Money Moral Dilemma: Should I ask my partner to pay me for childcare?

onlyroz

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

So in this scenario say he earns £500 a week for working 5 days and she earns £300 a week for working 3 days.
On her two non-working days she has the full-time job of looking after a child.
Lets assume when neither is at work that household chores are shared equally.

Lets say bills come to £600 a week.
By your method, he pays £375 for bills and she pays £225 for bills.
That leaves him £125 a week to spend on himself and her £75 a week to spend on herself.

They are both working hard 5 days a week.
Why should he have more money to spend on himself than she has to spend on herself?

The thing is, the £125 and £75 aren't just for spending on themselves. For example, if they ever go out to restaurants I'd expect the higher earner to pick up the bill more often than the lower earner. And they'd probably put more towards holidays, or Christmas presents for the kids too.

steve3742

OK, here's another way of looking at it. Childcare is needed for the five working days of the week. Whatever the daily rate is, the full-time working partner should stump up two and a half days worth of that. If the other partner then works three days, she can use this money to pay for childcare, which means she'll have to come up with half a day's worth in cash herself.

This does mean that she's being indirectly paid for the 2 days she looks after the kids herself, but that's OK, surely? I mean, if she were to work full time, the other partner (who already works full time) would pay no more or less, but her childcare costs would go up.

This sort of arrangement used to be more common - women used to be paid for looking after the children/household as a matter of course by their working husbands. Of course, it's kind of sexist to put it like that, but it seems an awful lot of the comments here are to find a way of doing this that doesn't sound as sexist (despite being the same thing). The rest of the comments exhibit a moral outrage at the idea that she should get any financial compensation for looking after her own kids, which is fair enough, but ignores a very real problem - someone has to look after the kids and, if it's her, it'll disadvantage her financially. And they are his kids too. If he can't put in the time (due to a full time job), why not put in money instead?

seaspray10

I do hope that the holier than thou group on here remembered to use super glue when applying their halos.

OP, you said you were in a dilemma, in my experience being in a dilemma is also accompanied with feelings of confusion and upset, so only a moron would expect you to be word perfect.
You choose to have separate finances (like many) but you share parenthood, a home and all the things that go with it, household bills, responsibilities, chores etc.

However the two of you choose to arrange it, you should both be left with the same amount of disposable income at the end of each month.

duchy

Why should he pay her unless he thinks that all the money he earns is his rather than they both work so both are contributing to the family pot ?

Smacks rather of giving the little woman her housekeeping - and treating her job as something for pin money so she can get her hair done to look nice for her husband.

Might have worked when it was possible to live reasonably comfortably on one wage - but for most couples those days are long gone.

steve3742 wrote: »

OK, here's another way of looking at it. Childcare is needed for the five working days of the week. Whatever the daily rate is, the full-time working partner should stump up two and a half days worth of that. If the other partner then works three days, she can use this money to pay for childcare, which means she'll have to come up with half a day's worth in cash herself.

This does mean that she's being indirectly paid for the 2 days she looks after the kids herself, but that's OK, surely? I mean, if she were to work full time, the other partner (who already works full time) would pay no more or less, but her childcare costs would go up.

This sort of arrangement used to be more common - women used to be paid for looking after the children/household as a matter of course by their working husbands. Of course, it's kind of sexist to put it like that, but it seems an awful lot of the comments here are to find a way of doing this that doesn't sound as sexist (despite being the same thing). The rest of the comments exhibit a moral outrage at the idea that she should get any financial compensation for looking after her own kids, which is fair enough, but ignores a very real problem - someone has to look after the kids and, if it's her, it'll disadvantage her financially. And they are his kids too. If he can't put in the time (due to a full time job), why not put in money instead?

mark.s_3

cant believe your asking if you should ask your partner for money to look after your own child, and obviously if you did you would then register yourself as a child minder and pay tax on the earnings???

[Deleted User]

mark.s wrote: »

cant believe your asking if you should ask your partner for money to look after your own child, and obviously if you did you would then register yourself as a child minder and pay tax on the earnings???

Wouldn't your partner now have to pay into a pension for you as well? :rotfl:

duchy

Sleazy wrote: »

Wouldn't your partner now have to pay into a pension for you as well? :rotfl:

No-because childminders are self-employed -if he engaged her as a live-in nanny rather than a childminder he would though !!

meknowalot-51

The answer to your question is no,as the child of yours is not in nursery it's being looked after by it's parent (you).Consider this,when your partner takes the child to the shops or park does he come home and ask you for money?

culpepper

I can never understand it when people refer to his money ,her money...
My children, her children etc...Either you are a partnership or you aren't.


As far as I am aware, a person cannot child-mind their own children as a business.

Really there should be a shared pot containing all the house hold income and each person then take out the same amount of pre agreed spending money into their own separate account, the rest to be used for living and saving.
All family costs to come out of the pot.
Any spending not in those two categories to be discussed and agreed, with neither adult breaking the other's trust once the decision is reached .
Family costs need also to be arranged and the agreement stuck to.
If either adult wishes to spend their own private spending money (that which was agreed would come out of the pot) on the kids or to bolster a savings plan shared by all, then that is their choice.

If the pot does not meet the family costs (first priority) then the spending money needs adjusting equally to balance it and if that means going without for a few weeks or months then so be it .