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).

Selling and down sizing is fine, renting a grotty place with a disabled child isn't. If the child is severely disabled and I we decide it makes sense for me to quit my job to provide full-time care, and then he leaves me, what would my child and I be left with?

@FancyMauveHare I don’t think the PP was suggesting you take less than 50% ownership, I think they were probably suggesting you use your £30k for a deposit and mortgage the remaining so you own 50%.

I really think you’ve made the right decision to move out though. You’re working really hard creating scenarios in your head to justify him marrying you/ sharing his finances with you.

My DP and I aren’t married. We have two DC. My DP is a high earner and isn’t keen on marriage, but I have made sure I am financially secure. I find your fixation on marriage - at this stage - a bit puzzling.

Well, it's easy for me to want to marry him when it's almost certain I will gain in the event of a divorce and he stands to lose in most cases. Perhaps if he immediately becomes disabled after marriage and I support us for 30 years, and then we divorce? But how likely is that?

I don't think this has anything to do with feelings. He very clearly loves me. He's kind, giving, helpful, caring, he never says a bad word about me even when we argue. He also does not think I'm unreasonable and respects me enough to tell me the truth - that despite all that he does not want to be married again.

Sometimes there really isn't a wrong or right party, I think this is one of the cases. It's just a hard decision and one is not better than the other. It's not objectively true that losing your financial freedom and decision making power to have a family is better than having financial security and a life-long companion who stands on her own two feet. What he is offering is reasonable, and just because I'm hurt he doesn't want what I want, doesn't mean he's evil for it.

You will be paying no rent, or house upkeep, so save hard to build your own wealth.

Well, I find it puzzling when people have open marriages, but I'm not telling them they're wrong for living they want to live. I can recognise people want different things, have different risk appetites, and have different values to me.

I'm not saying you should want marriage with your high earner partner. I'm saying I want to marry my partner before we have children. I've written about my reasons for it extensively in other comments.

And, no, getting 50% of equity with only £30K does not seem fair to me at all so I wouldn't do it.

Thank you for you kind message. I don't think you got anything wrong, I think that's the gist of it. He wants to protect himself, and I want a life which essentially will offer protections only for myself in almost all cases. And, as you say, he agreed to it on paper but he's very reluctant. I don't want to force him into doing something he doesn't actually want to do. More than anything I want him to want this life, not begrudgingly agree to it with huge reservations.

It feels like he either doesn’t totally understand the vulnerability you’ll be exposing yourself to? Or if he does understand- doesn’t he want to proactively seek a civil partnership just to give you that protection (appreciate he is willing to on paper, but it sounds more passively agreed).

I think he does understand, that's why he agreed on paper even though he really doesn't want it. But it it feels extremely forced, he's clearly not happy about it and he's having doubts he wants children enough for this.

I don't want to marry a man who is walking into it like a lamb to the slaughter.

Another way of looking at it is this: if we things go badly for me, I'm fucked; but if thing go badly for him, he'll lose some of his money.

If we have a disabled child or children and make the decision for me to stay at home to care for them, and he leaves - I will have to provide for myself and my children alone with no assets.

If I leave him for another man after 20 years of marriage and I was a stay at home mother and a primary carer of our children all this time, so I have not financially contributed, he will lose some of his assets but he will still keep enough to be comfortable.

Which is the reason I thought my offer of marriage was acceptable. Not that he had to accept it, but that it was not a preposterous offer on my part.

But, as you say, he takes on all the risk here and it's completely fair for him to say no. Just because I'm hurt and disappointed doesn't mean he's unreasonable.

I don't want to marry a man who is walking into it like a lamb to the slaughter.

He isn't, though. Quite apart from the fact that there's nothing innocent and unknowing about him, nor predatory about you, he's being highly resistant and refusing. This can't really be how you view this?

What you want isn't at all unreasonable. I think what he wants is unreasonable if he's still expecting you to take the main hit of parenthood, and I'll be amazed if he isn't. Still, if he loves neither you nor future children enough to make a proper commitment, that's how it is. Proceed on that basis.

@FancyMauveHare I’m very clearly not saying you should get 50% of the equity for £30k. I’m saying what was suggested was you use the £30k as a deposit and mortgage the remaining 50%. So if the house is worth £700k, you would need to put down £30k and take out a mortgage of £320k for the rest. You would essentially be buying 1/2 the house from your partner, who would then have £350k cash to do as he pleased.

Going back to this:

"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."

I agree it puts you in a serious power imbalance. I also find it revealing that he wants you to have kids and bear, as you put it, the entire life-changing burden of the reproductive process without the legal protections of marriage. He wants you to take all the risk.

That he even thinks that you being in this unequal position is OK suggests he lacks empathy or has a mindset that could ultimately cause controlling disrespectful behaviour. You've been very nice about him but I find him very transactional and lacking solidarity and commitment.

No way would I have children - or be - with someone like that.

I understand you weren't suggesting it, I suppose I just misunderstood what the original suggestion was.

Buying half the house from my partner doesn't address any of the issues I have with lack of marriage in case of children. If we decided to not have any children but carry on living together with me buying equity from him, my initial reaction is this feels unpleasant. I haven't sat with that, so I don't have the reasons, but my gut is telling me that's not right for me.

It's probably because the house is funded largely by his parents' previous and current gifts and an inheritance from a grandparent. My money is my salary. So I'll be paying him for his luck. You can, of course, say, well why should he subsidise me for me being less lucky. But this is my initial reaction, I have not really thought through it.

I think it's extremely unlikely my partner will change into a controlling man, but the problem is, I've seen it happen myself with friends' partners and this is what my own father did. My mother says he was lovely to her for 3 years, then the day after the marriage (she was already pregnant) he became a different person. She even said at first she thought it was a joke, like he was making fun of a controlling husband trope.

My partner offered me a few cohabitations agreements with various protections like I get to stay in the house until the youngest is 18, etc. But this just felt offensive to me at the time. I said to him - I cannot be pregnant a little bit, I cannot give birth part-time. I have to either do the entire thing or not do it at all, but he can't share his wealth with the mother of his children?

But you can't really put a price on childbirth and labour and I guess you can't put a price on a sense of financial freedom and power of solo decision making. He clearly just doesn't think that childbirth and pregnancy is worth losing half the house, savings, and pension.

"He clearly just doesn't think that childbirth and pregnancy is worth losing half the house, savings, and pension."

So transactional ugh. And cold. He's essentially wanting to pay you to have and raise his kid to 18. This is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

He doesn't deserve to be the father of your children tbh.

I can't really get over this, tbh:

One of the things he said when I was about to move in is that he's so grateful I'm not demanding like her. I later told him I hated hearing that and he apologised.

He's valuing you on what you don't cost him. With the obvious caveat that we shouldn't exploit people or let ourselves be exploited, a life partnership should not be based solely on how little you have to share with the other person...and it's clear he has no regard for what pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood will cost you. He may have apologised for saying it, but it's clearly what he thinks. And you are right to dislike it.

I think you've articulated your position really well OP and as you say, neither of you are 'in the wrong' but you seem poles apart on what you want and are prepared to risk.

I think you have to decide if you actually do want children enough to end the relationship as you are mismatched in your expectations. If you do want children and understandably want to do so with the financial protections marriage offers, you should cut him loose and fine someone who matches your outlook.

The longer you leave it, the more difficult this will be to find someone else. So don't waste your life on a relationship that isn't going where you want.

So many things to unpick here.

Ultimately it boils down to whether you both want to build a life together in partnership OR have a more simple but nice/lighter relationship.

If it’s the latter you probably need to buy your own place and decorate as you please etc. I couldn’t move in with someone with these style of restrictions (however well meaning). It would chip away at my confidence and sense of value in the relationship.

It addresses your initial concern which was your home not feeling like your home. You’d be equal partners. You would benefit from an increase in property prices, and not have to worry about getting on the ladder.

It seems what you want is for your home to feel like your home, for you to be equal partners, but without you having to make any financial contribution. I think the fact you seem to think you’re more entitled to this because his money has come from his parents is very telling. It’s no less his money. It’s not your money.

You’ve said before you plan to buy elsewhere and try and keep the relationship going without the prospect of children. You’ve said you’re not sure you’d want children with anyone else. If that is the case why not propose buying 50% of the property, stay together and not have children unless he agrees to marry?

I don't think my initial concern was only that the house does not feel like my home. My initial comment addressed way more things than that, and with subsequent comments I think I've made it clear the issue is much larger than that.

It is not fair to say I feel entitled to my partner's money or that I do not want to contribute. I guess my partner is feeling entitled to my body and health because he would much rather I gave birth to our children without financial protections?

I want our (acquired) wealth to be shared 50/50. I don't see how buying out 50% of his house achieves that?

And yes, I do think my money has more value because I earned it, it was not given to me. It has nothing to do with being entitled. I don't understand why, because I don't want to buy equity from him, you think I want to be a joint tenant on the deeds? I'd much rather buy a new house with him as tenants in common (a house I actually like) and then get more equity on the basis of renovations I've put in the house, not by giving him money for what he already has.

But any any rate, I think I have come to the conclusion that we should either completely separate our finances and fend for ourselves, or we should get married. I can't imagine being happy buying out equity from him, but having no shared pension planning and no shared budget.

why not propose buying 50% of the property, stay together and not have children unless he agrees to marry?

Because I don't want to play house with a man who rolled back his desire to have children when he realised he'd have to provide financial security to the mother. He has a right to do this, but I don't have to like it. If he doesn't want a family, then I also get to have way more freedoms than I have now.

Ultimately it boils down to whether you both want to build a life together in partnership OR have a more simple but nice/lighter relationship.

Yes, I think that's the one sentence summary.

I am spending a week away on holiday with my cousins who all have small children and I'm realising I do just want a child and a family, and probably not just with him. It's kind of hard to imagine replacing that with a nice relationship light on commitments and being content and happy.

It's confusing, and I'm still not 100% on all my thoughts about this, I just know what we have now is really not working.

@FancyMauveHare He’s just bought a house. He would stand to lose a lot of money if he were to sell it and then buy a house you prefer with you. But I guess that doesn’t matter because it’s not money he’s earned?

I do think you’re being reasonable. You seem to want everything your way without compromise. Ultimately though it seems you’re just not compatible.

Oh my days. Nobody said I wanted him to buy a house together this weekend. I have quite literally brought this up in a different comment - that it would be a massive financial hit for him to move any time soon.

I don't want to by 50% of equity in his dingy house that I did not chose because it solves absolutely zero issues I have with this relationship.

If you're ok to forget about having children and live with a man who near had a panic attack when you brought up getting a civil partnership before trying, all the power to you. You'll be hard pressed to find me feeling guilty about not wanting to.

5 years is a long time. In light of that and your age and wanting DC would look to move on.

You say he doesn’t want to marry ever, but this seems the sort of man who wastes one woman’s ‘fertile years’ then has DC with a younger woman, often one willing to have DC without marriage. Or marries someone else.

@FancyMauveHare He’s just bought a house, you’ve moved in, you said you didn’t want to share finances, now you do, and you want a civil partnership and baby. It’s quite a lot all at once. I can see how he might feel overwhelmed. If it were me, I’d give it time to settle and see where things end up, not move out not long after moving in because he won’t commit to it all now.

If my DP bought a house on his own after four/five years together I’d end the relationship. This is not building a life together and if I wanted DC it’s wasting precious years.