Wives... were you glad pubs weren't open today

Murrisk

andekwarhola wrote: »

I probably picked the wrong post to quote. I was more thinking of the blanket opinions about pooling income.

I don't think pooling into an account is necessary but really, a bit of metaphorical pooling is needed when there is a big differences in salaries.

I don't agree with the post that said that going out to the pub with your friends once a week means you are living in extended adolescense.

Murrisk

Murrisk wrote: »

I don't think pooling into an account is necessary but really, a bit of metaphorical pooling is needed when there is a big differences in salaries.

I don't agree with the post that said that going out to the pub with your friends once a week means you are living in extended adolescense.

What if the lower earner insists on keeping the rigid structure also and doesn't feel it's right to contribute less than 50% or won't accept a sharing of disposable income.

Electric Sheep

This thread should be mandatory reading for those thinking about getting married. Talk all these things though and make sure that you are on the same page about how finances will be handled, childcare split, how you envisage family life. Don't expect your partner to change their mind after the kids come along. These attitudes can be very deeply entrenched.

andekwarhola

Murrisk wrote: »

I don't agree with the post that said that going out to the pub with your friends once a week means you are living in extended adolescense.

As ever in here, there's a tendency to extremity.

Like there's no middle ground between being a neglectful boozehound and a nuclear family advert from the 50s.

Murrisk

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

What if the lower earner insists on keeping the rigid structure also and doesn't feel it's right to contribute less than 50% or won't accept a sharing of disposable income.

If I was the higher earner, I'd be insistent on helping them out. They might actually be grateful for the insistence and the reason they might be reluctant initially might just be them being unneccessarily hard on themselves. Used to paying their way, but that's fine when there are no children in the picture. In a marriage, I can't fathom why anyone would spurn the offer of a more equitable split of the expenses, especially when children come along.

It doesn't seem like you'd kill yourself trying to convince the lower earner to let you help them out a bit financially.

Murrisk

Murrisk wrote: »

If I was the higher earner, I'd be insistent on helping them out. They might actually be grateful for the insistence and the reason they might be reluctant initially might just be them being unneccessarily hard on themselves. In a marriage, I can't fathom why anyone would spurn the offer of a more equitable split of the expenses.

I just don't see the fairness in the expectation of a person to hand over more than their fair share of their salary. A salary they most likely spent years working and studying to attain yet suddenly it's no longer theirs. People are taking about the lower earner being resentful what about the higher earner being resentful if the expectation to pool money that should be their disposable income?

This is all a very artificial argument anyway as there often isn't much salary difference between couples anyway due to people tending to couple up with similar people background and education wise.

Electric Sheep

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

Murrisk wrote: »

I don't think pooling into an account is necessary but really, a bit of metaphorical pooling is needed when there is a big differences in salaries.

I don't agree with the post that said that going out to the pub with your friends once a week means you are living in extended adolescense.

What if the lower earner insists on keeping the rigid structure also and doesn't feel it's right to contribute less than 50% or won't accept a sharing of disposable income.

In that case put the money in a savings account for the kids.

Murrisk

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

I just don't see the fairness in the expectation of a person to hand over more than their fair share of their salary. A salary they most likely spent years working and studying to attain yet suddenly it's no longer theirs. People are taking about the lower earner being resentful what about the higher earner being resentful if the expectation to pool money that should be their disposable income?

This honestly comes across so childish, I'm sorry. It's a marriage, this is the person you will spend your life with. And your children, they see you as a unit so they're not seeing your salaries as separate. Meanwhile the hard work and time your parents will put into minding your children full-time is apparently worth nothing. What about their hard work? Or the hard work the lower-salaried half of the couple puts into their career. Lower pay doesn't necessarily equate to working less hard, remember. And working shorter hours means likely taking on more of the housework and childcare. Is that worth nothing? Everything in what you say seems to be geared towards accumulating as much money for yourself alone as possible. I can't imagine having such a greedy, grasping outlook. Many people take great satisfaction in being able to treat their OH and children with the money they earn. You seem to consider it punitive.

Some couples could have huge salary difference. One could earn three times what the other does. This would be pretty commonplace, it's not artificial at all.

Alma Weak Stabilizer

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

I just don't see the fairness in the expectation of a person to hand over more than their fair share of their salary. A salary they most likely spent years working and studying to attain yet suddenly it's no longer theirs. People are taking about the lower earner being resentful what about the higher earner being resentful if the expectation to pool money that should be their disposable income?

This is all a very artificial argument anyway as there often isn't much salary difference between couples anyway due to people tending to couple up with similar people background and education wise.

What happens if after both have put in their 50% for expenses, you have 200 euro a week for yourself, but your other half is left with 50 euro?
Do you just spend your money on yourself while your other half scrimps and saves and can't do anything?
When you are actually in a real partnership, particularly with kids, i don't know how you can see that as OK?
How would it even work?

.......

This post has been deleted.

John_Rambo

pilly wrote: »

Ah you're just making stuff up now to be annoying as you tend to do in all forums, work away, not taking the bait any longer.

I used to think nox was trolling too. But, I know a few people from his area in East Galway and the grandparents practicality raise the grandkids.

The grandparents gift land to the adult kids. Then the adult kids have huge commutes because their stuck to the house they build on the land. The grandparents are expected to mind the kids, do the school runs, provide food etc... all for no payment. (I'm not kidding).

In one case I know, the grandparents have no choice. They're bullies and guilted into it.

Widdershins

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Originally Posted by Chuchote
..seek and find your emotional nourishment in your family, not mainly in your friends.
Very well said.

Sums up the thread for me

Yes. People with the ''Bros before ho's'' attitude I've seen on Boards, might need some mental attitude readjustment before settling down.
A long term relationship involves the sort of life sharing and lifestyle sharing a friendship doesn't, that includes finances, however you work it out.

Murrisk

John_Rambo wrote: »

In one case I know, the grandparents have no choice. They're bullies and guilted into it.

I asked Nox earlier if he had cleared this proposed future arrangement with his parents. No reply, I don't know if that was intentionally ignored. If it's an assumption on his part, then that's a big assumption to make.

Alma Weak Stabilizer

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

I just don't see the fairness in the expectation of a person to hand over more than their fair share of their salary. A salary they most likely spent years working and studying to attain yet suddenly it's no longer theirs. People are taking about the lower earner being resentful what about the higher earner being resentful if the expectation to pool money that should be their disposable income?

This is all a very artificial argument anyway as there often isn't much salary difference between couples anyway due to people tending to couple up with similar people background and education wise.

I think you're missing the whole point of a partnership being "equal".

Let me put it another way. Suppose, for some reason, you couldn't work for the next year, or two, (or, God forbid, even longer!)or your income was dramatically reduced.

Would you be happy with your partner still expecting you to contribute to half the expenses, even if it meant you were left with little or no disposable income?

Or would you eventually start to resent the fact that s/he could afford to go out, or on holidays, or buy expensive treats, while you were on the breadline?

That might work for a while, but it would eventually cause resentment.

Your comment about the partner who is expected to give up some of their disposable income being resentful is revealing (unless you're trolling, which I suspect, tbh)

Are you saying you will resent it if your partner needs financial support at some stage?
Or that you will resent your kids, if you have them, because they will affect your disposable income?

I've been with my husband for over 40 years, married for over 35 years - and if he were to take what appears to be your attitude - I'd leave him! (Right after I'd called him a whole lot of uncomplimentary names!).

Your attitude to finances seems to be one that would work well enough early in a relationship.
How well it will work in the longer term remains to be seen.

Murrisk

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

This is all a very artificial argument anyway as there often isn't much salary difference between couples anyway due to people tending to couple up with similar people background and education wise.

Just another point on this. As I and others have said, life has a habit of throwing curveballs. Illness, unemployment, other unforeseen circumstances. So, no, it's not remotely artificial. Not only are salaries often vastly different but life events can happen that force a big difference in incomes. For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. Think about those vows for second and what they mean.

Murrisk

Murrisk wrote: »

I asked Nox earlier if he had cleared this proposed future arrangement with his parents. No reply, I don't know if that was intentionally ignored. If it's an assumption on his part, then that's a big assumption to make.

I notice I didn't get a reply, either, when I asked if his partner knew about his views re: finances if their situation changed.

Sunny Disposition

Murrisk wrote: »

Just another point on this. As I and others have said, life has a habit of throwing curveballs. Illness, unemployment, other unforeseen circumstances. So, no, it's not remotely artificial. Not only are salaries often vastly different but life events can happen that force a big difference in incomes. For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. Think about those vows for second and what they mean.

Sure you should be saving for these curveballs, not expecting a person who loves you to do something as crazy as share to get through hard times:) How would they go for seven or eight pints after work or 15 at the weekend AND help you as well??? Nox is right, no to sharing, yes to binge drinkingðŸ‘

Mr.Wemmick

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, I agree.. love the highwayman analogy

When we were first married there was lots of: please take some of my money for x, you need it, no, no, not fair, can't.. then it went the other way, back and forth like a pendulum until we began to cop ourselves on and share what we had.

But you know, first, it does start out exactly like that because you love and have a deep respect for each other.. and each other's money, property, feelings etc.. which makes the eventual sharing all the more intimate and trusting, and of course is so very natural.

Electric Sheep

Deleted User wrote: »

Murrisk wrote: »

I asked Nox earlier if he had cleared this proposed future arrangement with his parents. No reply, I don't know if that was intentionally ignored. If it's an assumption on his part, then that's a big assumption to make.

I notice I didn't get a reply, either, when I asked if his partner knew about his views re: finances if their situation changed.

I'd say Nox'so intended would run for the hills if she ever reads this thread ;-)

Electric Sheep

Deleted User wrote: »

Murrisk wrote: »

I asked Nox earlier if he had cleared this proposed future arrangement with his parents. No reply, I don't know if that was intentionally ignored. If it's an assumption on his part, then that's a big assumption to make.

I notice I didn't get a reply, either, when I asked if his partner knew about his views re: finances if their situation changed.

I'd say Nox'so intended would run for the hills if she ever reads this thread ;-)

Electric Sheep

Electric Sheep wrote: »

I'd say Nox'so intended would run for the hills if she ever reads this thread ;-)

I would, if I were her.....

Chuchote

Never realised Thatcherism had actually invaded the marriage contract.

kylith

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

I just don't see the fairness in the expectation of a person to hand over more than their fair share of their salary. A salary they most likely spent years working and studying to attain yet suddenly it's no longer theirs. People are taking about the lower earner being resentful what about the higher earner being resentful if the expectation to pool money that should be their disposable income?

It's no longer 'theirs' because they are no longer just 'them'. They are a family. They wouldn't be burning the money, they are investing it in their family. They are sharing what they have with the people they love. There is no balance sheet there.

If they're so selfish that they resent having to share 'their' money with their family then I think they should really cut out for having a family.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

It's no longer 'theirs' because they are no longer just 'them'. They are a family. They wouldn't be burning the money, they are investing it in their family. They are sharing what they have with the people they love. There is no balance sheet there.

If they're so selfish that they resent having to share 'their' money with their family then I think they should really cut out for having a family.

This is money left over after expenses remember. We are now at the stage where basically every cent you have has to first be offered up and to hell with anything you might want to do with it.

Robsweezie

we've gone from drinking to shared finances.

Alma Weak Stabilizer

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

This is money left over after expenses remember. We are now at the stage where basically every cent you have has to first be offered up and to hell with anything you might want to do with it.

You could answer some of the questions posed to you?
Or just admit that the way you think now, may have to change!

Murrisk

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

This is money left over after expenses remember. We are now at the stage where basically every cent you have has to first be offered up and to hell with anything you might want to do with it.

Is there a reason why you are completely ignoring a lot of the sensible questions and points put to you?

kylith

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

This is money left over after expenses remember. We are now at the stage where basically every cent you have has to first be offered up and to hell with anything you might want to do with it.

That's where you'd have a conversation with your partner. You might say "I was thinking of spending €200 on tickets to a gig" and they'd say "But we have to get school uniforms for the children next month" or "Why don't we put it toward a holiday in Bali instead" or even "Deadly, enjoy". The point is that when you have more responsibilities than just yourself you have to consider how your actions will impact on them. I honestly don't think I could spend a large sum on myself knowing that my partner could barely afford a pair of jeans for themselves. That does not seem like a partnership to me.

Electric Sheep

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

kylith wrote: »

It's no longer 'theirs' because they are no longer just 'them'. They are a family. They wouldn't be burning the money, they are investing it in their family. They are sharing what they have with the people they love. There is no balance sheet there.

If they're so selfish that they resent having to share 'their' money with their family then I think they should really cut out for having a family.

This is money left over after expenses remember. We are now at the stage where basically every cent you have has to first be offered up and to hell with anything you might want to do with it.

Yes, Nox, offer it up, marriage is such a penance!

kylith

kylith wrote: »

That's where you'd have a conversation with your partner. You might say "I was thinking of spending €200 on tickets to a gig" and they'd say "But we have to get school uniforms for the children next month" or "Why don't we put it toward a holiday in Bali instead" or even "Deadly, enjoy". The point is that when you have more responsibilities than just yourself you have to consider how your actions will impact on them. I honestly don't think I could spend a large sum on myself knowing that my partner could barely afford a pair of jeans for themselves. That does not seem like a partnership to me.

I'd crack up if I had to have a conversation before spending my own money, especially something as small as 200 quid it's not healthy to be so restricted imo.

Expenses like those quoted above should be planned for and set aside in advance anyway not suddenly pop up in a conversation about spending disposable income.