Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

Money - is dh being selfish?

299 replies

Realitea · 05/03/2017 09:00

I admit I am a spend spend spend kind of person. I have been in debt in the past and dh helped me out when I met him. I'm really bad with money! To make sure we don't get into that problem again he's taken full control of spending right down to the supermarket shop.
It's nice in a way that I don't have to worry about any bills anymore and I have a little job that takes care of clothes or toys or any extras.
However now dh wants me to help out financially too and basically either give it to him as a contribution or spend it on food. I think that's fair seeing as we're a couple and it would be selfish of me to keep it all.
But this is where I have the problem. Dh has saved quite a bit now and is talking about going abroad to somewhere I don't want to go so he's going with a friend. He's also talking about going on a fishing trip for the weekend.
I'm trying to find a holiday for us all (2 dcs) this summer and he's saying he won't spend more than £1000. I can't find anything decent and it hurts knowing he has the money but he's not touching that because he wants to go away and do his own thing.
He also really needs a new car but is counting on my inheritance that's coming soon to pay or help with that.
I wonder if he's being selfish with money and he says as he earned it he can spend it how he likes and at least everything else is taken care of.
I find it hurtful that I've always had a dream to visit a certain place but that's not taken into account. And I still don't drive but if we had the money I would learn.
Is this selfish of him or am I just being selfish?

OP posts:
Realitea · 07/03/2017 21:00

Yes I did say to him the house would have to be in both our names. It would be many years before we had anywhere near enough for that anyway. He does seem a lot more co operative now and has been very open tonight about things and I have access to all accounts now. Amazing what putting your foot down can do. I have to say, if he was genuinely financially abusive I don't think he would've acted like this. He's listened to my points and acted on them. So it's a start I guess.

OP posts:
HelenDenver · 07/03/2017 21:07

Don't freak out, setting up as a Ltd company is fine.

Has he filed accounts (poster upthread: publically available accounting info for small companies can be very limited as the requirements are much less)

Realitea · 07/03/2017 21:38

Thank goodness for that. Yes he has

OP posts:
HelenDenver · 07/03/2017 22:08

Is he the sole shareholder? It might be more tax efficient for you both to hold shares

NameChange30 · 07/03/2017 22:44

I'm really glad he's listened and given you access to the accounts. I hope that you can manage things together on a more equal footing from now on. Best of luck.

SandyY2K · 07/03/2017 23:21

I'm amazed at the progress you've made. I agree with you OP, that if he was financially abusive, he wouldn't agree to any of that.

I honestly believe that the phrase 'financial abuse' is thrown around way to quickly on MN.

NameChange30 · 07/03/2017 23:29

Controlling finances and restricting access to money to the extent he has been is financial abuse, whether you like it or not Sandy.
The fact that he's agreed to stop doing it doesn't mean that it was never financial abuse in the first place. It just means that he appears to have seen the error of his ways - which is unusual but thankfully not impossible.
I still think the signs of emotional abuse are a cause for concern.

RedastheRose · 07/03/2017 23:44

Family money is just that for the whole family. It's not his and yours it's ours! All money earned by you both should be added together, all expenses should be deducted from this including clothes and toys for kids etc driving lessons too. Then a set amount should be put aside for family holidays and saving for the car etc then the money left over should be divided equally as his spending money and yours. You can then either spend it or save it up for your own personal use as you want. If he wants a holiday on his own then he saves from his spending money NOT family money! He is being financially abusive btw, he is using the 'I earned it I'll spend it how I like' excuse for depriving you of a fair share.

SandyY2K · 08/03/2017 00:40

Emma, that's your opinion, however given the that the OP was honest about her poor financial management and reluctant to take on the management, I can't say he's totally to blame for the situation and how things are run in the home.

He is responsible for paying each and every bill in the home and it sounds like he wasn't doing a terrible job of it.

I'm not saying that as SAHM or as a low earner, she should not have more disposable income or access to money than she has had. She certainly should have, but her inability and poor financial management have contributed to the status quo.

If you were with a partner who admitted they weren't good with cash, I'm not wholly surprised, he felt the need to take charge of the finances, for fear of them getting into debt.

The phrase is thrown around like confetti. Much the same as a few others like rape... But that's a whole other discussion.

I'm good in agreeing to disagree on it.

RedastheRose · 08/03/2017 01:06

Just because the OP is bad at managing her money does not excuse him keeping 'his' money to himself! They are a family with children and consequently it is family money. He can still pay the bills and ensure there are no debts without being selfish.

NameChange30 · 08/03/2017 03:50

Sandy The problem is that you (and others) have bought the line hook, line and sinker that the OP is "bad with money", that's something he convinced her of because she was £500 behind on bills when they met and she was a single mum struggling to make ends meet. Convincing someone they're bad with money and using that to justify an extreme level of financial control is textbook financial abuse.

But sure, we can agree to disagree. I just think it's dangerous to minimise when someone's in a situation like this.

disappearingfish · 08/03/2017 06:05

I don't think OP's husband is abusive in the sense that he preyed on the OP for financial gain. Rather he has acted selfishly and disrespectfully with the family finances.

However it is a little understandable. He is the main earner. There's not a lot of money about. He cleared the OP's debts when he first moved in and he's supported DC that aren't his own. Lots of single parents manage without getting into debt, it can't be used as an excuse.

OP says herself she is bad with money. She's shown through posts here she's at worst a bit disorganised, uninformed and lacks forward planning. At least now she is motivated to get involved and take responsibility. And she's been shown by kind posters here that it's not hard to do.

OP's DH is completely in the wrong in not valuing OP's role as SAHP, and he sounds uninvolved in family life which I think has to change if OP wants the ability to earn more.

ocelot7 · 08/03/2017 07:47

Agree with Sandy mostly. On benefits money is very tight & has to be managed. Treats need to be tiny & there is no opportunity to spend spend spend. I think the partner has done well to pay off the debt & keep things going - the OP could have participated at any time. And a business making £40 is hardly a business! How long is that going to go on for? She is enabled to continue this by him working. But then I just don't understand the luxury of being a SAHP as have always had to work & fit household stuff around it. I think adults should be equally financially responsible & that includes earning it. I wouldn't expect equal decision-making power over money if I didn't also earn a good proportion of it. Especially if I self-identified as not being able to manage money.

Ecureuil · 08/03/2017 07:49

But then I just don't understand the luxury of being a SAHP as have always had to work & fit household stuff around it

It's not necessarily a luxury if childcare would cost you more than you would earn.
Until recently I had 2 under 3 so childcare was crippling and a lot more than I'd earn after tax/student loan payments/commute etc.

tribpot · 08/03/2017 08:03

OP has noted that her H works odd hours as well, making it more difficult for the other partner to work.

ocelot7 · 08/03/2017 08:19

The OP has one young child and one somewhat older - presumably school age? Yes childcare is expensive but still most of us need to work. To have a choice whether to work or not is a luxury based on having a working partner (who may have wished to have the same choice). Although not working for extended periods does women no favours re career progression, earning potential & pension entitlement. All even worse for the SAHM if the couple later split...

Joysmum · 08/03/2017 08:26

But then I just don't understand the luxury of being a SAHP as have always had to work & fit household stuff around it. I think adults should be equally financially responsible & that includes earning it

That's because you can't think outside your own situation ocelot7 Wink

In our situation, my DH works long and unpredictable hours. He's often away, he never knows what time he'll be home. He LOVES his job, it's like a job and hobby combined for the satisfaction it brings him and it is extremely well paid.

If we prioritized my return to paid work, we'd be only less money because you can't earn what he does from a more predictable and less demanding job, my earnings wouldn't make up the difference for many years, our DD would need to be in childcare which would further deplete the household disposable income, both of us would have less family and leisure time and somebody else would have more time with our DD to shape her as a human being than we do. It was important to us both that one of us always be at home for her when she wasn't at school. We'd be poorer in all respects, not just disposable income.

Oh and unlike you ocelot7, my DH and I value each other equally and don't accept the values placed on us by employers as representative of value we hold for each other in our relationship. That's why when I was bringing home more than 6 times what he did when he was on his apprentiship, I didn't lord it over him and think that bought me more power in our relationship. Likewise when I was a SAHP/WAHP and my DH's employment fortunes had changed, we continued in that tradition of valuing the virtues of our partners equally and not seeing earnings as any basis on how to divide up power in our relationship Confused

NameChange30 · 08/03/2017 08:27

Well bloody said Joysmum

ocelot7 · 08/03/2017 08:49

Actually I was thinking more globally than just my situation Joysmum and I genuinely have a different viewpoint to yours - isn't that the point of discussion boards? There is no need to attack other posters.

BantyCustards · 08/03/2017 08:49

Yes, being a SAHP is such a luxury...😒

ocelot7 · 08/03/2017 08:51

Yes it is - compared to the alternatives

Joysmum · 08/03/2017 09:45

Yes it's considered a luxury but those who want there to be a SAHP In their situation but can also be seen as a trap by those of us who wanted to work but circumstances didn't allow that because finance, time and family quality of life dictates that it's actually more beneficial in all respects not to work as you'd like to.

ocelot I've tried explaining it simply to you test you persist in seeing this as a weakness/luxury/choice of the SAHP.

What would you do in my situation. My DH left this morning at 4:30am, I don't know when it if he'll be home before midnight tonight. Last week he was away in Europe, we can't plan anything whilst he keeps that job.

Ecureuil · 08/03/2017 10:51

Again ocelot7, is it a luxury when childcare costs more than you earn, or is it a necessity?
Where I live, childcare for 2 under 3 is approximately £150 per day. £750 a week. Like many others, I have no family nearby to help with childcare. Now I'm very lucky that my pre child earnings exceed this (although I am now a SAHM by choice) but can't you see that this would be unattainable for a lot of people?

Ecureuil · 08/03/2017 10:55

To have a choice whether to work or not is a luxury based on having a working partner (who may have wished to have the same choice)

Yes, my DH did have the same choice. This is what we chose as a family.
The OP has said that her DH works odd hours, leaving her unable to work full time.

Atenco · 08/03/2017 12:37

And I just have to repeat, the OP was not bad with money when she had her own. She owed 500 pounds on bills for god's sake as a widowed single mum. Nearly 30 years ago when money was worth a whole lot more I owed well over 500 pounds and I have never been bad with money.

Swipe left for the next trending thread