as this may be a really naive question - but if you can manage so well, why not just do away with credit cards altogether?

Why should someone, either the man or the woman, work bloody hard for years in order to lose their assets to the other half when they divorce??
i agree with Xenia really, there are always ways for women to work - they cant just hide behind their kids forever and say "oh looking after them is my job"..
There are weekend jobs available! and evening jobs! and working from home. Some people are bone idle and expect a meal ticket from their spouse. I believe in modern relationships,where both partners make the effort to both earn money.

in a way though xenia, you have proved the extreme case - you have done it on your own, so you've proved that you dont need a "better half" supporting you in the home. I dont think that most men are capable of that, though. They are far more dependent on support from home. They may look like high achievers, but if they came back every night to a messy house, sulking au pair, lost sports kit and no sex (for example) it would show in their work performance.

Yeah, cos looking after 3 children isn't 'bloody hard work' is it? No, it's a piece of piss so after a whole day of that, plus housework etc, get off your fat lazy arse and go and work in a supermarket

God, men who go out to work and that's all they do don't know they're born.

well thats another subject...give me staying at home, any day.

LOUD APPLAUSE for Freckle!! Completely agree!!!!!!

Xenia, you say 'I think if the husband does earn a huge amount (or the wife) and the other is at home thern really that is not equality - one is making a super contriution as it were which the other doesn't match. Whereas if he's on £50k and she does all the domestic stuff then that's a fair deal. It's when he's getting £1m bonuses and is one of the best in his field in the UK that I can see him (or her) thikning - I earned that and it wasn't because you enabled it by washing my socks.'

No, can't agree with this. That £1m bonus earing super contributer might also be thinking, "how lucky I am to be in a field of business that rewards my hard work so well when so many other super successful and best in their field workers earn so much less"

If your super contributer is equating his earning power with his own importance to his family, then he is a tosser, isn't he? And I would argue he would still be a tosser to his family if he earned £50,000 pa, as tosserdom knows no financial boundaries IME.

TM, just a point about credit cards. A lot of people use credit cards for daily expenditure and then pay off the bill at the end of the month. This leaves money in your account (where it could or could not be earning interest - and, if you pay the cc bill at the end of the month, you don't pay interest on it), plus can afford additional protection should there be a problem with a major (anything over £100) purchase.

Not sure why Xenia feels the need to enjoy herself by annoying SAHMs. Contempt for the non-incoming earning female oozes out of every post. And I don't believe anyone earns a £1M bonus. It might be what they are paid, but have they truly earnt it as opposed to someone who goes down the mines on a daily basis? There are obscene amounts of money floating around in certain sectors, and I get the impression that Xenia works in one of these sectors which might explain her attitude towards money.

Shit! The definition of a modern relationship - both parties main aim is to earn money.

If that's the case, give me an old-fashioned relationship where the family unit as a whole is central and both parties contribute in different ways.

ooh thank you tigermoth! I couldnt put my finger on quite why I didnt like that point.

(hi, by the way...I am n n)

Poo! Shock at this definition has made my grammar go southwards.

Should be "parties' aim". Apologies to pedants.

Xenia my marriage is my second. THe first we had a joint bank account and had only been married 11 months when he cleaned out our very small savings leaving me with no money whatsoever and a hgue mortgage , bills due etc and left with my life long best friend.

thankfully when exdh took off I was actually earning more income than he was and still had a job to go to - I also know that given the type of man he was - there would have been a real struggle to get him to contribute to child support.....

Doesn't mean I am going to tar dh with the same brush as my ex dh. I went into this with my eyes open and trust dh despite my previous experience. I also know that if anything happened he would be honourable enough to make sure the dds and I were taken care of BUT i know without a doubt that that is not even a remote consideration.

My experience also includes a parent who was divorced when it was very rare in the community we lived in. I grew up in a household where my father left my mother and contributed not one cent to our care etc. He went on to get very high paying jobs and just refused to pay the child payments. Saw my mother scrimp and save and went without an awful lot as a child.

I guess it all comes down to what you measure your success and worth in - monetary or some other value.

I'm not sure why Xenia wants to annoy sahms so much either. I agree with tigermoth about the £1m bonus: you're married, your spouse should be entitled to half of it imo, especially if they are looking after YOUR children (whether it's a man or a woman who earned it is irrelevant imo)

I'm not even a SAHM and her contemptuous views annoyed me.

So if someone is earning, sorry being paid (!) a 1m bonus, I am guessing they would have a bigger house than someone with a salary of 50k.... so the SAHP surely would have more work to do keeping it?? I jest of course

Children need to be brought with their parents as role models that show that money is not the be all and end all... As opposed to spending time with the 'nanny' or 'au pair' or whatever they are called these days. While their parents off earning the money to pay for the nanny!! It makes NO sense. I would imagine (I might be wrong) that once the children have all grown up the SAHP would begin work again! So they will still have interests in pensions and finance for the future etc; but their interests while their children are small lie in raising their children in the way that they think most appropriate.

This is moving away again from the OP... apologies. Back to that for a second... you really need to talk to your husband about how you feel.

brought UP

hi whatwould! I have not the time to follow everything here, but that paragraph in Xenia's post also stood out for me. I have a sad feeling that Xenia may have seen this thought process at close quarters amongst some of her collegues. Does not mean it is right, but I have a feeling it exists.

Freckle, that's a good explantion of why a prudent person might have credit cards. You see I am a credit card virgin! I would never have the self discipline to pay off everything each month like that, though I can see it has good advantages.

I wonder though, for the sake of family harmony, whether it would be worth Notequal's dh just stopping all credit card dependency, even if temporarily? While NotEqual's dh has credit cards in his name he has access to even more credit of his own, so even more financial power, even if he chooses not to use it.

Why do some people feel the need to impress upon us how right their way of life is? Could it be guilt?
By all means work outside the home, employ decent childcare, earn a fortune if you can. Enjoy it. But why try to use your experience of your life to belittle how others live theirs?
There is no best way to live, to have a relationship, to raise children, to work. The secret is in finding a balance of all factors that works for you.

Hurrah!

Having a credit card also affects your credit rating, so can have an effect on any future borrowing you might want. My dh has never had a credit card and has to jump through hoops to get credit (such as mortgage, etc.), because his credit rating is virtually non-existent. He has managed to build this up through his work, but a lot of attention is given to credit cards when credit ratings are being established. Weird really, because I have a better credit rating than dh simply because I have ccs, even though I have no real income (that I have earned in my own right - as opposed to the family pot) to pay off those cards.