Money Moral Dilemma: How do I convince my fiancé to pay a greater share of our bills?

2702

You don't. He is not a nice person and sounds like you have no financial security. You need to decide if you are happy to stay in this relationship.

ShinyStarlight1

I think you are very financially precarious for someone who has been a fiancée for two decades and raised a shared child to almost maturity. 

catprofit

Very difficult situation for you when you have been with someone so long and have a child together.
I'm married and we have a joint account and our own personal accounts.
We worked out our outgoings per month and my husband earns slightly more than me and put in a higher percentage than I do. My husband's work had a rejig and his salary dropped just below my earnings so I put the higher percentage in the joint account.
Having our personal accounts meant there are no arguments about spending money on things you want to spend on yourself.
The joint account paid for everything shared i.e bills, food, holidays, nights out etc. If we ever needed to top up the account we would work each put an equal amount in.
We've been together for 30 years, we still have a joint account and it mostly for the house but after all this time now we just pay for stuff either from any of our personal accounts or the joint account and it doesn't matter anymore to us as we have the trust and neither of us abuse our finances. I think a good starting point for you would be to work out the outgoings and make sure he pays his share especially for you son, or each time you spend on your son ask him for half the money.
Good luck 

oldtrout

Another Money Moral Dilemma not worth commenting on.  You'll never get a response anyway 

Size9Wellies

I earn much more than my wife, but we've always shared our bills equally, and have done since the day we started living together. We also have a joint savings account for a rainy day, which basically is for when one of us pops it, so it never gets raided. I contribute 3 times as much as my wife, each month, after which we are both left with a similar small amount of disposable income, which we are free to spend as we wish, without needing any permission to do so, or having to explain what it went on. If I go first, my wife will be financially secure, and I won't care about any disparity in contributions to the account (I don't anyway). If she goes first, I get my money back plus hers, although I would much rather keep my wife. This policy has meant financially we have been pretty frictionless since getting married 24 years ago. I don't consider my bigger salary as anything but a bonus for both of us, and I also can't think why anyone would want to keep their partner financially suppressed.

dirtmother

Good to get this sorted out if the 16 year old might want to go to university because the 'fiancé''s income will be taken into account and the 16 year old and/or his mother will suffer if the father doesn't step up at that point.

As to the 'how', it may be that couples therapy is the way to go for this. This sounds like a relationship which is 'stuck' in some significant ways. It shouldn't be that you have to 'ask nicely' but a 3rd party knowing what is going on, where the father gets to give his perspective too, might provide a wake-up call to this man... although it might not be him that gets the wake-up call.

savergrant

Sadly lots of people enjoy wielding power over others. The fiance may find their job stressful and be envious of the op's lifestyle so feel a 50:50 split is appropriate. The fiance may not feel responsible for their son for some reason. Op hasn't said why the engagement has lasted twenty years (I doubt it is simply a case of the venue being booked up). Personally I think the fiance is getting to have their cake and eat it and doesn't seem to value op, the relationship, or the family. I would be interested to find out how the engagement came to happen.

19lottie82

Savvy_Sue said:

I have no idea, but I wouldn't be marrying anyone with whom I wasn't basically comfortable about money matters. Are you? 

I’m in the opposite mindset. The OP has spent the last 16 years raising their son and she doesn’t have the security of marriage, for herself or their son. If her “finance” decides to walk then she’s got basically nothing. I hope the house is in joint names or she’s really stuffed! 

I would be pushing for marriage ASAP. If he says no, then split and claim CMS, she would probably be better off. 

jaxiescott

Get him to join this thread and we’ll all argue it out together 😆😂🤣

mlz1413

I'm not as concerned over the 50/50 split of bills as that has been in place a long time,  but I do have an issue that the spending on the child is from one parent. 

Both parents should be paying for the child.  To not put your hand in your pocket for your own flesh and blood, im sure would cause arguments. 

I think you need to work out why you are both still arguing about money 16 years on.  And address that fact.

Your child is now at a point where they will be leaving school and starting further education and/or work so that may put additional stresses on your finances.  How are you both going to cope?

I disagree with others about giving ultimatems, this route means you have to be prepared to accept either outcome.   IE if partner ups and leaves rather than puts hand in pocket... What would be the outcome ? Sell house, split up for good, etc.   So I would be very careful of waving around ultimatems less you are entirely happy with either outcome. 

Back to original question,  no I don't think you should pay more if you earn more, but I do think you should pay your full half of everything. 
Earnings more could be for a variety of reasons and maybe part of the ongoing argument. 

But I do think both should be happy the split of costs is fair, and clearly that hasn't been addressed.