Do proportional household budgets just perpetruate sexism?

[lesley33]

By proportional household budgets I mean any arrangement where partners put a proportion of their salary into a pot to cover household expenses and the rest is the individual's to spend as they wish. This arrangement seems to be becoming more common these days rather than having just family money.

Now I know there are individual reasons why this might be a good idea. And I know some women earn more than men. But most women and especially mothers earn less than their male partners. So this proportional allocation means in most cases the man gets more money to spend on himself and the woman gets less.

And I can't help thinking that in most cases this arrangement just perpetruates the sexism in this society around women, mothers and part time work being lower paid than many men and thus having less money to spend on themselves. So what do you think?

I agree that childcare is a joint expense, and as such is not paid out of the woman's salary alone, however when assessing overall finances, it still plays a role, if the childcare cost is close to the amount of earning of one of the parents, as it changes the amount of income in total which is available to cover the outgoings, and hence, what both partners have left over after paying into the joint account.

If you're unlucky enough to earn so much that you're not eligible for the childcare element or any other benefits any more, but your childcare bill is so high, that it is the same or close to the amount of one of the parents' incomes, then it does wipe out that proportion of the household income, and it is possible, that due to the entitlement to benefits you lose as a family you're worse off than if one of the parents didn't go to work.

I agree WW which is why women (and men) should try to pick careers where they will earn more than a nanny or childminder otherwise unless they find a man able to keep them they will struggle. Financial independence is a principal aim for most feminists. Also many many careers have progressively higher income - you can become a senior surgeon from a junior doctor, you can start on £60k as a lawyer and end up on even £2m, same in accountancy. You can progress from new teacher to head. So the childcare decisions we took when I was 22 and we were paying half a nanny's cost each were looking forward 40 years (I am nearly 30 y ears on from there now) and look at whole career earnings. Even if one of us worked at a loss for a year if you think about retaining and sustaining a lucrative career for decades thereafter even to age 70 or 80 then the calculations are different than if you are saying I am on the minimum wage and for 40 years I would never earn more.

The thing with childcare costs is that I think that couples (but in particular women) don't focus on is that they ease after children turn 3 and then again when they go to school. The average age for a woman to have her first child is 29, retirment age is 67 and on average we live until we're 82. Despite these stats, a lot of women take such a short term view on childcare costs without thinking of long term impact of their decision. If it's a concious decision that's one thing but it's almost like women sleep walk into forever being the lower/non earner because childcare costs wipe our their salary.

I can't remember where I have read it, but I am fairly sure that at the time that a couple have their first child, there is very little difference in income if they are the same age, but the disparity arises because women tend to marry someone 2/3 years older and therefore they are 2/3 years more established in their career. i.e. the woman would probably be in the same position given that time.

If you don't have children then you could suggest that each partner is free to "choose" to do whatever job they like, so it makes sense that they should pay proportionally. (I don't necessarily agree but I can see how it could be a valid argument)

If you do have children then one or the other (or both) will have their earning potential or chance of promotion or ability to do overtime curtailed by the demands of having those children, so there is no question (in my mind) that both partners should get equal spending money, no matter what they earn.

My reasoning for wanting separate spending money is so that I don't ever have to think about whether I should or shouldn't spend something.

If all spending money was joint I feel as if I might worry that I was spending too much of it, or feel resentful if I wasn't "getting my fair share".

Xenia - if all women (and men) pick careers that pay more than nannies and childminders, who will the nannies and childminders be?

Doesn't really alter the logic that for the period of time when there are preschool children in the family (esp if 2 or more at a time) that it it is full-time job to look after them, so paying someone else to do it whilst both parents work is only going to make sense financially if both parents can earn substantially more than nannies and childminders, or if the government loads the dice so to speak (eg pays parents back 70% of the costs via tax credits)

Could be worth it in the long-run in terms of career progression, etc - but for many people that's a difficult call to make.

There should be other routes to equality than requiring all women to be in the workplace full time so that they can earn the same as men.

"If you don't have children then you could suggest that each partner is free to "choose" to do whatever job they like, so it makes sense that they should pay proportionally."

But they aren't necessarily free to choose their job, unless they do a job like hairdressing that is available in every town, or are prepared to commute a long distance or even live apart. When I was a child my family moved from one city to another in order for my dad to get a promotion. What if my mum had been offered a promotion in a different city?

I think it as a system it would often, currently, disadvantage women. For us it is our money, our family.

We have always pooled our money, have each been the main earner at different times. It's a relationship that we expect to last, a long game. Who knows what is round the corner in terms of jobs, redundancies, retraining, education, ill health, family responsibilities, ageing parents... And who knows what else.

I won't determine the value or success of my life by the size of my bank balance, I don't want pay to be the sole determiner of career choice for either of us. I am yet to see any correlation between pay and value. We both have chosen at different times to refuse promotion or taken side steps to prioritise our life style choices, more valuable to us than more pay. So to us there is just money, it's a complete non issue.

Sounds as though you have the same lifestyle choices though, dyspeptic. It doesn't work so well when life partners have different lifestyles.

And I wouldn't claim one system would suit all or indeed that there was only one feminist position:)

We want similar lifestyles, tbh I require this in my dh to some extent. We do and have spent very differently though it is just worked out on a what is in the pot and who has the best plan basis. Neither of us would know, care or be able to work out whose bit of cash was there.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did mean that :)

I don't thnk you did northey, there we win the politest exchange ever conversation:)

Historically a mother got housekeeping, certainly in the working class examples of my grandparents. The move away from that in either financial independence or a philosophy that sees family money with equal access and an expectation that contributions will differ and be negotiated is better either way.

I am not sure that earning less than your maximum is alwysa bad thing, if it is a fully understood choice then it can be empowering. Some friends live very alternative lifestyles, they don't use much cash and have pooled house cash. You definitely need similar values for that and gender doesn't much come into it.

Few of you above have been through a divorce when things do change. Divorce law is interesting in this area. Let's assume there are no children to keep things simple. In England the lower earner is entitled to the same standard of living if it can be afforded. I think that's appalling makes people a chattel of the other. If Miss low pay marries Mr Big bucks or vice versa and she never gives up her career and carries on as before sc rubbing floors or nursing or whatever and has not put aside her career for her husband why should she get by law the right to a similar standard of living after? That just seems unfair to me.

Paul Mc Cartney's wife was found to need £800k a year (he paid a lump sum clean break as I paid my ex husband to buy out continuing maintenance) to maintain her standard of living as it was before the divorce. Why is that right or fair? It implies in marriage two become one and rewards those who in a sense sleep their way to the top. Prostitution really engrained in the law, people as chattels with a chance to a better life solely by whom they married and had sex with.