MMD: Should I pay more than my partner?

Gloomendoom

maman wrote: »

I know we don't live in an equal world (yet;)) but we've just celebrated the centenary of some women getting the vote. It's over 70 years since equality of opportunity in education. Why are we still stuck in this mindset of kept women? or even kept men? I think it's archaic..

How do you define a kept woman or man? Somebody who earns less than their spouse/significant other?

maman

Gloomendoom wrote: »

How do you define a kept woman or man? Somebody who earns less than their spouse/significant other?

Not the earning less but expecting the higher earner to make up their spending power to well in excess of what they'd be able to afford otherwise. So effectively living beyond your means because someone else is paying.

onlyroz

maman wrote: »

IMO there's no 'Of Course' about it.


I believe it would be very mercenary indeed to go into a relationship expecting the other person to finance your lifestyle. Isn't that where the term gold digger is used?


I know we don't live in an equal world (yet;)) but we've just celebrated the centenary of some women getting the vote. It's over 70 years since equality of opportunity in education. Why are we still stuck in this mindset of kept women? or even kept men? I think it's archaic.


Of course I realise there will be extenuating circumstances but taking the original post at face value (i.e. no illness, disability, pregnancy, redundancy etc.) then my self respect wouldn't let me live with a partner who was bailing me out financially.

But we;re talking about an established relationship here. I can see how things are different at the beginning but once the relationship becomes permanent you have to take differences in income into account.

If one partner is loafing about and freeloading off the other then that;s a different issue entirely - but there is no suggestion that this is the case here.

As for kept women or kept men does this mean that I shouldn;t allow my husband to retire, because he must never become a kept man financially dependent on me?

System

My bf earns more than i do as i can only work part time due to my disability but when we get our own place we are going to share finances (and truthfully he;s going to be the one budgeting as with bipolar budgeting is far from one of my strengths ).He's never made me feel inferior for working less hours than he does, and im grateful we can be open and honest about money with each other.

Gloomendoom

maman wrote: »

Not the earning less but expecting the higher earner to make up their spending power to well in excess of what they'd be able to afford otherwise. So effectively living beyond your means because someone else is paying.

In a situation where a married couple with differing salaries want to go on holiday, how would you suggest that they go about it? Should they each go on separate holidays, one cheaper than the other, or should the lowest common denominator be used and both go on the cheaper holiday together?

riotlady

maman wrote: »

Not the earning less but expecting the higher earner to make up their spending power to well in excess of what they'd be able to afford otherwise. So effectively living beyond your means because someone else is paying.

I can understand where you're coming from a bit if the lower earning partner has an expensive hobby or tastes that the higher earning partner is consistently paying for, but most of the big expenses in life are joint (houses, holidays, appliances) so I'd consider the "means" in those cases to be joint too.

My partner and I don't have a joint account because of his credit score (or lack thereof) but I know that he works hard and that he's not a mad spender- so when I was earning more I was more than happy to foot some of the bigger bills or give him some money to make life easier when I could. And he does the same for me now that I'm on maternity. I can't imagine having a bunch of extra disposable income and not sharing it with him.

fatrab

I'd look up the definition of a "kept" man or woman before using it in the wrong context on here!

I think happyinflorida has explained perfectly well why separate finances and equal contribution to the core expenses are a very wise move. It's not about trust, commitment, power or control. It's about equality.

If the decision has been made for one partner to become a house "wife/husband", whether married or common law, then obviously the other partner will pay the bills and provide housekeeping.

onlyroz - by the time your husband retires will he have a pension (state or private)? If so he's not dependent on you is he? And I'm assuming you'll have some degree of solvency as a couple by then (e.g. bought house, no mortgage, very little debt).

In my opinion, which I am entitled to, the basics (mortgage/rent/council tax/energy/home insurance/TV licence) should be equally split, if one of the partners can't afford that then they are living outside their means.

Holidays, cars, entertainment, socialising etc - as lifestyle choices - can be paid (in majority or in full) by the higher earner, or by the lower earner if they have enough disposable income.

Referring back to the OP, we're not discussing a couple who have a huge gap in their earnings. 25%. Assuming the lower earner is on the UK average of £28k the higher earner would be on £35k.

JimmyTheWig

NeilCr wrote: »

I've got to ask where this eight year rule has come from? That's at least three posters who have mentioned it and I've never heard it before.

I don't think it's a rule. Just that it was mentioned in the OP.

CheroDave

Think about the fact that once all the ESSENTIAL costs are paid (from a joint expense account?) all the remaining cash is "expendible" and may be spent on fun items. So if you earn 25% more, your expendible is probably 3-4 times greater than your partner's! Your partner's might even be negative! So if you want your partner to join you as any normal couple, then of course you must pay a larger share - maybe even all of it!

minicooper272

The same dilemma is starting to rear its head between me and my OH. At the moment, he earns about £300 a month more than I do. We have a joint account, and both pay the same amount into it each month to cover flat expenses, and then have our own separate incomes to spend how we wish. I don!!!8217;t see an issue with it. He has more expensive taste than I do, why would I want to subsidise him buying Levis, while I am happy with M&S budget jeans? It!!!8217;s just a recipe for arguments.

However, he!!!8217;s interviewing for a new job this week, with a big salary jump, and we had to discuss how his extra income will work. I actually don!!!8217;t want him to subsidise me, and I am comfortable on my income, however he!!!8217;ll now have more disposable income, and if I want to keep up, I won!!!8217;t be able to save anything for the future.

I guess work out what!!!8217;s fair !!!8211; you don!!!8217;t need to split your extra 50/50. My OH wants a better broadband package (extra £10/month), so I will make him cover the extra, and he likes more heating, so I will ask him to cover an extra 10% on our gas bill, and maybe an extra £20 a month to food, as he has especially expensive dietary requirements.


P.s. I've been with my OH 10 years. We have no plans to get married or have kids, nor to split up. The people who keep pressuring us to marry just put me off even more.