Giving my husband all my money?

supermassive

Baffles me how in this day and age it's so difficult to navigate your way through a marriage.

If I work, I earn money. This is my money.

That's the basis of it. If you don't work, you don't earn anything and have to contribute to the house instead.

This in no way means you have the right to both 'run the house' (which largely consists of doing what you like and what's essential) and also spend all the money.

The fact of the matter is that for some people it's impossible to get a job when they have children as they'll be less financially stable - they have barely any spare money to complain about.

If you have spare money and yet choose to stay at home with the kids - you can't complain that you're not being handed money by your husband unless that was an arrangement that was sorted out previous to you staying at home.

If you earn money and have to give all that to your husband and he doesn't lift a finger - then there's a problem.

This isn't directly relating to the OP but to some of the posts in here claiming that a housewife should be allowed equal say in the distribution of the money. That's entirely wrong. If she wants to have equal say in distribution of the money, put equal money in.

VJsmum

Twaddle.

Marriage is about being equal - it isn't "his" money and "my" money. It is "our" money which we agree the spending /saving of

Jagraf

:rotfl:

supermassive wrote: »

Baffles me how in this day and age it's so difficult to navigate your way through a marriage.

If I work, I earn money. This is my money.

That's the basis of it. If you don't work, you don't earn anything and have to contribute to the house instead.

This in no way means you have the right to both 'run the house' (which largely consists of doing what you like and what's essential) and also spend all the money.

The fact of the matter is that for some people it's impossible to get a job when they have children as they'll be less financially stable - they have barely any spare money to complain about.

If you have spare money and yet choose to stay at home with the kids - you can't complain that you're not being handed money by your husband unless that was an arrangement that was sorted out previous to you staying at home.

If you earn money and have to give all that to your husband and he doesn't lift a finger - then there's a problem.

This isn't directly relating to the OP but to some of the posts in here claiming that a housewife should be allowed equal say in the distribution of the money. That's entirely wrong. If she wants to have equal say in distribution of the money, put equal money in.

Don't forget that a woman shouldn't complain about her day to her husband, he doesn't want to hear such tittle tattle. :rotfl:

Buzzybee90

supermassive wrote: »

Baffles me how in this day and age it's so difficult to navigate your way through a marriage.

If I work, I earn money. This is my money.

That's the basis of it. If you don't work, you don't earn anything and have to contribute to the house instead.

This in no way means you have the right to both 'run the house' (which largely consists of doing what you like and what's essential) and also spend all the money.

The fact of the matter is that for some people it's impossible to get a job when they have children as they'll be less financially stable - they have barely any spare money to complain about.

If you have spare money and yet choose to stay at home with the kids - you can't complain that you're not being handed money by your husband unless that was an arrangement that was sorted out previous to you staying at home.

If you earn money and have to give all that to your husband and he doesn't lift a finger - then there's a problem.

This isn't directly relating to the OP but to some of the posts in here claiming that a housewife should be allowed equal say in the distribution of the money. That's entirely wrong. If she wants to have equal say in distribution of the money, put equal money in.

Wow - this post is all wrong. The couple should decide TOGETHER what they want to do. If they want one of them to stay home and look after the children then of course the working one should share equally and not divvy up a slice for the child carer.

lincroft1710

Back in the 1960s (may even have carried on into 1970s, can't remember), every Friday evening my father would come home from work, take his wage packet out of his pocket and put it in an ornamental china teapot on the sideboard.

Later on in the evening my mother would take the packet out of the teapot, check the payslip with the money, often moaning if he had paid more tax that week. She then distributed the money into little envelopes - gas, electric, food, rates, mortgage etc., finally giving my father his weekly spending money.

What is incredible about this is that a company was still paying one of its non shareholding directors by a weekly wage packet.

Georgiegirl256

supermassive wrote: »

Baffles me how in this day and age it's so difficult to navigate your way through a marriage.

If I work, I earn money. This is my money.

That's the basis of it. If you don't work, you don't earn anything and have to contribute to the house instead.

This in no way means you have the right to both 'run the house' (which largely consists of doing what you like and what's essential) and also spend all the money.

The fact of the matter is that for some people it's impossible to get a job when they have children as they'll be less financially stable - they have barely any spare money to complain about.

If you have spare money and yet choose to stay at home with the kids - you can't complain that you're not being handed money by your husband unless that was an arrangement that was sorted out previous to you staying at home.

If you earn money and have to give all that to your husband and he doesn't lift a finger - then there's a problem.

This isn't directly relating to the OP but to some of the posts in here claiming that a housewife should be allowed equal say in the distribution of the money. That's entirely wrong. If she wants to have equal say in distribution of the money, put equal money in.

:rotfl: You're not married are you? Or else you'd know that a marriage is a partnership, and in that partnership you both decide what works best for your relationship/family life/finances.

Smi1er

I control all the money in our home.


Only do it as I am better dealing with it. When my Wife didn't work (full time Mum) she had her own account and when funds ran low she just told me and I transferred say £500 in without asking for details.


Likewise she quite often borrowed my bankcard and knows the PIN. If I asked her to account for every pound/penny I would see that as a breakdown of trust.

barbarawright

supermassive wrote: »

Baffles me how in this day and age it's so difficult to navigate your way through a marriage.

If I work, I earn money. This is my money.

That's the basis of it. If you don't work, you don't earn anything and have to contribute to the house instead.

This in no way means you have the right to both 'run the house' (which largely consists of doing what you like and what's essential) and also spend all the money.

The fact of the matter is that for some people it's impossible to get a job when they have children as they'll be less financially stable - they have barely any spare money to complain about.

If you have spare money and yet choose to stay at home with the kids - you can't complain that you're not being handed money by your husband unless that was an arrangement that was sorted out previous to you staying at home.

If you earn money and have to give all that to your husband and he doesn't lift a finger - then there's a problem.

This isn't directly relating to the OP but to some of the posts in here claiming that a housewife should be allowed equal say in the distribution of the money. That's entirely wrong. If she wants to have equal say in distribution of the money, put equal money in.

The OP does work. She looks after two pre-school children full-time.

Amara

margaretclare wrote: »

The Victorian philosopher J S Mill wrote that a married woman's situation in the mid-19th century was akin to slavery. She owned nothing. Not the clothes she stood up in, and if she had her pocket picked and her purse stolen, it was her husband's purse and her husband's small change in it. If she had had any money or property when she married, unless a marriage settlement was drawn up, she would immediately lose everything the minute she said her wedding vows. Wilkie Collins, the Victorian novelist, wrote about this extensively.

The Married Women's Property Acts of the 1880s were designed to change this, but interestingly enough, they covered only inherited money and property and not earnings. This was because it was inconceivable for a woman to earn her own living in the way we take for granted now. This still existed in the tax laws up until the changes in the Budget of 1990. My first husband used to be written to about my tax affairs. My salary was treated as 'his' for tax purposes. This was one injustice that I'm proud to say I had a small part in changing. We now have independent taxation whether you're married or not.

Very interesting. It was UK law though, it wasn't like this everywhere else. In my native Poland law covered married woman's earnings as early as 14th century , noblewoman was allowed to have her own income from , for example, linen weaving. It was done for a reason : when men went to war , women had to carry on everyday's tasks and it had to be regulated.

JIL

supermassive wrote: »

Baffles me how in this day and age it's so difficult to navigate your way through a marriage.

If I work, I earn money. This is my money.

That's the basis of it. If you don't work, you don't earn anything and have to contribute to the house instead.

This in no way means you have the right to both 'run the house' (which largely consists of doing what you like and what's essential) and also spend all the money.

The fact of the matter is that for some people it's impossible to get a job when they have children as they'll be less financially stable - they have barely any spare money to complain about.

If you have spare money and yet choose to stay at home with the kids - you can't complain that you're not being handed money by your husband unless that was an arrangement that was sorted out previous to you staying at home.

If you earn money and have to give all that to your husband and he doesn't lift a finger - then there's a problem.

This isn't directly relating to the OP but to some of the posts in here claiming that a housewife should be allowed equal say in the distribution of the money. That's entirely wrong. If she wants to have equal say in distribution of the money, put equal money in.

Are you the ops husband?