MMD: Should I pay more than my partner?

onlyroz

fatrab wrote: »

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.

Dynamics in a relationship change over time and your simplistic argument fails to address this.


When I met my husband I was an impoverished student - there was no way I could contribute to half the bills on my meagre bursary. So should he have refused to let me move in and refused to marry me because I would be living outside my means?


Now I am the higher earner and we would like for him to take early retirement. His income will halve - and by that point we will not quite be mortgage free and so it would be outside his means to continue to pay half the bills.


Established relationships involve teamwork - and there are often swings and roundabouts over who is the higher earner at any one time. I am all for both parties in a couple to have their own money, but the amount pooled into the central pot for paying household expenses should not force one half of the couple into penury.

fatrab

onlyroz wrote: »

Dynamics in a relationship change over time and your simplistic argument fails to address this.


When I met my husband I was an impoverished student - there was no way I could contribute to half the bills on my meagre bursary. So should he have refused to let me move in and refused to marry me because I would be living outside my means?

So you weren't in employment. We're talking about 2 adults in full time employment with not dissimilar salaries - not a hypothetical situation - so stop giving examples that aren't relevant.


If you and your husband have agreed that he's going to retire early and you're going to assume a higher percentage of the bills then that's great and entirely up to you, I'm not going to tell you that you're right or wrong in doing so, in fact I think it's absolutely wonderful that you're prepared to do that for him. I'm going to semi-retire as soon as I pay my mortgage off but I'll still be paying my half of the remaining bills. I'll plan that expense into my future.

I also note that you had no further comment when you failed to read my earlier post correctly but I get the impression you're not the kind of person who would admit they were incorrect.

This thread is turning into an argument and life's too short for this nonsense.

Best wishes

maman

fatrab wrote: »

This thread is turning into an argument and life's too short for this nonsense.

Best wishes

You're right fatrab. Normally I wouldn't respond to these mse generated threads but I feel very strongly about this particular topic.


Of course there is no simple answer to this. Without overly repeating myself, there will be times when one part of a partnership will have a particular reason for needing financial support, so I'm not convinced about arguments like maternity or impoverished students. Those are temporary things and only a small part of a long term relationship. Sadly there will be permanent circumstances too like disability or poor health but these aren't the general rule.


I want to live in a world where men and women have equal opportunity and I'm sad to say that many women don't help this cause. Of course there are men who want to maintain the status quo but I see too many women who want to maintain the status quo too. Coffee shops are full of them.:mad:

onlyroz

maman wrote: »

I want to live in a world where men and women have equal opportunity and I'm sad to say that many women don't help this cause. Of course there are men who want to maintain the status quo but I see too many women who want to maintain the status quo too. Coffee shops are full of them.:mad:

I'm all for equal opportunity. I'd love to see a world where child-rearing responsibilities and employment activities are shared equally between both parents. And so equal time and duration of paid parental leave after a child is born. Access to high quality and affordable childcare. And more opportunities for job shares and part-time work for both men and women without having to sacrifice promotion prospects. All of this is the norm in Scandinavian countries.


But you do seem to be focussed on the idea that the only valid contribution a person makes to a household is how much money they bring in - and that unless you are bringing in as much as your partner you are somehow freeloading. What if you choose a career that is rewarding but offers low pay? E.g. a nurse married to a lawyer. Both have high stress high responsibility jobs but the lawyer might be bringing in several times the income of the nurse. Should the nurse be forced to live off bread and cheese and clothes from the charity shop while the lawyer eats lobster and wears Armani?

vacheron

onlyroz wrote: »

When I met my husband I was an impoverished student - there was no way I could contribute to half the bills on my meagre bursary. So should he have refused to let me move in and refused to marry me because I would be living outside my means?

It seems some posters here consider a "partnership" as nothing more than two individuals sharing the living standard of the lowest wage earner who should "know their place" and not be allowed to enjoy anything better.

Apparently if one partner could afford £400pm rent and the other £300pm to rent a £700pm property, the lower earner would be considered as "living above their means" by some here unless both parties paid £350 equally.

The irony however is that the higher earner would also be "living above their means" whether contributing £400 or £350 because in both cases, without the contribution of the lower earner, the higher earner could not afford to live in a £700 property either!



edit: I was also going to mention that many have only focused on paid work, but while writing you have summed that up on your post directly above this perfectly!

maman

onlyroz wrote: »

I'm all for equal opportunity. I'd love to see a world where child-rearing responsibilities and employment activities are shared equally between both parents. And so equal time and duration of paid parental leave after a child is born. Access to high quality and affordable childcare. And more opportunities for job shares and part-time work for both men and women without having to sacrifice promotion prospects. All of this is the norm in Scandinavian countries.


But you do seem to be focussed on the idea that the only valid contribution a person makes to a household is how much money they bring in - and that unless you are bringing in as much as your partner you are somehow freeloading. What if you choose a career that is rewarding but offers low pay? E.g. a nurse married to a lawyer. Both have high stress high responsibility jobs but the lawyer might be bringing in several times the income of the nurse. Should the nurse be forced to live off bread and cheese and clothes from the charity shop while the lawyer eats lobster and wears Armani?

It's more than money for me. It's about making use of all opportunities offered and making a contribution to society as an individual. It's those sort of attributes that would have attracted me to the relationship in the first place.


But you're right. we don't live in this Utopia yet. To use your example, why society seems to value (financially) lawyers more highly than nurses is another argument for another day.:)

Gloomendoom

maman wrote: »

I want to live in a world where men and women have equal opportunity and I'm sad to say that many women don't help this cause. Of course there are men who want to maintain the status quo but I see too many women who want to maintain the status quo too.

All very laudable but I am at a loss to see how labelling one member of a couple that share everything equally regardless of income as "kept" is going to achieve that.

Red-Squirrel_2

Gloomendoom wrote: »

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?

Or going out for a meal, does one go to a nice restaurant and the other to KFC and then they get together afterwards and compare notes?

Or if they want to go the theatre, one gets a lovely view from the stalls one is on the cheap seats in the gods and they meet up in the interval?

Red-Squirrel_2

maman wrote: »

You're right fatrab.

Of course there is no simple answer to this. Without overly repeating myself, there will be times when one part of a partnership will have a particular reason for needing financial support, so I'm not convinced about arguments like maternity or impoverished students. Those are temporary things and only a small part of a long term relationship. Sadly there will be permanent circumstances too like disability or poor health but these aren't the general rule.

What about the fact that some jobs just always will pay less than others and those jobs are still pretty vital and somebody needs to do them?

I know of doctors married to nurses, pilots married to flight attendants, teachers married to teaching assistants and several other combinations like that. In some cases the man is the higher earner, in others the woman, and in several cases they are the same sex.

I think we can agree that all of those jobs are valuable, so surely you can see that unequal earnings can be something that lasts throughout the entirety of a relationship/marriage?

Gloomendoom

maman wrote: »

It's more than money for me. It's about making use of all opportunities offered and making a contribution to society as an individual. It's those sort of attributes that would have attracted me to the relationship in the first place.

You can make a valuable contribution to society without having to earn a penny. In fact, if you have a partner that is happy to support you, you probably have more opportunities than if you were trapped in some mundane job just to make sure your ability to pay your share of the bills matches your partner's.