Woman thinks she should charge her husband for her loss of income
My husband’s new job means I will have to cut hours at work – I want to CHARGE him for my lost earnings, but people say our relationship is ‘dysfunctional’
- Mother took to British parenting forum to say husband is looking for new job
- It means he will live with his mum during the week, while she does childcare
- READ MORE: I’m a size 16 and I hate clothes shopping because high street brands ‘only stock sizes 6 and 8’ – I’m convinced it’s ‘skinny privilege’
A woman has sparked a conversation after revealing that her husband’s new job will force her to reduce her own income – and she thinks he should pay her the shortfall.
The woman took to the British parenting forum Mumsnet to share her dilemma, explaining that her husband has found a new contracting role in London, and it means he will have to stay with his mother during the week.
She currently makes good money from a job with unsociable hours, but will have to quit if her husband takes the new position because she needs to look after their daughter.
‘I don’t believe it’s beneficial in anyway to my life. I would rather he took the job with less pay so I am able to work as I need too,’ she said. ‘I feel I have financial independence at the moment and the working away would make me feel vulnerable.’
Commenters were torn, with some agreeing that it’s not good to be ‘economically vulnerable’ and questioned her husband not being there to help with childcare, while others argued that their relationship is not really a partnership.
A woman has sparked debate online after asking people for their opinions on her financial situation (stock image)
Outlining the situation, the woman wrote: ‘My husband is a contractor and will soon need to look for another role. He’s been WFH for 4 years.’
She said she’s spotted another home-working role for him, but it’s not as much pay as the role he wants to take in Canary Wharf ‘which will mean he will live at his mum’s and commute in’.
‘We have never really shared finances wholly,’ she continued. ‘I work in a job with unsociable hours. I make good money but I have to leave at 8-9pm. I work compressed hours.
‘If he takes the Canary Wharf job, my earning power will be severely impacted as I need to care for my daughter. I have no outside help.
‘I’ve told my husband that he will either have to top up my wages to how much I’ve lost, or pay for a nanny. I also have a health condition, and compressed hours make it easier to manage.
‘He is saying I’m being unreasonable, and that it’s good he’s earning more money, but I don’t believe it’s beneficial in any way to my life. I would rather he took the job with less pay so I am able to work as I need too.
‘I feel I have financial independence at the moment and the working away would make me feel vulnerable. Am I being unreasonable?’
The post garnered a range of responses, with some saying that the issue for them would be living apart during the week.
One Mumsnetter wrote: ‘To be honest, it seems a bit bizarre if you’re married and your husband lives with his mum while you and your child live elsewhere on your own.’
Another agreed, adding: ‘I wouldn’t be OK with this either.
‘He doesn’t get to opt out of family life Mon to Fri. He needs to pick the job that suits his family.’
An anonymous mother took to Mumsnet to ask people what they thought about a financial quandary she had found herself in
And a third said: ‘Definitely wouldn’t be happy with him spending the week in London and leaving all the childcare to you.’
Meanwhile, a number of others suggested that the relationship, and the way the couple splits their finances, sounds ‘so dysfunctional’.
One said: ‘You’re both BU [being unreasonable] and you sound like you’re barely a partnership.
‘I think you need to separate the issue into two questions- first is it ok for him to work away (leaving aside the money) and then think about the money. Would you be happy being sole parent all week and not seeing him? Is he not happy seeing you? It’s a really big deal, never mind who pays for what.
Some people who replied to the post said they would not be happy about living apart from their partners five days a week
‘Then, if you’re both happy, look at the money. That means each taking responsibility for childcare, bills etc- not just you and not just him.
‘Start from scratch. The fact that he’s the one who wants to make a change doesn’t mean that all the childcare cost falls to him but neither should it fall to you.
‘You don’t have to pool money if you don’t want to, but you need to recognise that you aren’t actually two completely independent agents. You are connected through your joint responsibilities to your daughter and you both need to recognise that.’
Another said: ‘I have rarely seen an example of such disfunction.
For a number of Mumsnetters, the couple’s financial set up seemed odd, as they do not combine their money
‘You appear to value your ‘independence’ just as much as he does, since he has facilitated you being able to earn more for quite some time?
‘You need to sit down and create the life you want together. This will involve compromises on both sides. I’m aghast that you can’t see this.
And a third wrote: ‘How is your relationship generally? This set up seems bizarre to me but each to their own if it works. Except it doesn’t sound as if it is anymore.’
However, a number of respondents sympathised with the poster, and agreed that if her partner were to earn more money and affect her earning potential, he should contribute more to costs like childcare.
Numerous respondents felt that the poster was not being unreasonable – and that it was sage to consider her individual finances
One said: ‘YANBU. If he wants to change the status quo, why should you take the hit for it?’
Another Mumsnetter wrote: ‘Husband should foot the bill. You are right to protect yourself.’
And a further respondent said: ‘When my ex made a similar decision – commuting up to London, long hours, his increased salary did pay for a nanny, which enabled me to carry on working. Only fair and he fully agreed.
‘When he did go, I had a fully formed career and could carry on working to support myself.
‘Economic vulnerability is not a sensible state for any woman to be in, especially with children involved.’
Source: Read Full Article