Paying Bills And Marriage

[Ogoma]

Unless the GF of the man in the OP is in this thread, I don't think anyone's relationship was insulted.

It is strange for anyone confident in their relationships and choices to take 'I don't want XYZ' or 'XYZ would not work for me' as a personal insult.

I didn't know people were taking this thread that seriously until I realized people were getting perspectives from SOs and what not. I was like oh wow, it is that serious for people.

 

[DragonPearl]

He'd better get on the corner and work!!

Lol.

It's a serious question though and I really want to know the answer. Not that it's going to affect my life because that's not my situation, but I am just curious.

 

[SophieDulce]

So I have a question for you. If a man is a schoolteacher and he makes $40,000 a year and he marries a woman lawyer who makes $100,000+ a year, how do you suggest he takes care of his family regardless of his wife's financial contribution?

Just curious.

I said regardless of financial status, so he should as best as he can. Since his wife makes more hes lucky. It's not so much about money to me as its about the mans attitude.

 

[Southernbella.]

I dont mind if others dont like the arrangement. If they don't like it it doesnt affect my livelihood in anyway. Their life, their choice.

What was Yardy's post...? I don't remember. Is Yardy the yardstick we must measure ourselves by? If so her name is rather appropriate.

IIRC, yardy was the poster who was talking about what real men do (although it got a lot of thanks). That's what y'all are upset about, according to the last several pages.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using LHCF

 

[BEAUTYU2U]

Now see, telling people they're "wrong" or their marriage is "wrong" is how people got in their feelings in the first place.

 

[carcajada]

So I have a question for you. If a man is a schoolteacher and he makes $40,000 a year and he marries a woman lawyer who makes $100,000+ a year, how do you suggest he takes care of his family regardless of his wife's financial contribution?

Just curious.

Deja vu from the SAH dad thread. The type of woman who is okay with a man who makes very little money and/or much less money than her is not likely a woman who would hold the notion referenced in bold. She probably would consider the other attributes he brings to the table. Just my opinion.

 

[SurferBabe]

Mods please don't move


Scenerio (Not me I jacked this from somewhere else)

Me and my girlfriend have some disagreements in how to split bills IF we were to get married. The way I think bills should be split is in the ratio of the incomes. She takes home $3100/month and I take home $6200/month. So, if our joint expenses hypothetically would be $3500/month then this is the way I would do it. 50% of each paycheck would go to savings (this %tage would be adjusted later depending future expenses - kids etc.)

Her contribution to bills: $1150 (around 33%), to savings: $1550, remainder: $400
My contribution to bills: $2350 (67%), to savings: $3100, remainder: $750

The remainder is a discretionary expense for each person to spend on their personal interests/hobbies etc. Now, she takes offense to the fact that I get to have $750 in spending money and she gets only $400. She says it should be equal regardless of who makes more or less IF we were to be married.

What do you guys think? I have many more hobbies than she does.

So are we just going to ignore this part? She isn't happy with this set up so the "do whatever works for you" and "maybe she is okay with it" argument doesn't fly here. She is not okay with it like many of the women who have posted in this thread are not okay with this set up. I thought this is why posters started talking negatively about this arrangement in the first place--because the woman was unhappy with it.

 

[Honey Bee]

So I have a question for you. If a man is a schoolteacher and he makes $40,000 a year and he marries a woman lawyer who makes $100,000+ a year, how do you suggest he takes care of his family regardless of his wife's financial contribution?

Just curious.

My ex-SIL made more money than my brother. Mainly cuz my mother set her up in a lucrative field. So, as she re-located around the country following work, my brother's job prospects degraded. He was well established in our city, but moving around made it really difficult for him. Regardless, he worked two jobs for at least ten years even though he didn't have to. (This is *after* basically raising my niece as a single father while her mother went to school and work and totally taking care of the house.) Their quality of life would not have suffered, but he's old school and felt it was necessary. He's always been a hard worker.

In the long run, it wasn't enough for her, but he busted his butt to fulfill both of their expectations. He tried. :shrug:

But I understand her perspective as well.

eta: DragonPearl, in case this gets lost in the shuffle

 

[SophieDulce]

I think the problem is when people start to e-imply that someone elses mate isnt a real man becuase they don't shoulder the entire or even majority of the burden. That's insulting. I beleive a man should feel that it is his duty to take care of his family but that if a wife is working something should go towards household things. And lets be real, the couple in the OP are dating. DATING. I would not want to live with a man that is not my husband and not pay something, even if its just a smidge, thats odd to me. I'm communal like that though. We all live here, so everyone chips in. It is insulting for a man to work his butt off, slaving to cover any and everything while a woman works and doesnt put anything in the pot but is consistently taking out. Not saying anyone in the thread lives that life but ...its just odd to me. If the husband is taking care of the big things the wife should respectfully cover the others, like kid stuff, groceries and the like. If the wife isnt working of course the husband will pay it all.

In regards to the OP, he makes more so he gets more. I'll be darned if I skim off some of my check to give to you so we are "even". Nah, not gonna happen. There will be a joint account and once the allotted amount has been drained you are done.

My preference, we both pay in the most equitable way possible. It's not for everyone though.

I think that's great, that's what works for you and that's what you like. Some women don't feel that way , some do to each its own.

 

[Mortons]

So I have a question for you. If a man is a schoolteacher and he makes $40,000 a year and he marries a woman lawyer who makes $100,000+ a year, how do you suggest he takes care of his family regardless of his wife's financial contribution?

Just curious.

They could live a 50k lifestyle and he foots the good majority of the bills. Her income could go into extras, savings, investment and retirement. When they are ready to retire (and that could be early due to not living on her income) they will have plenty to send their children to school on, vacation with, and live off of from IRA savings and investments.

It also makes sense to do that if she decides to take time off of work to have kids or something happens to her. Lifestyle is shifted so that there are no extras but he can still manage just fine without needing her to work.

 

[FemmeCreole]

But people were responding to the OP. That's both appropriate and expected. It's when people started getting butthurt at the responses that this thread started to go left.

Right. There was not this problem when people were responding to the op. An issue started when people starting stating their preferences in a manner that put down others who did things differently.

I personally am not offended by anything said in here but I can see the vitriol spewing from both sides.

 

[DragonPearl]

I said regardless of financial status, so he should as best as he can. Since his wife makes more hes lucky. It's not so much about money to me as its about the mans attitude.

What should his attitude be, and how would it manifest in concrete terms?

 

[SophieDulce]

Deja vu from the SAH dad thread. The type of woman who is okay with a man who makes very little money and/or much less money than her is not likely a woman who would hold the notion referenced in bold. She probably would consider the other attributes he brings to the table. Just my opinion.

Yeah obviously a woman who makes 60k more than her husband wasn't looking for a breadwinner in the first place.

 

[calliope]

They could live a 50k lifestyle and he foots the good majority of the bills. Her income could go into extras, savings, investment and retirement. When they are ready to retire (and that could be early due to not living on her income) they will have plenty to send their children to school on, vacation with, and live off of from IRA savings and investments.

It also makes sense to do that if she decides to take time off of work to have kids or something happens to her. Lifestyle is shifted so that there are no extras but he can still manage just fine without needing her to work.

Best post all day.

 

[carcajada]

My ex-SIL made more money than my brother. Mainly cuz my mother set her up in a lucrative field. So, as she re-located around the country following work, my brother's job prospects degraded. He was well established in our city, but moving around made it really difficult for him. Regardless, he worked two jobs for at least ten years even though he didn't have to. (This is *after* basically raising my niece as a single father while her mother went to school and work and totally taking care of the house.) Their quality of life would not have suffered, but he's old school and felt it was necessary. He's always been a hard worker.

In the long run, it wasn't enough for her, but he busted his butt to fulfill both of their expectations. He tried. :shrug:

But I understand her perspective as well.

slightly OT, I have seen women do this and get burned. They moved with their husbands who had very well paid careers and their husbands dropped them. Now they can't retire in their field until they're 80 and had to rely on very good lawyers for half of the compensation they deserved. So sad. Your brother is a good one.

 

[Honey Bee]

slightly OT, I have seen women do this and get burned. They moved with their husbands who had very well paid careers and their husbands dropped them. Now they can't retire in their field until they're 80 and had to rely on very good lawyers for half of the compensation they deserved. So sad. Your brother is a good one.

Yep. My niece, now in college, wrote a beautiful fb post about him on Father's Day, talking about how he basically raised her alone and that everything good about her comes from him and his side of the family. I would feel like crap if I was her mother.

He's a good guy. He got a new gf quickly while ex SIL is still quite alone and, apparently, pissy and stomping around the house. Oh well.

 

[DragonPearl]

They could live a 50k lifestyle and he foots the good majority of the bills. Her income could go into extras, savings, investment and retirement. When they are ready to retire (and that could be early due to not living on her income) they will have plenty to send their children to school on, vacation with, and live off of from IRA savings and investments.

It also makes sense to do that if she decides to take time off of work to have kids or something happens to her. Lifestyle is shifted so that there are no extras but he can still manage just fine without needing her to work.

So if I understand you, you are saying that the solution for women making $100K a year and who are married to men making significantly less, would be for the family to live at the man's income level while putting the woman's income away in other things (savings, investment, retirement etc), just so they can satisfy the rule that the man is paying the majority of the bills? But if the sex were reversed, and the man was the one making $100K, the couple would be expected to live at the $100K income level?

 

[natura87]

I think that's great, that's what works for you and that's what you like. Some women don't feel that way , some do to each its own.

YAAAAASSS!!!

 

[Ogoma]

They could live a 50k lifestyle and he foots the good majority of the bills. Her income could go into extras, savings, investment and retirement. When they are ready to retire (and that could be early due to not living on her income) they will have plenty to send their children to school on, vacation with, and live off of from IRA savings and investments.

It also makes sense to do that if she decides to take time off of work to have kids or something happens to her. Lifestyle is shifted so that there are no extras but he can still manage just fine without needing her to work.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

I have seen my friends get married and their bills double. Because they have two incomes, they want everything to be bigger. Live on one income has been my consistent theme in this thread. Use the rest for savings, topping up pension plan, access to investments with minimums that would have been out of reach, and angel investing.

 

[FemmeCreole]

So if I understand you, you are saying that the solution for women making $100K a year and who are married to men making significantly less, would be for the family to live at the man's income level while putting the woman's income away in other things (savings, investment, retirement etc), just so they can satisfy the rule that the man is paying the majority of the bills? But if the sex were reversed, and the man was the one making $100K, the couple would be expected to live at the $100K income level?

That's what I understand from her post as well. I guess it's in keeping with the man being the provider.

 

[TayMac]

So if I understand you, you are saying that the solution for women making $100K a year and who are married to men making significantly less, would be to live at the man's income level while putting their income away in other things (savings, investment, retirement etc), just so they can satisfy the rule that the man is paying the majority of the bills? But if the sex were reversed, and the man was the one making $100K, the couple would be expected to live at the $100K income level?

You didnt ask me but My opinion would be that you should not live a lifestyle at your max income level regardless of who is the breadwinner.

 

[calliope]

So if I understand you, you are saying that the solution for women making $100K a year and who are married to men making significantly less, would be for the family to live at the man's income level while putting the woman's income away in other things (savings, investment, retirement etc), just so they can satisfy the rule that the man is paying the majority of the bills? But if the sex were reversed, and the man was the one making $100K, the couple would be expected to live at the $100K income level?

I think it's awesome advice for both types of couples, but that's another thread.

 

[Honey Bee]

So if I understand you, you are saying that the solution for women making $100K a year and who are married to men making significantly less, would be for the family to live at the man's income level while putting the woman's income away in other things (savings, investment, retirement etc), just so they can satisfy the rule that the man is paying the majority of the bills? But if the sex were reversed, and the man was the one making $100K, the couple would be expected to live at the $100K income level?

I can see the inequity, but I think the thought process behind it is that, at some point, she'll have to stop working to have kids and possibly be a SAH. It makes sense to get comfortable with just his income.

 

[Mortons]

So if I understand you, you are saying that the solution for women making $100K a year and who are married to men making significantly less, would be for the family to live at the man's income level while putting the woman's income away in other things (savings, investment, retirement etc), just so they can satisfy the rule that the man is paying the majority of the bills? But if the sex were reversed, and the man was the one making $100K, the couple would be expected to live at the $100K income level?

I thought your question was how a man could take care of his family if he was making $50k and she was making $100k. Now if that was your question, then yes, that was my solution.

If the couple is not interested in "satisfying the traditional rules" then the question itself is moot.

 

[SophieDulce]

What should his attitude be, and how would it manifest in concrete terms?

Live off the smaller income or maybe about 65k. Pay off a home cash, free up bills so if the lawyer wife decides she wants to do something else or take time off if they have kids, there set. He prob would start a business or have other income coming in.

I follow mr money mustache blog I think they live off 30k. He set things up so that anything his wife does is optional not required.

 

[FemmeCreole]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

I have seen my friends get married and their bills double. Because they have two incomes, they want everything to be bigger. Live on one income has been my consistent theme in this thread. Use the rest for savings, topping up pension plan, access to investments with minimums that would have been out of reach, and angel investing.

So can they live on her 100k income and his 50k go to savings, investments etc?

 

[Ogoma]

So can they live on her 100k income and his 50k go to savings, investments etc?

No, especially if they plan on starting a family.

 

[DragonPearl]

Deja vu from the SAH dad thread. The type of woman who is okay with a man who makes very little money and/or much less money than her is not likely a woman who would hold the notion referenced in bold. She probably would consider the other attributes he brings to the table. Just my opinion.

I have not been in that SAH dad thread. I can only imagine how it went.

 

[SurferBabe]

The guy in the OP is a miser and was nickel and diming his future spouse.

Ain't nothing wrong with a woman who works and contributes her pay.

Ain't nothing wrong with a woman who works and keeps her pay for herself/kids/ groceries/ etc.

Ain't nothing wrong with a woman who doesn't work and has her husband pay 100% of the bills- I will say that she does need to have some kind of education/hustle/keep herself in shape, whatever for this arrangement.

There is something ABSOLUTELY wrong with a man who doesn't want equal or more than what he gets for himself than for his wife NO MATTER what she does or doesn't contribute.

A man's wife should be his precious pearl and needs to be treated as such- no matter if she works 80 hours a week or stays home. They are one body so, why does he want his behind to have more? A man who is stingy with his wife to the benefit of himself (I'm not talking debt reduction or agreed upon budget) is a dangerous man and should be avoided at all cost.

I don't know about anywhere else, but it is an old southern tradition for men to compete with other men over whose wife is better kept. No joke . If the woman earns less no one would ever know because she'd have the best car out of the two and the highest wardrobe budget. Then again, many men down here are very simple, at least where I live. A pickup truck (that he will work on every weekend ), sports memorabilia, and maybe some season tickets are all guys care about around here. Men complain (which is secretly bragging) about how much of "their" money the wife is out spending on the daily. I'm not saying this is a better set up, but maybe the girl in the OP is used to this.

 

[FemmeCreole]

No, especially if they plan on starting a family.

Well can they come down some to a happy medium? For instance if I make 100k on my own, I probably live a particular lifestyle. If I marry a man making half that, I would not be inclined to downgrade how I live so dramatically. So with his income we'd be able to save more even if we live on a 75k budget and save, invest the other 75k