Joint money whilst on maternity leave

[mockayz]

My partner & I are having a baby, my income will only be the minimum statutory rate plus child benefit (for my child I have with ex partner)

We have agreed that all income goes into the same pot, however, he wants to save a few hundred, up to about £500 a month just in his separate account. Some months may be £200 depending on how much commission he earns.

All bills, food, expenses are covered, we each have a spending amount of around £500 - £600 a month, then whatever is left he wants to keep.

He feels its unfair as he has worked hard for it and he isnt leaving me in the lerch, everything is covered.

Should i just be ok with that?

It doesn't feel fair.

I would at least like it to go in joint savings.

But maybe that is unreasonable?

He feels its unfair as he has worked hard for it and he isnt leaving me in the lerch, everything is covered.

What does he think you're doing while "he's working hard"?

You're on maternity leave because you're having his baby! Who does he expect to look after his baby when it's born, if not you?

You've given up your chance to build up savings so you can deliver and raise his child. Doesn't he recognise that sacrifice?

Well suggest he pays you for the free child care he is getting while you are off work.

He is a greedy little shit, ready to shaft the mother of his child before its even born. Don't give up your job, you are going to need it with this awful partner and no marriage. Don't accept him keeping more money for himself - this is the beginning of financial abuse.

It's Mumsnet. Nobody discusses things before getting pregnant.

So if we we're married it would have to be 50/50?

What are the other benefits?

To be fair, women are encouraged to have the mindset now that they have to be absolutely 50/50 on everything. Dare they accept a man paying on a date, and they are repulsive gold diggers! How entitled of them!!

They will scrimp to continue 50/50, even if they are the lower earner and have much less disposable income. Or, if she earns the same/more will happily go Dutch on their life- because why wouldn’t she? Equality!

Unfortunately biology is never equal- and a lot of these women end up finding themselves pregnant to men who aren’t of the ‘provider’ mindset and are horrifically selfish, because it’s never come up before as it’s always been ‘50/50’.

It always makes me sad to read about women who had to squirrel away their own money to fund ‘their’ maternity. Fair enough if you are both doing it, but it’s grossly unfair that dad can continue to have luxuries whilst the woman who bears the burden of gestational has to be thrifty because of ‘their’ child.

Tell him you're going back to work once baby is 6 weeks old and you expect half the nursery fees.

Honestly I couldn't have done this myself, but if he doesn't baulk at the idea of putting a 6 week old in full time nursery because he's a tight arse, the he's not going to be a great dad I'm afraid.

Or tell him that if he becomes disabled at some point or can't work for whatever reason, you will return the favour by giving him a bit of pocket money and keeping the rest of your earnings to yourself, not your problem after all if he can't work

This isn't even a proper comparison because in that scenario you presumably wouldn't have done anything to affect his ability to work. In this case he has made the decision with you to have a baby but thinks you should sacrifice more than he does to enable that to happen?

Ar

Are you seriously asking what the benefits of marriage are?

Do you not think about this stuff?

Firstly, do you have mirror wills? Or any wills? Because if not, you're in the shit since you're not married.

You don't get to make medical decisions for each other. You're not next of kin.

If you split up, you have no financial claims on each other so if you give up work or cant return when you want to due to childcare costs and you two split up, you wont get anytbin

*wont get anything as a settlement. Have to split the house evenly etc. Even if he has much higher earnings than you.

The list goes on and on.

Bill him for being his surrogate and for his half of the childcare for HIS child.

Good grief, men are really destroying my faith in humanity these days.

Not necessarily.
I'm married and we don't pool all our money together.
I pay nursery fees and have a small amount left over each month.
My husband sends me a small amount of money each month but I do try and save that for family holidays.
My husband takes care of all the bills, car, food expenses.
I don't have a job with progression so it's not really effecting my career but I have take a pay cut going part time.

Could he take some paternity leave and you go back to work? Or at least describe that scenario to him so he can understand why it is unfair that he is saving money when you are not able to.

Pay your bills. Put half of what's left in savings. Split the remainder.

Just go back to work. Either split the childcare bill or he can stay at home instead.
You're not married so you need to look out for yourself financially. He obviously isn't going to.
Meanwhile your pension isn't getting paid into and your savings are decreasing, not increasing, while he benefits from your unpaid labour raising his child.
Or bill him for 50% costs of nannying, and do it yourself.

Partner not husband? Get yourself back t

Back to work asap and he pays half the childcare

@Galvanisa
Exactly this and it's all very depressing.

The idea of equality has morphed into the idea of 'financial independence'. The problem is the ideology behind financial independence isn't the same as financial security or financial fairness and in fact sometimes runs counter to these concepts like in OP's case.

OP would have more financial security and it would be fairer if her partner shared all his earnings with her whilst she was unable to work as she is on maternity leave with their shared baby. He shares the fruits of his labour (his salary), she shares the fruits of her's (a well cared for baby). This set-up though would require them to act as a team and not be 'independent' so is viewed with suspicion by some men and women who almost see it as a form of sponging.

In the capitalist, patriarchal society we live in, earning money is king and for as long as financial independence is glorified then many men will expect women to fund themselves and by extension their biological functions (i.e. reproducing) even though both people want the resulting baby equally. Many women will accept this as to demand a proper contribution would be unfeminist and constitute an erosion of their independence. It's all very convenient for men...

Agreed @Bumpitybumper. Men benefit from a dual income household so more disposable cash plus none of the stress of being sole breadwinner. Women work and still do (in many cases) the lion's share of childcare and housework. Children are raised in homes with 2 stressed/busy/tired parents. So who's the winner from all this? Men! At the expense of women and children. I say this as someone who works FT but frequently thinks the modern family set up is far from ideal.

No it wouldn't have to be. There is also the added complication of who is responsible for financing your other child.

Is shared parental leave an option?

Women are encouraged on here to have their own savings in their name only quite frequently, especially when not married.

I’m pretty sure that’s because of situations exactly like this one, where the man continues with earning power the woman may not have after kids @Aquamarine1029

Not a bad idea. Invoice him for half the amount the nursery will cost you so he can get used to the idea.