Gone Part time - What's reasonable contribution to joint account?

ThemisG

Hi

Hoping to get some advice to see what is a reasonable contribution for both parents to pay to a joint account which funds the household bills, mortgage, children's expenses.

Due to a health condition and issues with childcare my employer will allow me to go part time, 2 days a week is the offer. This means a 60% pay cut a difference of €1600 net per month.

My husband earns 90k, civil service, with annual pay rises. He pays 2500 and I paid 1200. I cover all of my own expenses, car, medical, prescriptions and my days out with the kids. The new take home pay would be €1400.

My personal costs are greater than this so would have to make cut backs. And means there's nothing left to contribute to the joint account.

Is it reasonable that due to my circumstances and caring for our children (when not in playschool / sick etc, he travels a lot) that I don't contribute financially to joint expenses? Is taking a pay cut of 60% and stalling my career, to mind the children a good enough contribution? What is reasonable and fair? This arrangement would change when the children start school.

Hannibal_Smith

Mod note

After discussion with the OP opening post editted and thread reopened. A reminder that asking for/offering legal advice is not permitted.

Thanks

HS

spaceHopper

If you are not well enough to work full time you should be on sick pay or disability pay of some kind. From their point of view you are choosing to cut your income and that, this could work to your advantage or against them in the coming divorce. If it the roles was reversed you probably wouldn't agree to it either.

Neyite

In our house we've always pooled our money. Sometimes he's been the higher earner, sometimes I've been. At the moment I'm the temporary sole income. That works for us, but might not for another family.

Contribution to family isn't just about money. Things like dentist /doctor appointments, school meetings, extra curricular stuff all take time in the day and are necessary for kids. And if one person reduces their hours in order to be that person who does all that family admin then it is a valuable contribution in itself because it gives the higher earner extra flexibility in the workplace, which often leads to extra opportunities for advancement and for pay rises. That in turn leads to greater pension contributions and so on.

So probably the fairest way of splitting the difference is a proportional % system. You also have to factor in things like your own pension contributions that might be affected by part time hours, and any CPD issues that might arise if you are out of the workplace for a few years. But having said that, because those three days a week you are doing the family admin stuff, then you both should get equal discretionary spends. Household chores should be split proportionally as well - you staying at home for 3 days doesn't mean that you take on 100% of that either. You might get 90% of those done during the days you are home, so your partner should pick up the 10% after work, but on the days you are both working, it's a 50/50 split.

If your personal spends are higher, due to say, paying a loan for a car the family use, or stuff for the kids then that's a family item, and treated as a household bill rather than a personal spend. On the other hand, if your personal spends are things like handbag shopping - that comes out of your discretionary allowance.

It's important though that you both talk it through. You can't decide to make a life changing decision for yourself and then expect your partner to pick up the slack without discussion and agreement. The same goes for finances. Like I said above, my husband for the next few months has no income. He left his job with my full support and we talked about how we would manage financially together and came to an agreement.

If you both are at an impasse and can't agree, maybe a meeting with a financial planner might help?

marilynrr

I saw this post before it was locked and the edit changes it a lot.

The original said you had split up but were still living together? Is that correct?

What's reasonable and fair and conducive to a happy healthy balance in finances in a relationship is going to be very different to an arrangement that's made if you are not together anymore and 'winding' down the relationship so you might get a lot of advice or opinions that are not going to be relevant to your situation so it's pretty pointless. Can you clarify?