Woman labelled 'out of touch' for complaining about 'stingy' weekly allowance from her partner as people tell her to 'get a grip on reality'
The anonymous British parent took to Mumsnet, where she revealed she's on a 12-month career break, and so needs funds from her boyfriend to cover overheads for her and their young son.
Despite her partner - who earns a salary in excess of £100,000 - covering 'mortgages and bills at the moment', she said she was 'irritated' that he gave her £150 a week, an amount she deemed 'stingy'.
She added that she sometimes has to pay for her own coffees and lunches at weekends and lamented that costs like car parking and £4.50 hot drinks 'added up'.
When she asked the forum if she was 'right' in her opinion, many told her that the money was 'plenty'.
'Am I out of touch or is he being stingy?' she titled her Mumsnet post.
'[I] recently agreed between us [my partner and I] that I would take a career break. I'm happy with this, I actually have a job to go to so it's a short break… more like 12 months' she continued.
The woman then explained that her and her boyfriend jointly decided to pull their son out of nursery so she would be his full time caregiver during the career break.
'Dear partner transfers around £150 a week for activities for me and dear son like soft play, lunch out etc. Any toys we might get while in the supermarket and so on' she added.
'He covers mortgage and bills at the moment and at weekends I might get a coffee or a lunch but as I'm not earning this comes from my savings'.
She admitted it was her idea to take a year off from employment and that she initially agreed to the financial agreement, but didn't anticipate the current state of things.
She suggested that what she liked most about the agreement was that their son would be able to spend less time at nursery and more time at home with his parents.
'I feel like £150 is a bit stingy and he doesn't understand that a coffee, for example, is £4.50 at lots of places' she lamented.
'Car parking, soft play, it all adds up!' she continued. 'I want to suggest he sends over another £50 but I know he will make a comment like get a flask for coffee etc which just makes me feel irritated.
'It's hard work being with a toddler all day! For context he's a high earner, a little over 100k'.
She concluded the post by asking if she was 'in the right' - but according to many who commented she was far from it.
The British mother vented on Mumsnet , where she revealed that she was on a 12 month career break and so needed funds from her boyfriend to cover overheads for her and their young son
In response to the post, one stay at home mother revealed that her own 'fun money' was £200 a month.
She wrote: 'I'm a stay at home mum in a very expensive part of the UK with three small children and our fun money is £200 a month. And my husband earns similar.
'The amount you are quoting would be for a food shop and petrol and kids clothes and presents and parties in our household'.
Someone else called the woman's situation a 'good deal': 'Indeed, some people have less than that for food shopping. You are getting a good deal'.
'Soft play isn't a daily thing' commented another person. 'There are many things you can do for free at that age. I'd be deeply unimpressed if my partner decided to stop work and then spent the week frittering the household income on coffee and lunch'.
'So £600 per month for fun? Sounds pretty good to me' agreed another.
Other people made a mockery of her post, while some questioned if her request for more than £150 a week could even be real.
'Exactly how many coffees are you drinking?' joked one person.
She asked the forum if she was 'right' in her observations, to which many told her that the money was 'plenty'
'This can't be real?' asked someone else.
Meanwhile one person told the mother-of-one to 'get a grip on reality', writing: 'You've chosen to take the career break, and you should be budgeting for your own expenses during this time.
'Your husband/partner isn't responsible for buying you £4.50 coffees because you feel like you want one. He's already covering all the running costs of the home, you are being extremely unreasonable. Probably time you went back to work and got a grip on reality'.
Elsewhere, one woman thought it 'reasonable' to request more funds, adding that as the couple were no longer paying nursery fees, the equivalent saved should go to the poster.
She wrote: 'Given the amount he earns, I think it would be reasonable for him to give you the equivalent of what he would otherwise spend on childcare. This would be a lot more than £150!
'I am surprised everyone thinks £150 is massively generous, from a guy earning that salary, which he is only able to do because his wife is providing all child care. (I dare say you pick up the majority of the house work currently, also?)'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Students urged to ‘take stock' before accepting degree places on lower grades
Students should 'take stock' and think carefully before accepting a degree place on lower entry grades, a university sector chief has said. Hundreds of thousands of students in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will receive their A-level results on Thursday, with many finding out whether they have secured a place at their first choice university. Vivienne Stern, chief executive of Universities UK (UUK), said some universities in the country are 'really keen' this year to recruit 'as many students as they can' due to pressures facing the sector. University leaders have been warning of financial pressures due to uncertainty about the recruitment of overseas students as well as years of frozen tuition fees by domestic students. Speaking ahead of A-level results day on Thursday, Ms Stern told the PA news agency: 'We have seen some evidence of universities dropping grades in order to fill places.' She said: '(Students) should take stock of whether what they're being offered is right for them.' It has been suggested that some universities are offering incentives and relaxing offers to fill places. Ms Stern told PA: 'It's a bit of a buyer's market this admissions round.' She said: 'It's been a very competitive admissions cycle from the institutional perspective. 'We know that some universities are offering places to students with lower grades than they might have done in the past. 'From a student point of view that might be really good news. 'Although I would just say think very carefully about what's right for you.' On the day before A-level results day, a PA sample of 129 of the UK's largest higher education providers showed there were 22,518 courses with vacancies for undergraduate students living in England on the Ucas clearing site – which matches applicants to university places yet to be filled. A similar analysis last year – carried out by PA on the day before A-level results day and looking at the same range of institutions – showed there were 22,774 courses with vacancies on the clearing site. Eighteen of the 24 Russell Group universities, which represent some of the most selective UK institutions, had vacancies on courses for English residents – a total of 3,492 courses between them. A similar analysis last year, the day before A-level results day, showed 17 of the 24 Russell Group universities had vacancies on courses for English residents – a total of 3,500 courses between them. Clearing is available to students who do not meet the conditions of their offer on A-level results day, as well as those who did not receive any offers. Students who have changed their mind about what or where they wish to study, and those who have applied outside the normal application window, can also use clearing. Ms Stern advised students waiting for their grades to spend some time familiarising themselves with the Ucas system and to look at the clearing site. She said: 'There are plenty of options available and whatever's happened it's almost certainly not a disaster and it won't be the end of everything. 'So take a big deep breath and don't panic.' Last week, Jo Saxton, head of Ucas, suggested a record number of 18-year-olds are expected to wake up on A-level results day to the news that they have been successful in securing their first-choice university. Ucas figures released last month revealed that the number of offers made to prospective undergraduate students from universities and colleges has reached a record high this year. Lee Elliot Major, professor of social mobility at the University of Exeter, told PA: 'Some universities are now in survival mode — offering incentives, ramping up marketing, and relaxing offers to fill places. 'We must make every effort to ensure that students from all backgrounds are also well prepared and supported to succeed in their degrees.' Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) think tank, said: 'It is a good year for applicants in the sense that demand is pretty flat so universities are having to fight over themselves to win new students. 'Universities do not want to have to close courses and make staff redundant but they will need to if they cannot fill their places.' Mike Nicholson, director of recruitment, admissions and participation at the University of Cambridge, said there had been a drift for students applying more to the well-known and 'more reputable universities' in recent years. The expert said that he was expecting more students to be looking in clearing for opportunities to do internships or placements as part of their degree. Mr Nicholson told PA: 'I think what we're probably seeing is students looking carefully at what the degree outcomes might be. 'We've seen a shift towards engineering degrees, mathematics degrees, associated degrees in medicine. 'They're all up significantly this year in applications.' Joanna Burton, head of policy (higher education) at the Russell Group, said: 'There is always some flexibility in offer-making decisions, and students may find they are accepted with grades slightly different to the advertised offer. 'However, our universities only admit students who show evidence they can meet the rigour of the course.' She said: 'While there appears to be some flattening out of the application rate among 18-year-olds, our universities are still seeing strong demand for courses that offer high-quality teaching and promising career prospects – and they're working hard to meet this demand.'
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Don Jr says his family got into crypto after banks refused to do business after Jan 6 ‘nonsense'
Donald Trump Jr. says his family 'didn't have a choice' but to get into crypto because banks didn't want to do business with them after January 6, 2021, referring to the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol as 'all the nonsense.' 'We got into crypto because we didn't have a choice,' the president's eldest son said on Fox & Friends Wednesday morning while discussing his family's cryptocurrency business's $1.5 billion digital coin deal. The Trump family's crypto business, World Liberty Finance, announced Monday that technology firm ALT5 Sigma would make a big purchase of its digital coin, $WLFI. ALT5 said it would sell $1.5 billion worth of shares, then use that money to purchase the Trump signature digital coin, which the family founded last year. 'Every major banking institution, the people that, two weeks before we were debanked, we could've called and gotten a loan in five seconds. They disappeared. We were left high and dry,' he said. 'Basically, during the first term, certainly after the…let's call it January 6… all the nonsense, it got significantly worse,' he said, referring to the deadly mob of his father's supporters who stormed the Capitol in an attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. Five people, including one police officer, died and several more were injured when the pro-Trump mob breached the Capitol building. The president granted roughly 1,500 people convicted of January 6-related crimes pardons immediately after taking office in January. 'We weren't even early crypto guys, but we figured, if they can debank the Trump Organization, if they can debank us, who can't they go after? And more importantly, who won't they go after?' he continued. Trump Jr. said that instead of going home and 'go cry in a corner,' they decided to launch World Liberty Financial, which he described as the future of banking. 'What we're doing with World Liberty Financial, I think, is going to shake up the entire banking system. It is literally the future of finance,' he said. Joining Trump Jr. on the segment was his brother, Eric Trump, and World Liberty Financial's co-founder and CEO Zach Witkoff, who said they were looking to 'democratize' the financial system. 'Put power back in the hands of the people, instead of the big boogy man behind the curtain,' Witkoff said. Following the Fox appearance, the three men went to ring Nasdaq's opening bell to celebrate the closing of ALT5's $1.5 billion offering.
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The UK's bank ringfencing doesn't need large-scale reform
One reason to worry about the chancellor's plan for deregulation in the financial services sector is the dramatic language in which she pitched it. Rachel Reeves's metaphor in her Mansion House speech last month about regulation in too many areas acting as 'a boot on the neck of business' felt wildly over the top when you remember why tougher financial rules were needed in the banking sector in the first place. It was because the light-touch regulatory era caused the whole economy to be clobbered in the collapses of 2008-09. In the event, it took until 2019 to fully implement the centrepiece of the clean-up operation – bank ringfencing, which requires UK banks of a certain size to separate their retail and investment banking activities. Now, six years later – no time at all in the grand scheme – the Treasury, lobbied by most of the big banks, is contemplating 'meaningful' changes to ringfencing in the interests of economic growth. It feels far too soon to try anything radical. The definition of 'meaningful' is vague, it should be said. Outright abolition of ringfencing is off the table, thankfully, and some of the possibilities floated by the Treasury could be viewed as innocuous. Letting banks share back-office resources across the ringfence? Yes, that could be regarded as mere housekeeping. Allowing ringfenced banks to provide more products to UK businesses? Possibly, if we're talking about low-octane services. But the details do matter. The danger is that, if you create too many holes in the fence, you end up defeating the purpose of the construct. There are at least three reasons why Reeves should drop the inflammatory language and err on the side of caution. First, remember the primary goal: to ensure the state never has to bail out banks again – at least not the riskier trading activities. The plea from reformists is that other measures, such as stiffer capital requirements and 'living wills' to organise an orderly wind-down, do the same job. Yet ringfencing is surely genuinely different because it is a structural measure – the core UK deposit-taking operations have to sit inside their own legal entity. Maximum protection for the deposit-taking core still feels a sound principle given what happened in 2008-09, and how the whole of the wretched Royal Bank of Scotland was dragged down. Second, ringfencing may lower funding costs for banks. The perception of greater resilience should, in theory, attract a funding bonus. Put another way, regulators – with their eye on the overall stability of the system – might demand even higher capital buffers if ringfencing were to be meaningfully weakened. Would-be abolitionists grumble about the costs of trapped capital. Fair enough, but they probably wouldn't like bigger capital buffers either. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Third, if the chancellor's aim is more growth, why make it easier for UK banks to chase higher returns outside the UK? She should listen to the commonsense point made by Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England: 'Removing the ringfence would most likely have a negative effect on UK lending, both in terms of cost and quantities.' If ringfencing has meant cheaper mortgages, it would be a political risk for a chancellor to mess with the formula. None of which is to pretend that ringfencing has been a free lunch. Friction and expense clearly exist – the big banks spent a small fortune setting up the structures and have to carry extra overheads. Competition may also have suffered as big ringfenced banks have concentrated on UK mortgage lending and smaller banks have been forced towards riskier lending. Visions of a post-crisis world full of dynamic 'challenger' banks never materialised. But that is just to say that trade-offs exist. For the UK – a country that simply cannot afford another crisis like 2008's – financial stability should still be the priority. A few minor fiddles might be an improvement because no design is perfect. But major reform is not needed.
