Separate finances when one partner has more wealth

[FancyMauveHare]

My partner and I are coming up on 5 years together but have only recently started living together. We are in our 30s.

When I met him I was not interested in living with a partner and he was recently divorced and didn't fancy that either. It worked well for us, we both had largely the same lifestyle and both were renting studios not far from each other.

My reasons for living in a gritty studio was saving for a deposit. I have no family wealth and have not received any financial help from family since I was a teenager.

He has now bought a house outright and is receiving monthly payments of £1-3K from parents to renovate it. We have a contract to say he has to give me several months notice if he wants me to move out and I have no beneficial interest in the house, he's solely responsible for all house expenses and we are jointly responsible for utilities only.

I have always been a proponent of separate finances in my 20s, but I've also never been in a life partnership before. I am becoming uneasy with the very obvious wealth disparity between us. My partner is as frugal same as me, so our spending (minus the renovations) is largely the same, however, my financial planning is predicated on having to financially support both my parents when they are elderly and being the only person I can rely on financially in case of an emergency. He has never had to financially plan anything - he says he always lived below his means and that's enough.

Living in a house that's not mine makes me feel uneasy. He says he wants me to feel like it's my home, but I don't feel like it. I don't feel like it's my place to be deciding on decorations even though he consults me because I don't want to be the reason he chooses the more expensive option. I don't feel like investing my own money because the house is not mine. I don't want to be living like this in 10 years time.

My partner says if my budget ever not allows me to afford something (like a holiday), he'll just pay for me. But most likely thing is that I just won't accept it. I think it would create a weird power dynamic.

Does anybody have any advice and tips on how to navigate wealth disparity between unmarried partners? (Marriage is not an option as he does not want to be married again).

I think if you're your partner is logical, then what you've actually said to him. And what you're saying here is you would not marry a person who was poor but you yourself compared to your partner are poor so if your partner follows your logic, why would he marry you? Respectfully

Your partner is explicitly told you that P has been taken advantage of before, and you've expressedly throughout the relationship, because you're so focused on not being like his wife made the conversation of money. And finances become a lot more critical than what it needed to be. It's hard hair even reading this to know. If you particularly like this person But because you're so honestly trying to let him know that you need to marry him for financial security, unless he was very insecure himself, being told that usually guarantees the person will not marry you. That's a horrible reason to marry someone. If you were looking to marry someone because and their income mattered because of logic, and the fact that you need to be able to sensibly plan a life for someone that's a completely separate situation. But the way that you phrase this the way that you've put it across it just comes like you feel like you're being honest by saying that you want to marry him for financial security. But then it immediately raises the question. Well, he doesn't get that same security by marrying you. And it just not only does it make sense, it's just kind of distaseful, and I think that kind of troubles me the most is I'm not actually sure you think like this as in I don't think you're a goal digger. In any way, you've just got a really weird thing about money. And it's probably going to do a lot of damage unless you kind of as people have recommended. Get therapy, get some support. And look into your relationship between money and men.It's not for your partner to so tell this is some for you to deal with

I did not say I would not marry a poor person, I said I would not have a child with a poor person. I care more about financial stability than having children. So, if I felt like after pulling two incomes together I could not have a child, and look after my parents, and retire comfortably, I would not want to have a child.

Okay then following your logic why would he want a child with you.

That sounds a bit harsh. Let me reframe it.You in your partner have got the same opinion of this situation.Neither of you want to be in a marriage with a poor person because you have actually both got the exact same standards.What's the problem with him thinking like you. I think you need to refrain this within yourself and to him.

I disagree. Marriage is about money. Marriage is about money for everyone. People who don't think about money when they marry learn a bitter lesson when they divorce.

There's nothing distasteful about talking frankly about the implications of a legal document which makes two people one financial entity. There's nothing distasteful about wanting to combine finances. There's nothing rude about wanting to share one lifestyle, have one financial plan, one budget.

Financial security, combining resources, and shared retirement plans is quite literally the only reason to marry someone (aside visa reasons). Nothing else is legally enforced.

You have to understand my partner is not you, he has the same attitude towards marriage as I do. He understands it's a financial contract. Neither of us has a romanticised view of it. Both of us have always talked about money openly, neither of us finds the topic crude.

If you read my comment again you'll see I have said precisely the opposite. I am not opposed to a marriage with a person who has less wealth than me. I would not have a child with them if they were so skint we'd have a low standard of living.

And, as I said before - there's absolutely no problem with how he's thinking. If you read the thread you'll see me say this multiple times - what he wants is reasonable. But I don't have to accept it, same as he does not want to accept a marriage he does not want.

I understand you must think I should feel a least a little bit ashamed for talking about money so openly and frankly, but I don't come from a culture where money is a dirty topic, so that's unlikely.

Because we can afford a child and be well off. In fact, he'd be better off if we pulled finances together and stayed together as I have much higher earning potential than him.

I think you'll find this is all very simple. It's just two people who want different things in life, that's all. Nobody is at fault here, just basic incompatibility.

Sorry, I'm being so specific. But actually, I've personally negotiated my own prenup. I think anyone who doesn't talk about finances before. Marriage is stupid, but the thing is I'm saying to you is you haven't spoken about finances before marriage. You set up several constructs and rationales. Then, presented to your partner about what his income is going to need to do for you. Which is the conversation that doesn't really need to happen. You've made it a very complex situation. By trying to not be his wife and by changing your stance on financials, which sounds like the most sensitive topic in your relationship. It has come across like something else. It's vitally important To discuss finances before marriage, but you also need to be able to self reflect. If you have a standard about not having a baby with a poor person. Your partner might have that too. The problem is there was no reason for the conversation with your partner to happen in that way. Because I don't get the impression You don't like him. You do love him that you would like a future with him. But you kind of boxed yourself in because you presented yourself as one way with finances in context to his past trauma. And now you've abruptly changed, which would be the thing he was guarding against, but actually with a good prenup and trusts theirs actually no problem here.

There's being rational, and there's being rationally in love.One of those is better not sure which for you but it is a choice

You are making a lot of assumptions here and all of them are wrong, unfortunately. You're even imagining exactly how the conversation must have gone and how much we must have not talked about things and what is the most sensitive topic in our relationship. It's very strange.

I'm finding this thread rather strange and unsettling. Loving someone and wanting a child usually over rides other considerations, but not here. The usual belief that it'll work out one way or another is missing.

Whether this is a good thing or not I simply don't know. The one certainty is that OP could end up childless due to financial considerations which could be a source of deep regret one day. Perhaps not though.....

Do you know many people for whom it did not work out one way or the other? I know many. Including my mother and her mother.

"Don't worry, it'll work out" is a privileged stance to have.

I don't know anyone who regrets having their child, no matter what. Do you think your mother ever wished she hadn't had you?

I respect your feelings on this OP, you obviously feel you owe your parents a great deal. I do doubt however that they would want you to spend your life planning to support them at the expense of your own happiness, regardless of your culture. I admit I may be mistaken in that belief though.

Hi OP

What do you think he would say if you showed him this thread?

It seems to be he needs to decide, is he all in or all out? I agree I wouldn't like to live in someone's house forever and buy a separate buy to let property (which I think is much harder than it used to be, and comes with additional risks that buying a property to live in don't have). What does he see in the future then? If its either get married and have children, or you move out into your own place and 'date' forever, what would he choose?

We can only go on what your saying. it's it's just coming across a strange and confusing as though your you have taken love an emotion out of the equation. And then put financing at the centre of it and are unclear on why the relationship can't progress. But this it doesn't seem like a relationship. It seems like an agreement, a highly structured agreement. And that is another form of a relationship o consenting adults do that theres nothing wrong with that. You really don't need to have access to his money to be secure in your child's future. If that's the plan, then you just need to make those plans. And work out what you are going to do together. What I'm saying is you've talked about sharing finances, but it sounds like you're saying you have got an entitlement to all of his assets, but actually I think you're talking instead. About building a life together and what that would cost and what the thing you're not saying to him is obviously you may need to lean on him financially at times especially if you're not working. If you have had a baby, you may need to plan. How you're going to support your family? And what will mean from him? You're not actually asking him to pay for you. You are trying to work out your financial goals. But in a loving relationship, but the way that you're talking about it, you'making the finances a bit make or break. But it's not the relevant piece. I can't. I don't know how to explain it to you. It's just I think I can understand what you're actually saying. But the way you're saying it to him and maybe on here comes across in a way that you may not mean You sound sad as in you sound sad about the relationship ending potentially, and it just doesn't need to

if she is married wont the hose be split between them?

It sounds like you’re a couple in your 50s, not 30s. I’d move on. It all seems so separate.

‘Loving someone and wanting a child usually over rides other considerations’

I don’t think that’s ‘usually’ the case and it’s OK and sensible to want financial and housing stability for the future, usually through marriage, before ttc.

I think OP’s DP is being disingenuous suggesting that marriage would mean his partner would stay with him for convenience and security. He has also explicitly said what he really means: he doesn’t want to share his wealth again in the event of breaking up. This is more important to him than OP’s needs and wishes.

For example, he knows OP’s age, that she now wishes to marry and have DC, that motherhood usually means financial penalties for women and that OP’s personal finances and housing situation in the event of a future breakup would have implications for DC.

I don’t think you’ve said how long you’ve been together, but if it’s several years and this is still his priority and position, since you want DC I’d move on and try to meet someone else.

Why at the expense of my own happiness? The idea of having a child with a man who does not even want to marry me does not make me happy. In fact, I can't think of anything worse - to force a man into a marriage he does not want and/or a child he does want. What a nightmare.

And the world is full of people who regret having children. I personally know a few, plus I know so many who have been abused by their parents. I know a woman who gave up her children when they were infants because she could not cope. My own mother doesn't understand why her mother had her and her brother, she was a single mother too and there so much hardship and neglect because of it.

You have an incredibly rose tinted view of motherhood with no support and financial security. Mumsnet alone is full of parenting misery.

Not everyone wants children no matter what, myself included.

I don't think you understand my point of view and you certainly don't understand how I'm talking about it with my partner and how he's reacting. I don't need to dress up my words for him, I can say things how I mean them and he understands them. He does the same. Please be aware that after 5 years together I know my boyfriend better than you.

Marriage is quite literally entitlement to the other person's money, so I'm not sure why it's a bad thing to talk about it this way. If you don't want any entitlements to the other person's money, don't be marrued.

We have been together 5 years.

I agree with what you're saying. I'm not sure why the recent posters are insisting I do things out of love, but are ok with my partner doing things for the money.

To my mind, it's about the money for the both if us and I'm ok with it. We are just not in agreement on how we should live our lives. He wants no financial entanglements, and I want a shared lifestyle and financial planning. That's all there is to it.

To insist a woman should make herself vulnerable in the name of love to a man who does not wish to provide protections for her when he can is, frankly, preposterous.

Hello! I don't think showing him this thread will change anything, I've said to him everything I've said here. We tend to talk everything out in a lot of detail.

His preference would be not entangling with someone financially. He is not interested in marriage with anyone. He does not want to lose any money in the event of a break up, he only wants to gift money he himself deems appropriate, not the court. If this means I have to move out, it's of course is very unpleasant for him, but having to marry me would be even more unpleasant.

He insists he will help me financially with anything I ever need, he just wants it to be at his own discretion and good will, not because our finances are shared. If I'm honest, this sounds like nonsense to me - why would he want to make only his wealth shared when I'm offering 50% of everything of mine too and he does not want it?

I think, ultimately, it's about power for me, not even money. The arrangement he proposes means he's got more power in the relationship. I'm not ok with that.

what he wants is reasonable.

If he wants kids, then I don't think what he wants is reasonable. Unless he proposes to take the financial and career and energy hit himself, and as his finances are his top priority, I don't see that happening. Children are a joint life commitment and it's almost always the woman who takes most of the hit so no, if he wants you to mother his children then it's not reasonable at all to insist you live like his lodger and be dependent on his favour and just "feel" like it's home because he wants you to.

Please beware, OP...it is not at all uncommon for a man to declare he doesn't want marriage and kids, a smitten woman to agree to it sadly because she loves him and compromise and she needs to be a fair and moral person, all that... and then when her fertility has run down, he suddenly decides that actually he does want children, he's ready to marry for them, and off he goes. I don't think they usually do it intentionally (though some are truly wicked and do) but I think men are often happy to cruise along if they're getting their desires met (regular sex, domestic work done) and it's not until they reach a situation where kids are no longer an option for them, if they stay like this, that they suddenly feel the loss of the possibility and want it.

In my experience, men will very rarely decline an opportunity for a sexual relationship even if they are ambivalent about the woman herself. And as long as the woman is there, they assume she's happy.

Thinking further, I want to add... if securing and preserving his finances is so important to him, how did he originally marry a woman so unsuited, the complete opposite of what he wants? He obviously made a mistake, but his judgement has improved, as bad experience will cause to happen. He's now got a woman who works and isn't a spendthrift... in fact, you know he knows this because the daft gameless sod was silly enough to tell you that was what he liked about you (do you like knowing a man values you largely on what you don't cost him?). So he should be pretty well convinced that you're not going to turn into Marie Antoinette if you marry.

It really doesn't sound like love to me.