Sharing one-time maternity allowance payment with partner?

sheramber

it seems the OP wants to be in charge of   'her' money and to repay her OH  for anything he buys for the baby.

Spendless

Retireby40 said:

Siebrie said:

I've been hunting for the source, but I cannot find it anymore, sorry. Probably an article in a magazine from either 'Child & Family' (Kind&Gezin) or 'Family Union' (Gezinsbond), where the explanation they gave was that historically, the money went to the Mother, as the Father was likely to use it to celebrate the birth of a(nother) child in the pub. Of course, not all fathers, but enough to persuade government to pay it out to the mother.

Did the working father not have his own money in the past to buy a beer with? Especially as "historically" the father worked around the clock to put food on the table and pay rent/mortgage and all the other costs.

There's some pretty poor opinions on this topic and I do think if it was a reversal of roles people wouldn't be saying the same thing.

2 people had a child. 2 people have to pay for all costs relating to the child. It really is that simple. His salary. Her one of grant. 

No different to how child benefit in the UK was historically paid, to the mother because the father couldn't be trusted not to drink it in the pub. 

Spendless

Personally I would just tell your partner, sorry No, am putting it towards the medical expenses. End of discussion What happens if you don't pay the medical fees? I'm guessing they send an enforceable bill?  If, I'm correct then that bill needs prioritising. 

Some people are strange though. I had some maternity money for my first baby (paid based on my working history). I used the money to buy a 2nd hand car to get me, baby and toddler around. Lost count of the amount of people including close in-laws that said that my husband was buying me a car! No he wasn't. WE were buying a car that would be in my name in order to get OUR children around, using the maternity money to pay for it.  

Retireby40

Spendless said:

Retireby40 said:

Siebrie said:

I've been hunting for the source, but I cannot find it anymore, sorry. Probably an article in a magazine from either 'Child & Family' (Kind&Gezin) or 'Family Union' (Gezinsbond), where the explanation they gave was that historically, the money went to the Mother, as the Father was likely to use it to celebrate the birth of a(nother) child in the pub. Of course, not all fathers, but enough to persuade government to pay it out to the mother.

Did the working father not have his own money in the past to buy a beer with? Especially as "historically" the father worked around the clock to put food on the table and pay rent/mortgage and all the other costs.

There's some pretty poor opinions on this topic and I do think if it was a reversal of roles people wouldn't be saying the same thing.

2 people had a child. 2 people have to pay for all costs relating to the child. It really is that simple. His salary. Her one of grant. 

No different to how child benefit in the UK was historically paid, to the mother because the father couldn't be trusted not to drink it in the pub. 

Where did you read it was paid to the mothers for that reason? Do post the link. 

Pixie5740

74jax said:

This site is in England and I'm not sure will understand the maternity allowance side of things here or what a flat payment is.

To me it doesn't sound unreasonable to go in a joint account, but that's based on me having no idea what it is and thinking it's 'joint' for the baby. 

The site covers the UK, not just England. 

Pixie5740

Retireby40 said:

Spendless said:

Retireby40 said:

Siebrie said:

I've been hunting for the source, but I cannot find it anymore, sorry. Probably an article in a magazine from either 'Child & Family' (Kind&Gezin) or 'Family Union' (Gezinsbond), where the explanation they gave was that historically, the money went to the Mother, as the Father was likely to use it to celebrate the birth of a(nother) child in the pub. Of course, not all fathers, but enough to persuade government to pay it out to the mother.

Did the working father not have his own money in the past to buy a beer with? Especially as "historically" the father worked around the clock to put food on the table and pay rent/mortgage and all the other costs.

There's some pretty poor opinions on this topic and I do think if it was a reversal of roles people wouldn't be saying the same thing.

2 people had a child. 2 people have to pay for all costs relating to the child. It really is that simple. His salary. Her one of grant. 

No different to how child benefit in the UK was historically paid, to the mother because the father couldn't be trusted not to drink it in the pub. 

Where did you read it was paid to the mothers for that reason? Do post the link. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/06/child-benefit-70-years-eleanor-rathbone

CKhalvashi

This one is a 50/50 one for me, and largely depends on how you manage your own finances.

We largely manage our own finances and keep them separate, paying a fixed amount into a joint account every month for the bills etc to go out. This includes a credit card in my name that is used for household spending, but not any other credit cards we hold. In this case I'd argue it's reasonable for you to keep the money unless he has incurred significant expense too.

If both salaries etc were to be paid into a joint account, I equally could understand his logic that this should be the case with the maternity payment too.

Ultimately, the 'right thing' comes down to your relationship.

Retireby40

Pixie5740 said:

Retireby40 said:

Spendless said:

Retireby40 said:

Siebrie said:

I've been hunting for the source, but I cannot find it anymore, sorry. Probably an article in a magazine from either 'Child & Family' (Kind&Gezin) or 'Family Union' (Gezinsbond), where the explanation they gave was that historically, the money went to the Mother, as the Father was likely to use it to celebrate the birth of a(nother) child in the pub. Of course, not all fathers, but enough to persuade government to pay it out to the mother.

Did the working father not have his own money in the past to buy a beer with? Especially as "historically" the father worked around the clock to put food on the table and pay rent/mortgage and all the other costs.

There's some pretty poor opinions on this topic and I do think if it was a reversal of roles people wouldn't be saying the same thing.

2 people had a child. 2 people have to pay for all costs relating to the child. It really is that simple. His salary. Her one of grant. 

No different to how child benefit in the UK was historically paid, to the mother because the father couldn't be trusted not to drink it in the pub. 

Where did you read it was paid to the mothers for that reason? Do post the link. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/06/child-benefit-70-years-eleanor-rathbone

Not an impartial article. One designed to make men seem horrible creatures written by a feminist. 

Pixie5740

Retireby40 said:

Pixie5740 said:

Retireby40 said:

Spendless said:

Retireby40 said:

Siebrie said:

I've been hunting for the source, but I cannot find it anymore, sorry. Probably an article in a magazine from either 'Child & Family' (Kind&Gezin) or 'Family Union' (Gezinsbond), where the explanation they gave was that historically, the money went to the Mother, as the Father was likely to use it to celebrate the birth of a(nother) child in the pub. Of course, not all fathers, but enough to persuade government to pay it out to the mother.

Did the working father not have his own money in the past to buy a beer with? Especially as "historically" the father worked around the clock to put food on the table and pay rent/mortgage and all the other costs.

There's some pretty poor opinions on this topic and I do think if it was a reversal of roles people wouldn't be saying the same thing.

2 people had a child. 2 people have to pay for all costs relating to the child. It really is that simple. His salary. Her one of grant. 

No different to how child benefit in the UK was historically paid, to the mother because the father couldn't be trusted not to drink it in the pub. 

Where did you read it was paid to the mothers for that reason? Do post the link. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/06/child-benefit-70-years-eleanor-rathbone

Not an impartial article. One designed to make men seem horrible creatures written by a feminist. 

Regardless of what you think of the author it doesn't change Rathbone campaigning in the 20's for the family allowance to be paid to the mother or Wages for Housework campaigning to keep family allowance being paid to the mother when Heath proposed paying child benefit to father's instead.  Now that you know some of the history you are free to do your own research.

Retireby40

Pixie5740 said:

Retireby40 said:

Pixie5740 said:

Retireby40 said:

Spendless said:

Retireby40 said:

Siebrie said:

I've been hunting for the source, but I cannot find it anymore, sorry. Probably an article in a magazine from either 'Child & Family' (Kind&Gezin) or 'Family Union' (Gezinsbond), where the explanation they gave was that historically, the money went to the Mother, as the Father was likely to use it to celebrate the birth of a(nother) child in the pub. Of course, not all fathers, but enough to persuade government to pay it out to the mother.

Did the working father not have his own money in the past to buy a beer with? Especially as "historically" the father worked around the clock to put food on the table and pay rent/mortgage and all the other costs.

There's some pretty poor opinions on this topic and I do think if it was a reversal of roles people wouldn't be saying the same thing.

2 people had a child. 2 people have to pay for all costs relating to the child. It really is that simple. His salary. Her one of grant. 

No different to how child benefit in the UK was historically paid, to the mother because the father couldn't be trusted not to drink it in the pub. 

Where did you read it was paid to the mothers for that reason? Do post the link. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/06/child-benefit-70-years-eleanor-rathbone

Not an impartial article. One designed to make men seem horrible creatures written by a feminist. 

Regardless of what you think of the author it doesn't change Rathbone campaigning in the 20's for the family allowance to be paid to the mother or Wages for Housework campaigning to keep family allowance being paid to the mother when Heath proposed paying child benefit to father's instead.  Now that you know some of the history you are free to do your own research.

Was Rathbones campaign "lets pay the money to the mums just because the dads will get drunk"?

Was that the whole reason behind it? Or was that just used as a stick to beat men with?

Was it designed maybe to give women a compensation for their work in the household and independence? Yes.

2 different things.