Large income gap, would you expect the lower earning partner to still work for money?

MinnieBin

sheramber said:

MinnieBin said:

HappyHarry said:

I would imagine if it was a long term
partnership, say 20+ years, then both partners would likely be able to agree on a sensible arrangement.

If this was a new relationship, I can imagine that many in partner A’s position might feel that partner B is freeloading.

Not 20+ years but living together for a year and dating for a few years.

As they’ve only been living together for a year B should be safeguarding their future and keep working. 

Living together 24/7 is different to dating and things can change.

Otherwise the two people concerned should be working out what suits them, regardless of what strangers on a forum think.

Of course! I am a family member close to the couple, and just trying to help here. 

MinnieBin

kimwp said:

I think it's down to the couple in question, but if the well paid partner enjoys their job (or could earn less but still significantly in a job they enjoy), while the person earning less hates their job, it doesn't feel like a partnership. Would be interesting to know how the spends are split, pensions etc 

I'm closer to B than A, so I don't know all the details. But B confided in me about this recently, and it really upset me. I know they live in A's house with no mortgage, and I assume A covers most of the expenses. Still, B has health issues, and it's heartbreaking to see them pushed into back breaking work purely as a matter of principle.

MinnieBin

elsien said:

I don’t know why you are perceiving the expectation that partner B is bringing something to the table as being controlling.
As partner A I’d be quite miffed if I was working full-time  while partner B was doing the  social activities of their choice to fill their days. 

As someone who lived with a partner who was earning when I was unemployed I was desperate to have my own money and not to feel completely reliant on them. They were fine with the situation, but it wasn’t for me.

Even if B's contribution made no difference at all to your quality of life, would you still expect them to work simply because you'd resent them being able to enjoy their life?

MinnieBin

BungalowBel said:

If the couple are older (pensions maxed so assume so), and it is a relatively new relationship, then I would expect each partner to carry on working , but contributing to the household budget commensurate with their earnings.

I would not expect the lower earner to not work at all.  However, I also would not expect them to 'break their back' doing overtime.  Just their standard hours.

B is older than A. A still has some time until retirement (not sure about their pensions arrangement), and probably doesn't appreciate how precarious B's position is.

kimwp

MinnieBin said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Tree_pipe99 said:

I think some are rushing to judgement on B without knowing the full picture. Depending on the trust and understanding in the relationship I think B could be reasonable in thinking there could be an element of control in this.  

How is it controlling for both partners to maintain an independent income? How is it controlling for A to not want B to make themselves filly financially dependent upon A? How is it controlling for both partners to be expected to work and contribute to the household?

On the one hand, yes. But B's income doesn't materially affect their standard of living, it is virtually invisible. Their gardener or cleaner likely earns more, and it often feels as though A is trying to assert control by reducing B's importance to the same level as those roles. How must B feel watching A spend several months' worth of B's hard earned wages on a single handbag (or whatever it is), without even blinking?

But it's not B's wages paying for the handbag though? If A can afford it, why should they be restricted from buying it?

If B can work, then it seems reasonable for them to contribute. If A is making B feel controlled or devalued (or having to work in a way that is affecting their health), then they need to talk to A and if nothing changes and they are unhappy, leave the relationship. 

badmemory

Regardless of their financial circumstances after only a year living together there is absolutely no way I would stop working unless I had a fair bit of pension money coming in.  Although ill health & overtime are quite a different issue.

Grumpy_chap

I would have thought that B would benefit in more than purely financial ways from having a job of some kind.  It gives a sense or purpose, belonging, engaging with other adults outside the home, keeps the grey matter working and an important part of preserving mental and physical health.  Now, obviously, if the couple are financially well off, B might achieve all those benefits of working through a non-paying role that has a more societal aim, but still essentially working. 

If the couple see themselves as "together forever" then B might well carry on working as they are (paid) and A might gift money to allow B to maximise pension contributions such that the future retirement income is more evenly split and future income tax liability reduced.

If the couple do not see themselves as "together forever" then B definitely needs to maintain their employability and have an amount of safety net finances.

MinnieBin

kimwp said:

MinnieBin said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Tree_pipe99 said:

I think some are rushing to judgement on B without knowing the full picture. Depending on the trust and understanding in the relationship I think B could be reasonable in thinking there could be an element of control in this.  

How is it controlling for both partners to maintain an independent income? How is it controlling for A to not want B to make themselves filly financially dependent upon A? How is it controlling for both partners to be expected to work and contribute to the household?

On the one hand, yes. But B's income doesn't materially affect their standard of living, it is virtually invisible. Their gardener or cleaner likely earns more, and it often feels as though A is trying to assert control by reducing B's importance to the same level as those roles. How must B feel watching A spend several months' worth of B's hard earned wages on a single handbag (or whatever it is), without even blinking?

But it's not B's wages paying for the handbag though? If A can afford it, why should they be restricted from buying it?

If B can work, then it seems reasonable for them to contribute. If A is making B feel controlled or devalued (or having to work in a way that is affecting their health), then they need to talk to A and if nothing changes and they are unhappy, leave the relationship. 

Not B's wages directly, but an amount equivalent to what they contribute to the joint budget. For A, it's effectively pocket money that barely registers. For B, it means working more than full time, being permanently exhausted, and running themselves into the ground.

Spendless

What I dont understand is why A and B didnt have these discussion prior to living together? Presumably the income discrepency, the age gap and ill health were all known about during the dating years?

We have an even larger income difference though lower figures  12:1 with me being the lower income. Admittedly it only became that earlier this year after I lost my job and eventually found another that paid less and was only part time, before that it was a little over 3:1.
The income I receive from my employer (I am not using the the term 'my money/wages' as neither of us views it that way) pays 3/4 of our DD's student rent. The rest comes from DH's employment, but our circs are different, we've been married over 26 years, we have 2 adult children together , we have discussions frequently about the way forward with savings, purchases and finances in general.

I think a discussion needs opening up between A and B about it all. 

MayDogsandCoffee

Same as Spendless I don't know why expectations were clear ahead of marriage, but then there isn't much information given to make valid comments.