Long term cohabitation dilemma

wannabe_a_saver

burlingtonfl6 said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

hazyjo said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

hazyjo said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

Sistergold said:

Virtualness said:

gwynlas 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.

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 me

What if you die first? 

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?  

Or had children together. Wonder what would've happened then. Would he see finances as joint?

Well she's 48 so probably not up for that! 

They've had 15 years of chances!

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... )

Oh I definitely meant not up for raising kids, rather than not up for the process by which they are made.  

Although a selfish and manipulative partner is quite the turn off.

Statistically speaking that ship sailed a decade ago anyway

Yeah but women aren't statistics, nearly everybody knows someone who's had an accidental 'menopause baby', and the 'traditional' way isn't the only option for raising kids. 

I expect though that if the OP has got to 48 without having any, its not something she is likely to want now. 

CookieMonster

Virtualness said:

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.

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. 

Hi Virtualness.

I would think (hope) after 15 years together that you would already have free and open discussion in your relationship.

Your partner may (automatically) retreating into a defensive position when the discussion starts - possibly depending on how the discussion starts, and how quickly it veers off at a tangent or splits into a multi-faceted discussion.
Try to keep to one topic at a time, and when you are both unstressed/tired etc.

If I may offer a suggestion on how to discuss this particular situation with your partner.
First, do your sums.
Run off a few scenarios on excel/similar of how to improve your situation - home, flat and pension - and try to figure out which will be best for you. At this time assume that you will be working until 68yo, unless your pension is in pretty good shape (and confirm your state pension forecast - actual current and potential - on the HMRC website, if you've not done so already.
*If you're not sure how to improve your situation, look on the other boards here (Pension board especially at 48yo) and have your numbers for DC pot/HMRC forecast etc) for all the assistance you will need.

And then ask your partner what he would do in your position.
Men (generalising) enjoy being useful and fixing problems.
He might also see another scenario that would benefit you more.

Your partner has been stung financially in the past and he sees the co-habitation agreements as fair (as they probably are, else you wouldn't have signed them), so steer clear of appearing to want to change it.
Work on getting up to his level, with his help, as a partnership.

Get him on board with your plans to secure your future, and you may find your future together more fulfilling (and more of a joint effort).

Feel free to PM me if you wish.
CM

BrassicWoman

When two partners have unequal finances, housing and lifestyle should be based on the ability of the lower financed partner, with equal contributions. Then everyone can cope.

Live somewhere smaller. Be happier. 

If that doesn't suit the higher financed partner they can then decide what they want to do about treats or subsidising. But stretching someone else's finances to suit your own lifestyle is cruel.

wannabe_a_saver

BrassicWoman said:

When two partners have unequal finances, housing and lifestyle should be based on the ability of the lower financed partner, with equal contributions. Then everyone can cope.

Live somewhere smaller. Be happier. 

And the wealthier partner gets to build a huuuge savings pot all to themselves!

BrassicWoman

wannabe_a_saver said:

And the wealthier partner gets to build a huuuge savings pot all to themselves!

yes indeed. Both people can save something, is the plan! Living within your means does that.

scrooge2008

Assuming OP decides that she does want to stay with this man, who appears to think like our CookieMonster, it might be worth trying the approach CM mentioned.  I have done this before and it works a treat, but gets incredibly boring after a while ............

Channel your best 'Stepford Wife' character and after you have dressed up in your finery, put on some soft music, put his slippers on him and then presented him with his favourite meal, a couple of nice glasses of wine and rent money, say:-

'Oh wise partner, I would really like your opinion on what you would do in my situation as you have made such good financial decisions, all your life and I have mucked up repeatedly, it is time for me to really listen and learn ......... He will be eating out of your hand.

teachfast

scrooge2008 said:

Assuming OP decides that she does want to stay with this man, who appears to think like our CookieMonster, it might be worth trying the approach CM mentioned.  I have done this before and it works a treat, but gets incredibly boring after a while ............

Channel your best 'Stepford Wife' character and after you have dressed up in your finery, put on some soft music, put his slippers on him and then presented him with his favourite meal, a couple of nice glasses of wine and rent money, say:-

'Oh wise partner, I would really like your opinion on what you would do in my situation as you have made such good financial decisions, all your life and I have mucked up repeatedly, it is time for me to really listen and learn ......... He will be eating out of your hand.

Brilliant 😂

burlingtonfl6

wannabe_a_saver said:

burlingtonfl6 said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

hazyjo said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

hazyjo said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

Sistergold said:

Virtualness said:

gwynlas 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.

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 me

What if you die first? 

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?  

Or had children together. Wonder what would've happened then. Would he see finances as joint?

Well she's 48 so probably not up for that! 

They've had 15 years of chances!

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... )

Oh I definitely meant not up for raising kids, rather than not up for the process by which they are made.  

Although a selfish and manipulative partner is quite the turn off.

Statistically speaking that ship sailed a decade ago anyway

Yeah but women aren't statistics, nearly everybody knows someone who's had an accidental 'menopause baby', and the 'traditional' way isn't the only option for raising kids. 

I expect though that if the OP has got to 48 without having any, its not something she is likely to want now. 

The exceptions don't change the rule and your're talking about a tiny minority.

On a board like this, it helps to talk in ''general'' terms.

burlingtonfl6

BrassicWoman said:

When two partners have unequal finances, housing and lifestyle should be based on the ability of the lower financed partner, with equal contributions. Then everyone can cope.

Live somewhere smaller. Be happier. 

If that doesn't suit the higher financed partner they can then decide what they want to do about treats or subsidising. But stretching someone else's finances to suit your own lifestyle is cruel.

I've said this before.

Those who expect the lower earner to pay less than 50% suddenly change their mind when it comes to divorce......then they're happy to start at a 50% split 

tink_1983

Gosh this thread made me feel very sad for you OP.
Sounds like you have a very selfish man on your hands. 
What happens to all his money if he dies ? Are you homeless ?

15yr commitment and sound like you pay your half. 
Seems to me this is a man who cares little for you and what you financially wish to do / save for etc.

I'd understand his view if he 'kept' you. But you pay your way! 
I have to admit I'd have walked away  before now. Sorry your in this position