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

alggomas

Bring subject up. Say you find it difficult on your wage to save as you are paying bills and buying stuff for our children. A will would be handy as well as joint ownership of your home.

Ringo90

Why should you persuade him of anything? Even just the fact he needs convincing doesn't make him a person you invest 2 months in, let alone 20 years. He has been scamming you for 20 years.
And it's not a matter of gender; I am a woman and make twice what my male partner does, and I offered to split bills differently from day one. I have been doing it for years.

Bunnytops

Not enough information is provided, are you on benefits, working? wage levels? etc on the face of it there is absolutely nothing wrong in splitting the bills down the middle regardless of income, you use half do you not? if you are short of cash then you can always improve your earning capacity and get a job/ better job.
If you are sat at home doing nothing then it is all on you.
As for spending more on presents for your child, my wife spends more on ours than me as she is better at that sort of thing, it is no big deal, I arrange and pick up the costs of holidays and large items such as cars and white goods because I am better at that, its all part of being a partnership.
You need to sit down and talk.

Bunnytops

Shell1989 said:

You should get married, it will provide you with more legal rights over your home and joint finances. Likely your finance knows this, and that’s why he’s kept you engaged for 20 years instead of tying the knot. He sounds like a horrible and greedy man to be honest, you’d be smart to force a quick registry office marriage and then ask for a divorce shortly after - taking with you half his pension! Any reasonable man on 10 times their long term partners income would either be taking care of ALL expenses, or at least doing it proportionally so it’s fair. Good luck.

Wow, "Force" a marriage and clean him out? A good example of Financial abuse and coercive behaviour.

Spendless

This conversation should have been had 16-20 years ago! Others have questioned the 10x higher wage, thats possble if 1 is earning say £5-£10k and the other £50 -100k, but that indicates that lower paid is part time, so the reasons behind that need discussing. Id also be wanting to know why 2 decades after a proposal, a marriage has never happened. Lines of communication need opening up promptly. 

ZeroSum

Size9Wellies said:

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.

But it sounds like that's exactly what youre doing since you make her go 50/50 on the bills despite earning for more. The savings are irrelevant since they aren't to be touched until one pops it.

savergrant

ZeroSum said:

Size9Wellies said:

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.

But it sounds like that's exactly what youre doing since you make her go 50/50 on the bills despite earning for more. The savings are irrelevant since they aren't to be touched until one pops it.

If you re-read the post wellies said they contribute three times as much as oh to their shared expenses and wellies and oh then have the same amount of disposable money, which is exactly the opposite. And the personal savings are their future security.
In op's case the only security is that she has some income and would possibly be able to reduce living costs if the relationship ended one way or another. Presumably her son would be the beneficiary if the fiance died before the wedding?

rwgray

NBLondon said:

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? 

If they've been engaged for 20 years - can't see them actually marrying unless there's a sudden legal need.

The OP says "fiancé" which means they have announced their intention to marry, and not subsequently withdrawn this, so we have to assume that they will marry at some point. If they meant something else, they'd use a different term, such as "partner", or "the selfish !!!!!! I'm stuck with owing to family commitments". 

Emmia

Bunnytops said:

Shell1989 said:

You should get married, it will provide you with more legal rights over your home and joint finances. Likely your finance knows this, and that’s why he’s kept you engaged for 20 years instead of tying the knot. He sounds like a horrible and greedy man to be honest, you’d be smart to force a quick registry office marriage and then ask for a divorce shortly after - taking with you half his pension! Any reasonable man on 10 times their long term partners income would either be taking care of ALL expenses, or at least doing it proportionally so it’s fair. Good luck.

Wow, "Force" a marriage and clean him out? A good example of Financial abuse and coercive behaviour.

I suspect if the OP tried to force the marriage now, the fiancé could just break off the engagement - that scenario leaves him with the money, and the OP with very little, especially as the child is now nearly an adult. 

You should only ever issue an ultimatum if you are happy with both/all possible outcomes.

Many years ago I had a similar situation with the guy I'm now married to - I resented buying groceries so he'd have food in the fridge as he was away travelling, and then asking him for his share of the money. He earned 3 - 4 times my salary.

I had a conversation about this, which resulted in getting a joint account for groceries which we funded proportionately - and has ultimately resulted in a good financial situation for us both, we have our own personal accounts but now have some joint savings and a joint mortgage.

savergrant

Bunnytops said:

Shell1989 said:

You should get married, it will provide you with more legal rights over your home and joint finances. Likely your finance knows this, and that’s why he’s kept you engaged for 20 years instead of tying the knot. He sounds like a horrible and greedy man to be honest, you’d be smart to force a quick registry office marriage and then ask for a divorce shortly after - taking with you half his pension! Any reasonable man on 10 times their long term partners income would either be taking care of ALL expenses, or at least doing it proportionally so it’s fair. Good luck.

Wow, "Force" a marriage and clean him out? A good example of Financial abuse and coercive behaviour.

Hardly force a marriage. Op says 'fiance' so presumably there is/was an intention on both parties to get married when certain conditions had been met. Since getting engaged op and fiance have had a child together, we don't know how that has affected the wedding plans. If op's fiance has no intention of entering into a marriage he shouldn't really be engaged imo.
There are three possible outcomes, marriage and associated pooling of worldly goods, breaking the engagement and having a greater control of own finances (albeit less than what fiance is currently contributing), or carrying on engaged but never actually marrying. Op's fiance presumably feels splitting bills 50:50 equates to contributing his fair share, the question is how he feels about being married to op.