We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Long term cohabitation dilemma
Comments
-
They've had 15 years of chances!wannabe_a_saver said:
Well she's 48 so probably not up for that!hazyjo said:
Or had children together. Wonder what would've happened then. Would he see finances as joint?wannabe_a_saver said:
What if (hopefully not) you become ill or disabled and are unable to work and therefore pay the rent? Do you think he would support you?Sistergold said:
What if you die first?Virtualness said:
He always says if he dies I get it all... as I'm the one on his will. Which I have seen. So unless we split up I do in theory benefit. That's what he keeps assuring megwynlas said:There have been similar threads here previously with similar answers. What exactly are you renting? You probably have less rights than a lodger despite the facts that you are paying rent, servicing utilities feeding him and presumably meet his sexual needs.
If you want any security in the future you would be far better off returning to your own property and paying off your mortgage., if anything were to happen to him you would have to fight for any share of his estate despite providing financial and practical support in growing it to the size it is. Wake up, smell the coffee and plan for your future.
And if you're talking about the deed itself, us women would still be enjoying it in our 90s. (It's often just the men we're bored with...
) 2024 wins: *must start comping again!*1 -
Oh I definitely meant not up for raising kids, rather than not up for the process by which they are made.hazyjo said:
They've had 15 years of chances!wannabe_a_saver said:
Well she's 48 so probably not up for that!hazyjo said:
Or had children together. Wonder what would've happened then. Would he see finances as joint?wannabe_a_saver said:
What if (hopefully not) you become ill or disabled and are unable to work and therefore pay the rent? Do you think he would support you?Sistergold said:
What if you die first?Virtualness said:
He always says if he dies I get it all... as I'm the one on his will. Which I have seen. So unless we split up I do in theory benefit. That's what he keeps assuring megwynlas said:There have been similar threads here previously with similar answers. What exactly are you renting? You probably have less rights than a lodger despite the facts that you are paying rent, servicing utilities feeding him and presumably meet his sexual needs.
If you want any security in the future you would be far better off returning to your own property and paying off your mortgage., if anything were to happen to him you would have to fight for any share of his estate despite providing financial and practical support in growing it to the size it is. Wake up, smell the coffee and plan for your future.
And if you're talking about the deed itself, us women would still be enjoying it in our 90s. (It's often just the men we're bored with... )
Although a selfish and manipulative partner is quite the turn off.
5 -
Living in a nice house with her partner, nicer than she can afford by herself.
A man who has made better decisions and has a higher net worth.
Having been hurt by divorce previously, he was wise the the cohabitation agreements.
Which the OP has signed of her own free will.
OP chooses to overpay the mortgage on the flat, on top of the rent received (and taxed on?) and has less disposable income than her partner as a result.
All choices the OP has made freely.
Unable to save/invest thanks to her own financial decisions.
The partner is not obliged to let her live rent free in his home, regardless of him being mortgage-free.
They have an agreement on the bills etc. - that can possibly be renegotiated if need-be.
But would that then be fair to the partner?
Unequal growth in assets is irrelevant, unless Partner should be funding her decisions/future plans.
Feeling like a financial failure, because you compare yourself to someone with more than you have:
OP is a success compared to many who can;t get near the property ladder... or have masses of debt at 48yo.
48yo is still plenty of time for the OP to sort out her future, consider her pension/flat situation and make choices which will benefit her:
20 years until state pension age, 20 more years growth on pension investments (and potential increase in property price).
Perhaps some difficult decisions to be made (decisions you may not want to make) for your own future security.
Best of luck.
I started out with nothing and I still got most of it left. Tom Waits5 -
Absolute nonsense. What a man-centric view.CookieMonster said:Living in a nice house with her partner, nicer than she can afford by herself.
A man who has made better decisions and has a higher net worth.
Having been hurt by divorce previously, he was wise the the cohabitation agreements.
Which the OP has signed of her own free will.
OP chooses to overpay the mortgage on the flat, on top of the rent received (and taxed on?) and has less disposable income than her partner as a result.
All choices the OP has made freely.
Unable to save/invest thanks to her own financial decisions.
The partner is not obliged to let her live rent free in his home, regardless of him being mortgage-free.
They have an agreement on the bills etc. - that can possibly be renegotiated if need-be.
But would that then be fair to the partner?
Unequal growth in assets is irrelevant, unless Partner should be funding her decisions/future plans.
Feeling like a financial failure, because you compare yourself to someone with more than you have:
OP is a success compared to many who can;t get near the property ladder... or have masses of debt at 48yo.
48yo is still plenty of time for the OP to sort out her future, consider her pension/flat situation and make choices which will benefit her:
20 years until state pension age, 20 more years growth on pension investments (and potential increase in property price).
Perhaps some difficult decisions to be made (decisions you may not want to make) for your own future security.
Best of luck.15 -
Thank you.... I do see his perspective and agree. The biggest shame tbh is not being able to discuss it fully and calmly so we reach a place both are happy with. I'm certain its solvable if this could be achieved. That is my biggest barrier. Appreciate your viewpoint btw. Is where he is and how I an appreciate his position. I am not after his assets btw.... I dont care if I'm on his will.... I just want to feel I'm in a partnership with equality if power balance above all which I cannot achieve whilst I'm so far behind him financially and unable to discuss without huge conflict occurring.CookieMonster said:Living in a nice house with her partner, nicer than she can afford by herself.
A man who has made better decisions and has a higher net worth.
Having been hurt by divorce previously, he was wise the the cohabitation agreements.
Which the OP has signed of her own free will.
OP chooses to overpay the mortgage on the flat, on top of the rent received (and taxed on?) and has less disposable income than her partner as a result.
All choices the OP has made freely.
Unable to save/invest thanks to her own financial decisions.
The partner is not obliged to let her live rent free in his home, regardless of him being mortgage-free.
They have an agreement on the bills etc. - that can possibly be renegotiated if need-be.
But would that then be fair to the partner?
Unequal growth in assets is irrelevant, unless Partner should be funding her decisions/future plans.
Feeling like a financial failure, because you compare yourself to someone with more than you have:
OP is a success compared to many who can;t get near the property ladder... or have masses of debt at 48yo.
48yo is still plenty of time for the OP to sort out her future, consider her pension/flat situation and make choices which will benefit her:
20 years until state pension age, 20 more years growth on pension investments (and potential increase in property price).
Perhaps some difficult decisions to be made (decisions you may not want to make) for your own future security.
Best of luck.0 -
Nine characters too short, eh? This should sort it!CookieMonster said:Living in a nice house with her partner, nicer than she can afford by herself.
A man who has made better decisions and has a higher net worth.
Having been hurt by divorce previously, he was wise the the cohabitation agreements.
There is nothing in the OP's post to suggest that he's been hurt, apart from financially. He is punishing the OP for mistakes he has made in the past.
Which the OP has signed of her own free will.
Because she thought she was entering a loving relationship, not a business arrangement.
OP chooses to overpay the mortgage on the flat, on top of the rent received (and taxed on?) and has less disposable income than her partner as a result.
All choices the OP has made freely.
Unable to save/invest thanks to her own financial decisions.
Agreed. See my comment above, regarding the loving relationship rather than a business arrangement.
The partner is not obliged to let her live rent free in his home, regardless of him being mortgage-free.
They have an agreement on the bills etc. - that can possibly be renegotiated if need-be.
The OP has already said that any attempt to renegotiate results in him getting angry and refusing to discuss it.
But would that then be fair to the partner?
Unequal growth in assets is irrelevant, unless Partner should be funding her decisions/future plans.
Feeling like a financial failure, because you compare yourself to someone with more than you have:
OP is a success compared to many who can;t get near the property ladder... or have masses of debt at 48yo.
48yo is still plenty of time for the OP to sort out her future, consider her pension/flat situation and make choices which will benefit her:
20 years until state pension age, 20 more years growth on pension investments (and potential increase in property price).
Perhaps some difficult decisions to be made (decisions you may not want to make) for your own future security.
Best of luck.
The OP needs to be aware that her relationship is not based on love, or a desire from her partner to have a mutually beneficial relationship, but a business arrangement which benefits him at her expense.
I had a - mercifully - short-lived relationship with a guy like this, and luckily I was in a position to get out and get on with my life (I was older than the OP at the time, too!) I suggest the OP makes moves to do the same. I think she can be fairly certain that if she were to fall ill, or lose her job, or be in a situation where she was temporarily unable to 'pay her way' he would quickly lose interest in the relationship, and she needs to ensure that she can stand on her own two feet without him.
Because he sure as **** won't be there if she needs him!
9 -
The bolded text sums it up. It's less to do with finances, more to do with his attitude, his unwillingness to have a reasonable discussion and see from your perspective or reach a resolution without a dispute. There is a lack of supportive, loving, equal partnership in what you've told us, and the financial situation is simply a symptom of his outlook and attitude towards you. Why wouldn't he be willing to engage in a discussion that could make his partner more content?Virtualness said:
Thank you.... I do see his perspective and agree. The biggest shame tbh is not being able to discuss it fully and calmly so we reach a place both are happy with. I'm certain its solvable if this could be achieved. That is my biggest barrier. Appreciate your viewpoint btw. Is where he is and how I an appreciate his position. I am not after his assets btw.... I dont care if I'm on his will.... I just want to feel I'm in a partnership with equality if power balance above all which I cannot achieve whilst I'm so far behind him financially and unable to discuss without huge conflict occurring.CookieMonster said:Living in a nice house with her partner, nicer than she can afford by herself.
A man who has made better decisions and has a higher net worth.
Having been hurt by divorce previously, he was wise the the cohabitation agreements.
Which the OP has signed of her own free will.
OP chooses to overpay the mortgage on the flat, on top of the rent received (and taxed on?) and has less disposable income than her partner as a result.
All choices the OP has made freely.
Unable to save/invest thanks to her own financial decisions.
The partner is not obliged to let her live rent free in his home, regardless of him being mortgage-free.
They have an agreement on the bills etc. - that can possibly be renegotiated if need-be.
But would that then be fair to the partner?
Unequal growth in assets is irrelevant, unless Partner should be funding her decisions/future plans.
Feeling like a financial failure, because you compare yourself to someone with more than you have:
OP is a success compared to many who can;t get near the property ladder... or have masses of debt at 48yo.
48yo is still plenty of time for the OP to sort out her future, consider her pension/flat situation and make choices which will benefit her:
20 years until state pension age, 20 more years growth on pension investments (and potential increase in property price).
Perhaps some difficult decisions to be made (decisions you may not want to make) for your own future security.
Best of luck.
OP, it's interesting that you say you see his perspective, as I don't think you can clearly see beyond it. Perhaps you have been with him for long enough that it's the norm and you've come to accept the situation, but hopefully the replies will give you food for thought.8 -
teachfast said:
Absolute nonsense. What a man-centric view.CookieMonster said:Living in a nice house with her partner, nicer than she can afford by herself.
A man who has made better decisions and has a higher net worth.
Having been hurt by divorce previously, he was wise the the cohabitation agreements.
Which the OP has signed of her own free will.
OP chooses to overpay the mortgage on the flat, on top of the rent received (and taxed on?) and has less disposable income than her partner as a result.
All choices the OP has made freely.
Unable to save/invest thanks to her own financial decisions.
The partner is not obliged to let her live rent free in his home, regardless of him being mortgage-free.
They have an agreement on the bills etc. - that can possibly be renegotiated if need-be.
But would that then be fair to the partner?
Unequal growth in assets is irrelevant, unless Partner should be funding her decisions/future plans.
Feeling like a financial failure, because you compare yourself to someone with more than you have:
OP is a success compared to many who can;t get near the property ladder... or have masses of debt at 48yo.
48yo is still plenty of time for the OP to sort out her future, consider her pension/flat situation and make choices which will benefit her:
20 years until state pension age, 20 more years growth on pension investments (and potential increase in property price).
Perhaps some difficult decisions to be made (decisions you may not want to make) for your own future security.
Best of luck.
Man-centric? Do you mean a logical assessment based on the facts?
Sure, nonsense to you.
Male/female is irrelevant here, they are not married and the "richer" one is not required to subsidise the other.
Isn't that equality?I started out with nothing and I still got most of it left. Tom Waits4 -
1. By your own admission you partner has been hammered by divorce more than once so who can blame him.
2. Leave him if you're not happy, which you aren't.
3. Negotiate and be willing to walk away1 -
Statistically speaking that ship sailed a decade ago anywaywannabe_a_saver said:
Oh I definitely meant not up for raising kids, rather than not up for the process by which they are made.hazyjo said:
They've had 15 years of chances!wannabe_a_saver said:
Well she's 48 so probably not up for that!hazyjo said:
Or had children together. Wonder what would've happened then. Would he see finances as joint?wannabe_a_saver said:
What if (hopefully not) you become ill or disabled and are unable to work and therefore pay the rent? Do you think he would support you?Sistergold said:
What if you die first?Virtualness said:
He always says if he dies I get it all... as I'm the one on his will. Which I have seen. So unless we split up I do in theory benefit. That's what he keeps assuring megwynlas said:There have been similar threads here previously with similar answers. What exactly are you renting? You probably have less rights than a lodger despite the facts that you are paying rent, servicing utilities feeding him and presumably meet his sexual needs.
If you want any security in the future you would be far better off returning to your own property and paying off your mortgage., if anything were to happen to him you would have to fight for any share of his estate despite providing financial and practical support in growing it to the size it is. Wake up, smell the coffee and plan for your future.
And if you're talking about the deed itself, us women would still be enjoying it in our 90s. (It's often just the men we're bored with... )
Although a selfish and manipulative partner is quite the turn off.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards