Giving my husband all my money?

maman

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.

It won't be popular but having taken the time time to read what supermassive is saying much of it makes sense to me. That's particularly in the context of what other posters have said.


I think the crux of OP's issue is whether she's voluntarily entered into this arrangement, a shared decision or whether it's purely her husband calling all the shots. In this case it does sound like the latter. I think having shared/our money is all very well if it's something both parties have agreed on. I also think it's all very well being a SAHM if both parties agree it's what they want for the family.


As an example, I know someone who has been a SAHM for almost 13 years. That's with just one child. She has done a little part time work recently but it's low paid, undemanding and far below what she's capable of earning. It started as a joint decision but even though it's no longer necessary for childcare it's because she enjoys the yummy mummy lifestyle spending her time shopping, making the house like a showhome, having spa weekends, going out for coffee and lunch etc. I think her DH does enjoy all the comforts but even he is getting fed up of working all hours to support her.


So, knowing that this type of 'taking advantage' does go on then I can understand the 'I work it's my money' mentality.


I'd feel exactly the same if it was a woman in a well paid job funding a lazy partner going to the pub.

Jagraf

maman wrote: »

It won't be popular but having taken the time time to read what supermassive is saying much of it makes sense to me. That's particularly in the context of what other posters have said.


I think the crux of OP's issue is whether she's voluntarily entered into this arrangement, a shared decision or whether it's purely her husband calling all the shots. In this case it does sound like the latter. I think having shared/our money is all very well if it's something both parties have agreed on. I also think it's all very well being a SAHM if both parties agree it's what they want for the family.


As an example, I know someone who has been a SAHM for almost 13 years. That's with just one child. She has done a little part time work recently but it's low paid, undemanding and far below what she's capable of earning. It started as a joint decision but even though it's no longer necessary for childcare it's because she enjoys the yummy mummy lifestyle spending her time shopping, making the house like a showhome, having spa weekends, going out for coffee and lunch etc. I think her DH does enjoy all the comforts but even he is getting fed up of working all hours to support her.


So, knowing that this type of 'taking advantage' does go on then I can understand the 'I work it's my money' mentality.


I'd feel exactly the same if it was a woman in a well paid job funding a lazy partner going to the pub.

I absolutely get your point but who does what is a separate issue to the money coming in. If one or the other isn't happy then that's a partnership issue. IMO the money is still joint.

PenguinJim

RuthnJasper wrote: »

One of the early signs of trouble in that story (based upon a true situation) was the boyfriend controlling the girl's money; going through her receipts and giving her cash when she needed it.

I'm sure I've read posts on here by people who are terrible with money, and need their partner to do this for them. Mostly on the debt boards. It's not necessarily a sign that their partner is later going to beat them to death.

margaretclare

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

He may have preferred it that way. Legislation in the early 1970s changed to payment by cheque or into a bank account. The unions were up in arms about this, invoking the Truck Acts of the 1840s which decreed that workers should be paid with 'coin of the realm' - this was to get rid of abuses by employers who paid in their own coinage only spendable in 'tommy shops'. See the novel 'Sybil' by Benjamin Disraeli, later one of Victoria's Prime Ministers. It has a factual basis.
Union members as late as the early 1970s said they liked being paid in cash. Not all of them took their unopened pay envelopes home - some gave their wives 'housekeeping' and kept the rest for the pub, the bookie, whatever they pleased. I've heard women say they knew their husbands got an annual rise but their housekeeping stayed the same, for years.

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.

Of course, I am only aware of the history of my own country. There is some evidence that it all changed with the Norman conquest. In earlier times Anglo-Saxon (Englisc) women were much more 'liberated' than was possible after 1066.

RuthnJasper

PenguinJim wrote: »

I'm sure I've read posts on here by people who are terrible with money, and need their partner to do this for them. Mostly on the debt boards. It's not necessarily a sign that their partner is later going to beat them to death.

I agree; but there is a world of difference between helping someone to manage their money and deliberately controlling what they receive in order to control what they are able to do. In the drama, the chap was going through the girl's purse and grilling her about every receipt and who she was with at the time. Then, when she had £30 in cash for a night out, he took out £20 and told her that she only needed £10. It wasn't for the purposes of helping her.

But there are, indeed, many examples of friends and partners who help their loved ones save money and curtail spending out of the best and affectionate intentions. x

willysmum

Thank you for all your replies, i am definately NOT a troll as suggested and i have been quiet for a while as i am sure you will understand when i tell you its been hard to get my head round that the majority of replies think my marriage verges on domestic abuse, everything ive told you on here is true and if i was a Troll i could probably think of a more controversial subject to get you all started on.
ps just for your information its my daughters birthday next week and i am meant to be going 200 miles by train to see her with her present that i havent got, for all the posts who have nothing nice to say try walking in my shoes.

RAS

willysmum

Glad to see you back.

One of the problems with MSE is that if you do not post back quickly, sometimes people start long and barely relevant discussions about everything and anything to do generally with the subject. Which may or may not be useful to the OP (original poster).

I respect that in your situation it may be hard to get on-line and it may be hard to deal with the responses.

There is a stickie on the front page that covers economic and financial abuse https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1276963

From which I quote:

(Refuge)'s research has shown that domestic violence often involves economic abuse as well as physical, sexual and emotional abuse and that many women stay with abusive men because they are worried about the financial consequences of leaving and are unaware of the options that are available to them. Economic abuse can include taking the woman’s money, not allowing her to work, strictly limiting what she’s allowed to spend or, really commonly, placing debt in her name to trap her in the relationship.

One of the things that scares me is that you appear to be in receipt of tax credits to which you may not be entitled based on your husband'd income. You are paying that money to your husband even though you will have to pay it back to tax credits soon. At that point your finances will be in a reall mess.

So you need get hold of tax credits and ask them to re-assess the situation quickly, to limit the damage.

It does not appear that your husband thinks that he is responsible for supporting the whole family (you and both children regardless of parentage).

And having given up your own house, you are now very vulnerable; are you on the tenancy agreement at the new house?

FBaby

for all the posts who have nothing nice to say try walking in my shoes.

To be fair, it is difficult to do because you haven't shared that much information, have not replied to some questions (ie, maintenance), and from my perspective, I struggle to put myself in your shoes because I can't comprehend why this was not discussed before you moved in with the man, let alone married him. I also don't understand if it is such an issue, why you can't tell him that you are not happy with not having money of your own and therefore that you will get a full-time job whether he likes it or not, and childcare issues will have to be discussed and sorted together.

willysmum

RAS wrote: »

willysmum

Glad to see you back.

One of the problems with MSE is that if you do not post back quickly, sometimes people start long and barely relevant discussions about everything and anything to do generally with the subject. Which may or may not be useful to the OP (original poster).

I respect that in your situation it may be hard to get on-line and it may be hard to deal with the responses.

There is a stickie on the front page that covers economic and financial abuse https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1276963

From which I quote:

(Refuge)'s research has shown that domestic violence often involves economic abuse as well as physical, sexual and emotional abuse and that many women stay with abusive men because they are worried about the financial consequences of leaving and are unaware of the options that are available to them. Economic abuse can include taking the woman’s money, not allowing her to work, strictly limiting what she’s allowed to spend or, really commonly, placing debt in her name to trap her in the relationship.

One of the things that scares me is that you appear to be in receipt of tax credits to which you may not be entitled based on your husband'd income. You are paying that money to your husband even though you will have to pay it back to tax credits soon. At that point your finances will be in a reall mess.

So you need get hold of tax credits and ask them to re-assess the situation quickly, to limit the damage.

It does not appear that your husband thinks that he is responsible for supporting the whole family (you and both children regardless of parentage).

And having given up your own house, you are now very vulnerable; are you on the tenancy agreement at the new house?

I have been intouch with Tax Credits to update my husbands income and are waiting to hear from them, in regards to our current home, no i am not on the tenancy, stupid i know , my husband did speak to the housing association and they told him i had to live at the property for a year before i could go on the tenancy and once that year was up should we separate they 'might' be able to rehome me. Cant believe ive been so stupid .

lovinituk

Do Housing Association rent to people on high incomes? I thought that type of housing was for people on low incomes?