Lady/ gentleman of leasure

InsideInsurance

Just be interested in others views as a friend has been ranting on messenger all day and it'd be interesting to see other peoples views.

The couple have been married a few years now and I am friends with both of them. They've no kids at all and no plans for any.

One of them, earns very good money but not stupid money. They work fairly long hours in a fairly stressful job and travel a moderate amount for work.

The other only ever had NMW type jobs and earning less than a 20th of the other it was decided before they got married that it wasnt worth the unsocial hours etc and so just one would work and the other would become a person of leisure. "Pocket money" is given to cover entertainment, basic own costs etc, I dont know how much it is but they never have to say no to any suggestion of a night out etc

When they travel together they its always staying at one of the top hotels in wherever they are, going to top tier restaurants etc.

When the worker travels for work its whatever hotel the company uses but tends to be a standard middle of the road business hotel.

Now the cause of the argument, the non-worker wants to go to an exhibition in Milan. They've been saying it for months and the other doesnt have an issue with it.

The time has come (to be honest it should have been done some time ago) to book the hotel and they are asking their partner to pay for it because they cannot afford either the hotel they stay in when going together nor the hotel that is used by work. Obv the other says they knew it was coming and so should have saved for it if they wanted to stay somewhere nice.

Is it reasonable to say a partner should save their money to buy things they want when incomes are so disproportional? Should money be shared always despite one working and the other just having fun? Is there a duty to maintain their standard of living? I imagine if they were to divorce they'd have to pay more maintenance

marisco_2

I think situations like this highlight that it is really important for a couple to be on the same page over how they manage their finances. Ranting to others about such a private issue seems disrespectful to a partner to me. Far better to make time to sit down calmly and talk things through with one another, and come to a compromise they are both happy with.

j.e.j.

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Is it reasonable to say a partner should save their money to buy things they want when incomes are so disproportional? Should money be shared always despite one working and the other just having fun? Is there a duty to maintain their standard of living? I imagine if they were to divorce they'd have to pay more maintenance

I suppose my slant on it would be: is the other one really 'just having fun' or is he/she running the household?

If one is genuinely sitting on their bum all day just watching Jeremy Kyle :rotfl: then that's different to someone who is cooking all the meals from scratch, budgetting the household income, cleaning the house and so on.

74jax

In my situation I know OH would pay for me to go, I don't think there is a right and wrong.

Maybe it hightlights that they have issues to dicuss and need to find what works for them.

rochja

I am not entirely clear whether this is a case of venting one's own feelings and attempting to garner support, or a case of airing someone else's dirty linen in public. What I do know is that anything said on here is of no material value to the couple in question who will have to decide for themselves how damaging they will allow this dispute to be to their relationship.

lulu_92

If they agree that the pocket money is theirs and when it's gone that's it then I agree that the working one should not pay for the hotel.

atm if my OH wants to buy his season ticket, he has to pay for it by saving up. It does not ever come out of my money. (that said, we are talking about saving £200 pm and once a year he will pay for his season ticket [£350] with some of it and I'll get the same for whatever I want - but we both earn essentially the same amount of money]

Idiophreak

Sounds to me like a little resentment is starting to simmer away....

FBaby

Are you saying that the leisure person is not happy because they don't get to stay in the top hotel they want as opposed to not being able to afford to go to a less pricey one? They are going without the working partner?

If that is the case, then my response would be 'what a cheek'! She/he should consider themselves very lucky to be able to enjoy this experience in the first place when they don't earn the money for it and should be grateful to be able to stay in any hotel. Indeed, if it meant so much for them to stay in the top hotel, they should have done with less meals out/outings/shopping and saved for it.

Happier_Me

There is no practical reason for the non worker to be at home, ie young children. Running a house inhabited by two adults isn't a full time job as far as I am concerned. So yes I would have expected the non worker to have saved up to pay for at least some of the hotel cost, if not all.

pinpin

man, I need to find a rich wife!!

InsideInsurance

j.e.j. wrote: »

I suppose my slant on it would be: is the other one really 'just having fun' or is he/she running the household?

If one is genuinely sitting on their bum all day just watching Jeremy Kyle :rotfl: then that's different to someone who is cooking all the meals from scratch, budgetting the household income, cleaning the house and so on.

They have a cleaner twice a week plus someone else that does the laundry/ ironing. I know mon-fri eating is at work, most the time sat-sun seems to be eating out from what they say (and the number of invites we get).

I am sure they do something in terms of running the house but it isnt 40 hours a week from what I can make out.

They do seem to spend a lot of time on their hobbies etc as the Mrs and they do a couple of things together, crafts etc, and she always has a mountain of things done between sessions or has been to several exhibitions between catch ups -v- my Mrs who may have done one or two things.