Is this financial split in our marriage fair or unreasonable?

[Colourfulcushion]

I just want to know your thoughts on this in a marriage .

Person A has 2 children,living at home ( teen and pre teen ) . Works 40 hour week . Lots of debt that has been taken to simply get through hard times that Person B went through too - and also took debt from. Earns £1800 pm . After contribution to bills plus debts , children costs , petrol etc is left with minimal amount and simply feels like treading water . Currently stuck in a trap of paying around £200 pm to Klarna etc which is from birthdays , Christmas etc and I’ve then had to carry on using it as struggling to pay back . Lives in overdraft , does pretty much all housework shopping etc .

Person B is self employed , earns average £300 per day. Works long hours ( 12 hour days , long commute ) Obviously tax etc has to be counted in . Also has a small side business that can generate anywhere from £50 - £250 pw , although this isn’t guaranteed. Has older child , still pays maintenance but not daily costs etc . Does not have to pay for petrol , has a work vehicle. Goes out socialising minimum of 3 nights per week . Skips work - effectively giving up £300 - like it’s nothing. Can be very generous with gifts etc ,will sometimes fill person A car up etc . However , quite regularly reminds person B that they do not hardly contribute to the household , and has said that the house is not theirs during arguments as person b pays rent .

However - person A puts £950 towards joint bills etc from a total of £2435 . So person A is contributing 40% . Person B earns around triple that .

Done understand this ‘person A‘, ‘person B’ thing when you’ve shown that your person A in the OP.
If you’re not happy, end it.

I realised that when I got to the end but then couldn’t be bothered to go and change the whole post

Are the two children at home person B’s?

No

I assume the children are not Person B's. If it's a marriage without joint finances, that you both agreed to, 40% of bills for 3 people vs 1 person doesn't sound particularly unfair.

Not the way I'd do it, as we are 100% joint finances, so wouldn't have one of us in debt while the other has money to spare.

Your way has led to at least one unhappy party, and I'm not surprised. (Person A and B is really tiresome for people to follow BTW, especially when so obvious who is who.)

Why be married and live like this?

As it’s rented kick him out if you aren’t happy

The real question for me, is would you be better off financially without him? How much would it cost if he wasn’t there?
And the same for him.

If it saves you 200 because he lives with you, and it costs him 100 more than living alone, then it’s unfair on him, assuming everything else were equal (housework etc). Unless it’s an active choice he’s making.

I don't want to do the maths to work out your H wages.
Contributions should be by income. Add together your incomes and then divide your income by the total, you get a 0.?? number the ?? Is the percentage of the money you earn and should be the percentage of the bills you pay. Add up all the bills times by you 0.?? And then that's how much you pay.

You'll have to do it over the whole year because his income fluctuates.

5050 is just never appropriate. It's either by percentage of income or all in one pot and both get the same amount of spenders.

I get the A and B is annoying , not really sure why I did it like that.

I would be worse off without him because my the household expenses wouldn’t be much different - I couldn’t actually afford it. He would be better off because he could find a smaller place. This is sometimes his argument , he is effectively paying for me and my children he says.

But to sit here counting pennies , not being able to afford essentials and putting a £20 shop on Klarna whilst he is out socialising each night feels unfair. He married me knowing I came with 2 children - I don’t expect him to pay everything and me nothing but he acts as though I don’t contribute at all and he just doesn’t understand my situation . Things like he will suggest going out and I will say I have no money and he will say it’s on him , which is lovely , but then say will you get the drinks while I pop loo for example and for me I’m thinking that’s £15 I haven’t got but I’m embarrassed to say that and to him £15 is nothing . It doesn’t feel right .

I think this is doomed anyway by the way you feel about each other.

But he is right. He is paying more than he needs to be, to subsidise you and your kids. He’s probably an idiot for getting himself in that position without thinking it through, but it’s not ‘fair’ to him.

I’d also argue he’s in the position to afford more due to his own hard work. Can you not work more hours or get a side hustle, because that’s essentially what he’s doing to subsidise you/your kids. I think anyone would be resentful in that position.

Your way doesn't account for OP having 2 children in the house full-time, which it seems they have agreed B has no obligation or desire to pay for. B pays maintenance for their child outside of the house.

So should there be an allowance in the percentage to represent Person A's children's costs? A larger property is required to house them, additional utilities, etc.

It sounds like a miserable way to live. Would A be entitled to benefits such as UC if no longer with B, that would mean they would be no worse off should they separate?

@Colourfulcushion it's really obvious that he regards your children as your financial responsibility. He pays for his, you pay for yours.
If he wants to go out, you have no money but you know he will expect you to pay for something - don't go and tell him why. He goes out regardless so probably won't care.
All sounds pretty meh to me. You rent so why not sort out your own budgeting and see how it could work out on your own elsewhere?

It’s not a true partnership is things are not shared

if you partner up with someone with kids you game the whole bundle. I wouldn’t have a taken a man who didn’t accept them as part of the deal. And I wouldn’t stay with a man who would let you struggle financially

it’s very one sided isn’t it

Whether you live with him or not, you’re living beyond your means, that’s the real issue.

Does their father contribute financially?

Is this meant to be a marriage? It sounds like two completely separate people! They don’t share anything and DH obviously doesn’t care for the DC which is dreadful and certainly not loving.

What a self employed person earns is not what they can spend. There’s tax, pension, NI and other expenses when you run a business. However not paying for you and your wife to go out, it just ultra mean. Essentially he’s single so you might as well see if you can have a better life without him. Working and getting benefits might be worth looking at. He doesn’t love you does he?

your husband earns more than you and doesn’t have your responsibilities so of course he will have more spending money.

im sorry op but you started off complaining that he doesn’t contribute enough, and then admitted you couldn’t financially live without him. You are, essentially, using him as you don’t seem to like each other.

im afraid if I were him, I would far rather live alone; than already subbing someone else’s kids and having negative vibes that I’m not subbing them enough.

it all sounds so transactional and not remotely loving.

you’re married?!! Jesus. I do feel for you OP. How people get in to this sort of situation when they’re married (or why they bother marrying, mainly him!) is beyond me!

Despite being married, you each came into the marriage with financial responsibility for children you don’t share, so a typical arrangement where everything is completely shared is not appropriate. Especially when there is debt from before the marriage.

Person B is already subsidising person A so there is no need for them to feel hard done by.

I think there issue is that you consider that things should be equally shared between husband and wife. That always becomes difficult when there are non-mutual children in the picture.

I can see both sides - it seems that your husband does may some of your expenses and also treats you. So you are better off than you would be without him.

But you are also resentful that he has "more" than you. It's a tricky one as I'm sure (hoping) that you did not just marry him for his money. But clearly you expect him to give you more than he already does.

ooh, I wonder which person OP is?

i think person A should divorce person B

Youre married OP and if he feels like he doesn’t feel financially responsible for you then send him off . How did you survive before him? You will go back to that . Personally I think he’s a selfish prick and very stingy

The fact that you are married changes everything, it’s totally wrong that his got all this money while you struggle . When you got married he also took on responsibility for the children. By the sounds of the OP I thought you was just dating

I just think if a woman were paying 60% of expenses in a household made up of her husband and his two children, she would be told to ditch the cocklodger

I know this sounds a bit basic, but can you earn more? Are you working part-time? Do you have other career opportunities? Also, would you qualify for any benefits if he didn't live with you? If so, it would only be fair for him to cover this amount in addition to paying his way.

I assume he also benefits from having a bigger house to live in than a 1 bedroom flat? It sounds exhausting living with someone like this. You should both be able to afford the same lifestyle - marriage is a partnership and you shouldn't have married without a plan for economic equality.

Edited for typos.