Shared finances woes

[strawberryfluff]

What do other stepparents do in regards their finances? I have hit a stumbling block with DH and am looking at how we move past it. Please don't come at me saying I resent my DSC or whatever.

So at the moment we put a set amount in a shared account to cover bills, food for everyone and our shared DC costs. This is proportionate to our income (our take home pay).

The rest of our income goes into our own personal accounts to spend however we want.

He is arguing that his maintenance payments should be taken off the income before the split is calculated. I have said if he does this then I will be effectively subsising his maintenance payments. As it is I pay the higher mortgage etc due to the extra rooms etc and all food is paid from joint account.

Other possibly relevant info:
I get paid the child benefit and use this to pay for things for our shared child before using joint money pot.
I work part time at the moment as this keeps nursery cost down. But means I earn less. We want a system in place now as im looking for full time work which will increase my salary considerably and I will be the higher earner at that point.
There are two DSC. They both have hobbies that require funding - he pays for half of this from his "discretionary spend" pot which we both agree should be how it works.

He has more children so he has more outgoings. That was a choice he made. Same way my husband has less disposable every month because he chose to take on a more expensive car with bigger monthly payments and I chose a cheaper one with lower payments.

Should b put of the joint pot, u knew he had kids b4 u got involved.

Fair enough thank you. I certainly do see the arguement for this.

It's not coming out the joint pot that is not an option on the table. He hasn't asked for it to come out the joint pot.

Because I believe as a couple it’s important you’ve the same discretionary spend and can live equally
That's how we saw it too.

He has more children so he has more outgoings. That was a choice he made
You could hold the same argument that OP chose to have a family with a man who already had children.

Choice is not the argument here. What is whether you believe it is fair one shod pay more towards the bill and yet have less disposable income at the end of the month.

We do it this way too. And I'm the higher earner by 50%. And maintenance comes out of the shared pot. I want an equal relationship where we both have the same amount of personal spending money as I never want husband to feel like the poorer one between us.

What is whether you believe it is fair one shod pay more towards the bill and yet have less disposable income at the end of the month. yes I think that's part of the issue. And once I go back full time I will be paying more into the pot than him. It's a minefield imo!

Lots if times on here if a SM complains about anything they're told that they knew their DH had DC before they married him, well your DH knew he had two DC already before he agreed to another with you. If you earn more in future he'll save money on the joint expenses so he'll have more money anyway. If you agree to paying half his maintenance you'll end up resenting it since you're already unhappy about it.

The question to ask is when you are back full time and you pay a but more or 50/50 a d his kids have grown up, will it be fair he keeps the amount he used to pay just for himself to do what he wants with?

What if his inheritance is 5 times yours in years to come?

What matters is consistency.

Yes we're looking for consistency. That's why I'm scratching my head over it all!

Marrying someone who has kids and (rightly) supports them will always mean you’re financially less well off than marrying someone with no kids. Whether he pays it then you’re left paying more bills, or he pays it out of his ‘personal spends’, he then can’t keep up with you and you have to subsidise him. Your child has less spent on them because one parent is also finding their other kids.

Your household pot will always pay for them, however you carve it up and present it.

One of the reasons I would have wildly resented marrying someone with existing kids (I’m aware I would have been a terrible step mum, and am not one).

There is no way for him to cover their costs and you not in any way be affected compared to if he didn’t have kids. Surely you know that? So does it make a difference what pot it comes out of?

My husband and I do this, BUT it o my works depending on what comes out of the disposable.

our DC costs, shared meals out, holidays are treated like a bill. I can see how this might not be fair for Step families or couples where there’s a huge gulf of opinion re money.

I don't see why OP would question that? In the same way if she pays off a large debt she had prior to them marrying from her own personal spends then yes, once that debt was paid off, she'd have more disposable income.

If she is suggesting that they pay bills and then have the rest to themselves in separate accounts which includes him paying maintenance from his 'spends' then yes it stands to reason that once he is no longer paying maintenance, that is money he has extra that he didn't have before in the same way as OP paying off anything she pays toward from her 'spends'.

There is no way for him to cover their costs and you not in any way be affected compared to if he didn’t have kids. Surely you know that? that's very patronising. Of course I know that and I knew that going in. I accept fully he has commitments to all his children. This isn't about that. I don't want to stop him paying.

This is about our households finances and the fairest way to split it.

Ah yes missed that bit. If it comes out his discretionary pot then yes once maintenance stops he can do whatever he wants with it. At the moment his plan is to give the maintenance direct to the dsc until after uni or a few years while they get settled into their jobs if no uni.

Generally as said I think it’s fairest when you both have the same spends each. I don’t like the what’s mine is mine and you can jog on attitude.

I put earn my husband he used to out earn me. Finance isn’t an issue as we always make sure we have the same left for fun money.

I don’t think uou wish it to be “fair” if you did the answer is obvious. You don’t want to have less money and feel entitled to everything you earn past your joint expenses.

it’s not how I’d run a relationship but it is how you wish to.

OP - I don’t think there is a fair way to decide, maybe it’s more of an equitable thing?

Would this presentation of the situation help:

So at the moment things are tighter for him as he has a 3rd child, and PT spouse, which is generally what happens when you have more kids!
It’s prob tighter for you too as less income + a DC.

Once your salary increases, your contribution to bills will increase thus allowing him (and you) more disposable.

i.e, this isn’t about the DSC, the finances are hit a little due to a temporary change in circumstances.

I'm with you Op, it should be separate and come out of his spends.

And as per typical mumsnet, not one person has said never be financially tied to him, ensure you have your own money in case you need to leave etc...... Because it doesn't suit, because your going to be the higher earner 🙄🙄🙄

@CombatBarbie

isn’t that only applicable if OP was going to be a SAHM or wasn’t already married with her name on the mortgage (I assume this one one)?

I don't think you should ever be bullied into agreeing to something you don't want to financially either (or anything!). You don't want to sub his maintenance payments directly via paying them out of the joint point. He should just respect that given you literally do not have any obligation to pay anything towards it. It absolutely isn't the same as typical joint bills like a mortgage that's in both of your names and therefore both of your responsibilities.

If he doesn't like that obviously he can leave and find another woman who's willing to pay half of his contribution to his ex for their children but I suspect he'll be looking for a while.

What he shouldn't do is push it over and over. You've said no and as this is actually a payment that is solely his responsibility (and it is solely his hence why it doesn't take into account a SPs earnings), he should respect that answer and drop it.

If she is suggesting that they pay bills and then have the rest to themselves in separate accounts which includes him paying maintenance from his 'spends' then yes it stands to reason that once he is no longer paying maintenance, that is money he has extra that he didn't have before in the same way as OP paying off anything she pays toward from her 'spends'
And this is an option but as others have pointed out, it can be difficult to then make decisions about a number of things when one can afford it and the other can't. Holiday being the main one, but also house improvements, when ultimately both would benefit from it, one getting a nice car whilst the other can only afford an old unreliable one etc...

This is why we opted for similar disposable money after all bills, whether joint or not are paid. Much easier to manage and avoids resentment.

Much easier to manage and avoids resentment.

In this case I think it would only avoid resentment for her husband, not for OP who's made it clear she doesn't want to pay his maintenance. Why would OP not be resentful of having to pay for something that she doesn't want to and has made clear she doesn't want to AND has no actual obligation to pay?

I appreciate the hows and whys it works in other relationships if both parties are happy to do it that way. But it won't work when one party isn't happy to do it that way, like in this situation.

And this is an option but as others have pointed out, it can be difficult to then make decisions about a number of things when one can afford it and the other can't. Holiday being the main one, but also house improvements, when ultimately both would benefit from it, one getting a nice car whilst the other can only afford an old unreliable one etc...

But at least this way OP has a choice as to whether she wants make up the difference to afford a nicer family holiday or pay for house improvements. But if she makes a commitment to subsidise the money going out of her own household and into a separate household, with no say or agency as to how that money is spent (rightly so, of course), then actually, no it’s not a joint cost because OP played no part in how that cost arose and has no say in how it’s managed (not that her DH gets a say in how his ex uses child maintenance payments, and nor should he, but the difference is her DH would have that obligation whether OP was in his life or not. The same obligation doesn’t apply to OP).

Why (according to her first post) is the OP paying more to the mortgage than her DH?

In this case I think it would only avoid resentment for her husband, not for OP who's made it clear she doesn't want to pay his maintenance
I was referring to resentment when he will have the extra value of the maintenance once his kids are old enough that could mean he can suddenly afford nice sunny holidays with his mates but OP can't, or he can get a nice new car when OP's is falling apart.

Indeed, it is personal. Of that wouldn't bother OP in any way, its not an issue nut I think ma y would, especially if the initial agreement has long be forgotten by then, years later.