Getting married, joint finances who pays for childcare?

duchy

!!!!!! wrote: »

This
Normally the rows are because of the idea that this is my money and this is your money, This is my bill and this is yours.
Which is to treat everything as joint owned then a lot of the rows disappear, not continue with separate finances and have to negotiate each time that something new comes up.

I've always wondered in the separate finances situation whether it gets so entrenched that the partner ends up with a default because it is their responsibility to pay E.G. electric bill but they can not afford it

Well that MAY be your personal experience of marriage and money but it isn't mine. I didn't say that handling bills one particular way or another caused rows-I said money was a major cause. You are reading stuff into my post that isn't there. The important thing isn't how they arrange their finances but that they are in agreement and feel the method (whatever it is) is fair and workable for them both.

duchy wrote: »

Marriage is a partnership-emotionally and financially.
If it wasn't there would be an awful lot of penniless SAHMs.

Money causes more rows than anything else in most marriages so it is sensible to "start as you mean to go on" and make sure you both see things the same way financially surely !

krustylouise

whodathunkit wrote: »

So this man pays nothing in the way of food, bills and rent when living with his father but he's still got into debt?

Are you sure this marriage is a good idea?

Sorry, I must have missed the bit where I said my OH have debt.....

krustylouise

fredtheguava wrote: »

Are you sure you will lose all of your WTC, CTC etc? I have just had a play around on the turn2us calculator and on my (admittedly not-very-accurate) assumptions based on what you've said in this post, you may still get a fair bit of it.

Hi,

Thank you for doing research for me. I did it last night and again this morning on turn2us and it worked out we'll get £45pm tax credits {no WTC at all}.

Thanks again

lostinrates

Krusty lousise, I think you are being brilliantly sensible. If everyone thought through how best to make things work in. Committed relationships and talked about the issues before they became problems then I think more relationships would be content.

I think you're tackling not just the financial issues here, but establishing that to problem solve you need to think about your 'issue' and then talk, talk and listen , listen with your partner and find a solution you can both feel happy with.

Buisness deal? Houseshare? Nope, sensible planning IMO. Once these foundations are in place romance can flourish with out the nagging worries about things that could have been easily resolved at this stage.

krustylouise

lostinrates wrote: »

Krusty lousise, I think you are being brilliantly sensible. If everyone thought through how best to make things work in. Committed relationships and talked about the issues before they became problems then I think more relationships would be content.

I think you're tackling not just the financial issues here, but establishing that to problem solve you need to think about your 'issue' and then talk, talk and listen , listen with your partner and find a solution you can both feel happy with.

Buisness deal? Houseshare? Nope, sensible planning IMO. Once these foundations are in place romance can flourish with out the nagging worries about things that could have been easily resolved at this stage.

Thank you LIR - I really appreciate your reply. I have learnt the hard way with DD's dad and refuse to go through it all again but with a 6year old instead of an 18month old!

How are you doing anyway? I have been lurking on your thread - hope you are keeping well x

StuC75

Why should the OP's Ex bear the cost of her re-marrying and impact on WTC? Besides the comment that the NRP is now paying maintenance no one here knows how valid that amount is, but it appears to be what they've agreed on..

purpleshoes wrote: »

I think the person who needs to be bearing more of a share of the costs is the childs father. Im not sure that the new husband should automatically pay half the lost working tax credits. Its not his fault that the system is set up in a way that its means tested.

I do agree about merging the finances if possible.

purpleshoes_2

StuC75 wrote: »

Why should the OP's Ex bear the cost of her re-marrying and impact on WTC? Besides the comment that the NRP is now paying maintenance no one here knows how valid that amount is, but it appears to be what they've agreed on..

He doesnt seem to be paying enough maintenance as per his income, he has a second job that brings him in I think she said 100 pounds a week more, but maintenance hasnt gone up to reflect that.

The issue is, would she get more if CSA were involved or not? If its a yes, I think she needs to consider it.

krustylouise

I will speak to ex tonight as he promised he would look at his income and check if he should pay more, as atm he is paying approx £2 more than he should based on the 15% of his income etc.

pelirocco

jaylee3 wrote: »

Yes Krustylouise, I think when a single mother gets married, it does absolve a lot of financial responsibility from the childrens father.

There is always a lot of debate about who pays for what and is it fair to go 50-50 on stuff on here, and I always say the same thing that I am going to say now.

Why can't you have ONE joint account that all the income goes into for both of you: your wages, his wages, tax credits, child benefit, and anything else. Then all the food shopping comes out of it, all bills come out of it, including both mobile phones, all petrol, all goodies and sundries, all childcare funds, and clothes and luxuries for both of you, AND your daughter. You both have a debit card and get what you want, when you want, (within reason of course: nothing major without consulting the other.)

I have never 'got' this 'my money, your money' scenario. If you're a couple - married or not - then everything should be shared. It doesn't bode well IMO if the higher earner (usually the man,) insists on you both paying half, because ultimately, (as in many cases,) he will end up with a decent amount of disposable income, while you will end up with hardly any money, and doing most of the domestic tasks and child rearing, while he squanders on crap and indulges in expensive hobbies.

Hope you can work this out and I am sorry if I said anything to offend you or if I said anything that doesn't apply to you. It's just my two cents worth.

I agree with you , i just dont understand all this what is mine is mine , your are a family and should work as one

StuC75

There is also a buffer amount of how much income must change before they would re-assess the payment made..

The extra income from the NRP may just be seasonal \ temporary in its nature, or be only what the OP thinks..,

as a NRP my ex is still regarded as on Nill Income for CSA1 purposes despite the fact that She is now an Ofsted child minder with full allocation of children on her books (and previous years would always manipulate her working hours in advance of wftc assessments being made on what she got - was odd to hear from son how his mum seemed to change jobs just before)..

I personally never looked to reduce my payments once I had another child or moved and my mortgage expenses increased.. Nor did she look for payments increasing when she had one either..

So I'd like to think that the attention should be on the OP and her new partner to address how they will handle the financial changes of living together - her loss of wftc - his new to paying bills..

and that maybe each should be allowed to increase there standard of living without feeling that an ex should continue to subsidise a change of living style..

e.g. So if the OP increased her earnings - should the ex pay less as a result?

Afterall its being intimated that her reduction in wtc should mean that he pays more..

purpleshoes wrote: »

He doesnt seem to be paying enough maintenance as per his income, he has a second job that brings him in I think she said 100 pounds a week more, but maintenance hasnt gone up to reflect that.

The issue is, would she get more if CSA were involved or not? If its a yes, I think she needs to consider it.