Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
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

Original poster

Is my girlfriend selfish or is it me?

270 replies

BlingersMcBling · 20/10/2020 08:08

Ok I’ll try and keep it brief.. I’ve been with gf around 5 years. When we first got together we went out all the time and I paid for everything, this didn’t bother me initially but after around 6 months it started to annoy me how she would never even offer to buy even one round, it was like an expectation. It got to the point where once on our way for drinks in a taxi I had to actually ask her if she was taking any money out and we stopped at a cash machine and she did but she didn’t seem happy about it. Anyway as time went on I got more and more frustrated and we argued a lot and things got a margin better. But lots of stuff went on, she left jobs so I bailed her out, her car broke so I paid to repair it... tons of stuff. I’m generally pretty generous and so this wouldn’t normally bother me but I ended up getting in a bit of debt and we moved house and I was really struggling and she had more disposable income than me but it was a real struggle getting her to pay for anything, now the tables were turned and it really pi55ed me off because of the amount of times I’d helped her out and now she was reluctant to help me out-even though the reason I was in loads of debt was paying for her when she was in a mess etc... anyway fast forward a few years and thing got slightly better as I’d started to stand up for myself and we had many arguments but long story short our house costs were around 1200 a month so we split it 600 each. Then she loses her job, gets another part time job so I let her pay 400 and I pay rest as I earn more money.. she complains she never has any money so I drop it to 300... now the issue... I now want to buy a house (was only renting before) I’ve seen a house we like and it will only be in my name as her credit is bad. It’s 300k and the house running costs will be around 2000 a month. I said I want her to up her payments to 500 but she is complaining about this saying it won’t leave her with much money. It will leave her with a few hundred a month but this is because she doesn’t want to work full time (she works 4 days a week) The problem is I now do earn a lot more money than her, and she keeps bringing this up saying why should she be left skint but I just can’t see it being that bad having to only pay 500 towards the house. The mortgage is 1100, council tax 200, other bills 500... plus she has 2 kids which is the reason I needed to get a big expensive 4 bed anyway! But maybe she is right and I do earn a lot more money than her and tbh normally it wouldn’t bother me BUT I don’t want to feel like a mug because of what’s happened in the past. Does she have a point and is it me being selfish? Is it wrong of me to expect her to work more to contribute towards a house that is ultimately not in her name? Sorry for long one I just felt like I needed to set the scene and thanks.

OP posts:
Hazelnutlatteplease · 21/10/2020 10:09

haggistramp

Yep I agree. The comment comparing alcohol and takeaway spending to the household food budget gives me chills. The fact that food was disregarded as a household cost even more so.

aSofaNearYou · 21/10/2020 10:10

@haggistramp Yes, it is because the children are not his that her (theoretically) being a SAHM doesn't mean she isn't a free loader in this instance. She isn't doing him any favours by watching her own kids. Yes it affects her benefits, but other than making up that shortfall, he shouldn't be left struggling to provide for them. This is exactly why I wouldn't advise anyone to move in with a partner with dependent children, unless they are financially independent and able to pay for them themselves, because the expectation that a new partner should be footing the bill indefinitely is unfair.

The accusations of OPs partner being selfish and a free loader come from her consistent reluctance to contribute in any way over the years, and her refusal to make changes in light of OPs income going down. I don't judge her if she doesn't have enough money to contribute more towards the proposed house but in that case she should not move there, rather than sit back and expect OP to fund it. It looks like this move wouldn't be beneficial for either of them, due to her inability to equally contribute to it or be on the deeds.

haggistramp · 21/10/2020 10:17

@asofanearyou if you enter into a relationship with someone who has dependent children (who then goes on to lose their benefits) then you are taking on the financial responsibility of those children. That doesnt make the parent of those children a freeloader. To even think that is so misogynistic. It maybe is unfair, but no one forces anyone to enter a relationship with a single parent, but you cant do so and then expect that you have no financial responsibility for the dependents (if the parent is low income). Youd have to be seriously stupid, fucking selfish and actually narcissistic to think that youd have no obligations towards the children, or it made the parent a freeloader. What do you expect the children to live on, fresh air?

haggistramp · 21/10/2020 10:19

The OP has made no mention of the gf wanting to move. Hes the one that wants to buy a new house. Perhaps he needs to find another partner, without children on a more compatible income. Thats hardly the fault of his current gf.

RainingBatsAndFrogs · 21/10/2020 10:47

I think you are at a crossroads.

You either throw yourselves together as a team, for better for worse, see your assets as for the team and to be shared with love and affection (both of you) or you need to recognise that this is a relationship that isn’t going to get any better.

In fact things could get a lot worse when your income goes down next year and more pressure is put on an already friction-ridden area -money.

IMO the attitude to money is more important in a relationship than the actual sums.

Your description of the relationship makes it sound ‘ok’. You are not describing her as your soulmate, that you adore her, love her to bits and cannot think of living without her. Is she your rock ? Does she bring something that you do not have, and vice versa?

You need to be able to address this money stuff together, as a team.

That would be a marriage sort of relationship.

You know how it would go if you married and divorced, right? In terms of the house?

aSofaNearYou · 21/10/2020 10:53

@asofanearyou if you enter into a relationship with someone who has dependent children (who then goes on to lose their benefits) then you are taking on the financial responsibility of those children. That doesnt make the parent of those children a freeloader. To even think that is so misogynistic. It maybe is unfair, but no one forces anyone to enter a relationship with a single parent, but you cant do so and then expect that you have no financial responsibility for the dependents (if the parent is low income). Youd have to be seriously stupid, fucking selfish and actually narcissistic to think that youd have no obligations towards the children, or it made the parent a freeloader. What do you expect the children to live on, fresh air?

Are you new to the step parenting debate. I am a step parent, I have absolutely no financial responsibility for my step child, nor would I ever accept it. I expect him to live on what his parents provide for him. Call me stupid fucking selfish and narcissistic all you want, I am not responsible for him. As I said, this is why I wouldn't advise anyone to move in with someone with kids, because people think stuff like this. He needs to make up for the money she loses out on through benefits but other than that? No, it's entirely her problem. She can't afford half of a four bed house, and in fact isn't in a good position to buy at all. He does not need a four bed house and shouldn't be responsible for paying for one because she does, especially if she would not move an inch to help him out. This move is not in either of their interests.

sofato5miles · 21/10/2020 11:02

How does her paying for all the groceries not count as contributing? That is part of a basic house hold budget.

If ypu are this resentful now, you need to bail. Whether you are right or not doesn't matter as this relationship is not for you (or her and her kids).

Ps i think you are wrong how you write about it and your priorities. And i am the higher earner in my relationship. My money is ours to share.

Hazelnutlatteplease · 21/10/2020 11:12

_He needs to make up for the money she loses out on through benefits

When I first got with her the amount of money she was getting for working 15 hours a week cleaning was unfathomable, literally earning 30k a year plus for working 15 hours a week. But that’s for a different post!

The OP doesn't even consider this as entering into the equation. OP is very keen to emphasise what he is bringing into the equation but not at all keen on recognising his partners contributions or sacrifices.

This move is not in either of their interests.

Actually the OP benefits significantly from his partner moving in if he can persuade her to pay a proportion of his mortgage and costs. If he needs the money on retirement he can ditch the "freeloader" and downsize (or rent It out) with all the financial gains that a 4 bed to a 1 bed offer.

She may benefit from the use of the 4 bed. But the long term gain is definitely the OPs

Rockinmomma · 21/10/2020 11:16

Speaking from my own experience I’m also concerned about OP’s GF
I’m a single mum of 2, I work and get my money topped up with TC, CTC and CB (no maintenance) on my own I’m fine financially but if I moved in with my DP (and most definitely in this scenario) I’d be buggered!
My DC fathers job comes first so I’m childcare and can barely work, my monthly earnings are less than £1000.
So without knowing her circumstances we really can’t judge
As for the paying for things at the beginning? Come on OP, what did you expect. Yes it’s lovely and chivalrous to pay for dates but as you’ve found out, it leaves you resentful. I said to my DP at the start I wanted us to be equal because I didn’t want months to pass, him paying and resenting me, so we decide who buys food and who buys drinks or who sorts dinner and who buys snacks/booze
From this point on you need to sit and have an open talk about your finances now and how you’ll work together to pay for things, improve her earning potential and buy a house together.

haggistramp · 21/10/2020 11:27

No, im not new to the step parenting debate. If a high earner enters into a relationship with a low earning parent, then its fucking stupid, selfish and narcissistic to think that as the higher earner, you dont have a financial responsibility for the children. The high earner has a decision to make before they enter the relationship whether they want that commitment or not. If its two high earners its possibly not an issue. But it most certainly is an issue if the relationship consists of a low earner parent as in the ops case. Do you think the children of the low earner should just starve once the low earner loses their benefits?

goldenharvest · 21/10/2020 11:29

Why are you such a mug?

haggistramp · 21/10/2020 11:29

Also the gf doesnt need a 4 bed. Nor does the op say anywhere she wants a 4 bed. The Op wants a 4 bed. Honestly, the red flags are waving in abundance for the OP. I worry massively for the gf.

aSofaNearYou · 21/10/2020 11:34

The OP doesn't even consider this as entering into the equation. OP is very keen to emphasise what he is bringing into the equation but not at all keen on recognising his partners contributions or sacrifices. This move is not in either of their interests. Actually the OP benefits significantly from his partner moving in if he can persuade her to pay a proportion of his mortgage and costs. If he needs the money on retirement he can ditch the "freeloader" and downsize (or rent It out) with all the financial gains that a 4 bed to a 1 bed offer. She may benefit from the use of the 4 bed. But the long term gain is definitely the OPs

As you say, we don't know the ins and outs of their finances, so we don't know how much OPs gf is losing out on in benefits by living with him and if that makes up for how much less she is contributing. Perhaps it does, but my argument was general, parents with dependent children should not live outside of their means with the expectation that their partner will pay for them and their kids, with the only defence being "we are a partnership". She is not a low earner due to anything to do with him, it isn't his burden to make up for that. Yes, OP would benefit from her paying part of his mortgage, but rightly so if she expects to live there with her children and for the house to be two bedroom's larger than OP needs to make room for her kids. If he is finding that he will still struggle to make ends meet with such expensive outgoings despite her contribution, then it is obviously not in his interests either and he should be looking at a smaller and cheaper house.

aSofaNearYou · 21/10/2020 11:39

No, im not new to the step parenting debate. If a high earner enters into a relationship with a low earning parent, then its fucking stupid, selfish and narcissistic to think that as the higher earner, you dont have a financial responsibility for the children. The high earner has a decision to make before they enter the relationship whether they want that commitment or not. If its two high earners its possibly not an issue. But it most certainly is an issue if the relationship consists of a low earner parent as in the ops case. Do you think the children of the low earner should just starve once the low earner loses their benefits?

No I don't think that, I think the high earner has a responsibility to compensate their partner for the benefits they rely on and will lose out on by living with a partner. Their responsibility is directly to their partner, they do not, and will never have any financial responsibility towards the kids regardless of their income and no matter how emotively you rant about it.

gingerwhinger0 · 21/10/2020 11:53

Don’t marry her, she’s a cheeky freeloading cow and likely take half your assets in a divorce. Run.
You sound lovely and generous and deserving of much more.

Hazelnutlatteplease · 21/10/2020 12:07

No I don't think that, I think the high earner has a responsibility to compensate their partner for the benefits they rely on and will lose out on by living with a partner.

Where ever you stand on the step parenting debate, the OP comments with derision on the amount if benefits his partner received so i cant imagine him taking any responsibility for their loss.

I actually don't agree the higher paying partner should compensate for loss of benefit. I believe that in a partnership you look at the total income, you pay everyones costs including food and pension you divvy up the rest after. In purely money terms that mean one person's contribution is sizable enough to cover all the bills. But expecting the other person to go without to make a more equal contribution isnt right to me.

If you're not happy with the amount left over then i totally agree. the choice of house (and partner) is completely wrong.

haggistramp · 21/10/2020 12:26

Potato, potatoe. Responsibility to their partner or their partners children. Its the same thing. One doesn't come without the other when in a committed relationship. You may think there's a difference, but reality, (and certainly the government) doesn't. Thats why child tax credits are stopped if a low earner moves in with a high earner. Regardless if children are biological or step, the high earner is deemed to have assumed a financial responsibility for them. Thats not ranting btw, its just facts.

gindinner · 21/10/2020 12:31

Can I ask why you're both not buying a house that you can afford together? What would happen if she became pregnant and had to go on maternity leave?
I don't understand how you've come this far in a relationship when the disagreements about finances have been there since the beginning. This would have been Over for me within two months.

Don't buy the house, end this.

aSofaNearYou · 21/10/2020 12:37

Potato, potatoe. Responsibility to their partner or their partners children. Its the same thing. One doesn't come without the other when in a committed relationship. You may think there's a difference, but reality, (and certainly the government) doesn't. Thats why child tax credits are stopped if a low earner moves in with a high earner. Regardless if children are biological or step, the high earner is deemed to have assumed a financial responsibility for them. Thats not ranting btw, its just facts.

The same government does not take partner's income into consideration when calculating maintenance due, because it isn't their responsibility. The difference is a principle - if living with you would make your partner out of pocket you owe it to them to level things out, the fact that it's due to child benefit is incidental. But nobody should ever have any financial responsibility for someone else's child. And language like "fucking stupid, selfish and narcissistic" about the principle of not being responsible for other people's children comes across very much like ranting.

haggistramp · 21/10/2020 12:43

The same government does not take partner's income into consideration when calculating maintenance due, because it isn't their responsibility. Except thats just not true. The government doesnt take partners income into consideration when calculating maintenance because regardless how much money is coming from other sources, the absent parent still has a financial obligation to their child. However you will find that the same government takes into consideration step children residing in the same household as a maintenance payer (i.e. the Op in this situation if his younger child doesnt live with him) and that maintenance is reduced because the government absolutely recognises that the step parent has a financial duty to the step children in the shared household. Your theories hold no water.

Sakurami · 21/10/2020 12:44

You be got to decide op:

  1. stay together and you as the higher earner with fewer dependants takes more of the financial burden (but to me she is contributing a fair amount if she's working and paying for food plus a bit more and has two children and has lost her benefits due to living with you). Make it a real relationship with real teamwork and not just about money.

  2. split

  3. live separately

RantyAnty · 21/10/2020 12:51

There's still not enough information here.
What are your incomes?
How much is the food shop?
Have you actually told her you have no intention of marrying her?

aSofaNearYou · 21/10/2020 13:26

@haggistramp I was referring to partners of maintenance payers, not partners of parents in receipt of maintenance.

Cheeseboardandmincepies · 21/10/2020 13:33

Get rid of her, she has two kids you have none she should be paying more as her two children will be using the electric/gas/water etc. She’s using you, she’ll probably bleed you dry and then move on to the next sucker. Don’t do it OP.

haggistramp · 21/10/2020 13:37

My point still stands. The government does indeed expect high earners to assume financial responsibility for step children when they become a joint household. This is shown when the low earner loses their child tax credits (directly related to the income of the high earner) and. if the high earner pays maintenance towards non resident children of their own they will be given a discount due to the additional assumed financial obligations they now have towards the step children. Whether you find that right or wrong is neither here not there, those are the facts. Its something that needs to be discussed prior to a high earner moving in with a low earner and their children, but absolutely, it is expected legally (and I think morally/socially the majority would agree) that a high earner has financial obligations towards step children when moving in with the low earner parent. Further, i think its disgusting that on this thread on a site used by many low earner parents (mostly women), that such a low earner woman would be painted as a freeloader and called a cuntlodger because she is a low earner. Its common bloody sense that a low earner cannot contribute to the bills the same as high earner and I find it very telling that the op has not been back to this thread to update us all with how much his partner actually earns.