If a woman gives up work to look after their children, should a man give her money from his salary?

Question

... to make up for her lost wages?

And vice-versa.

Answer 1

Well you should share everything in a marriage surely. They would both realise that there would be less money coming into the household.

Answer 2

Absolutely because they're his kids too which you're raising...creches would be a lot dearer.  I think couples should always share anyway whether they have kids or not.

Answer 3

If you're married, don't you already share the money? It is hers anyways.

Answer 4

Ideally she'd just have access to his account, and he would trust her not to over spend on herself out of the account that he supports.

Generally women start working again once the children start going to school, because then they can at least work while the child is in school.

Answer 5

surely if you are together, then you already share money.

Its a bit sad if a couple starts counting pennys and drawing a line down the middle of everything.

Answer 6

I'm assuming said man is husband. He should make sure she doesn't want for anything. If that means an "allowance" than so be it.

-I agree. Pre-feminist. Even the question is too feminist. "Make up for lost wages"? It sounds like a business arrangement instead of love.

-Hahaha! "Lost wages"!?!?  Will you have your lawyer present when you negotiate the amount?

Answer 7

Ideally, she'd keep all of her earnings in a separate account and use it for her own spending. Sadly, not too many women consider this.

Answer 8

I think it is the responsibility of the parents to look after their kids. I don't think we have to be paid for looking after our own children. However, it is the responsibility of the father to provide for all the expenses of the kids and the mother.

Answer 9

I thought that was the whole point of being supported.

Answer 10

IMO, you are looking at it all wrong.  There are no "lost wages."   Choosing to stop working in favor of parenting means accepting a different lifestyle.

While I like the idea of each partner retaining some of her/his own money, the reality is that it costs a certain amount to run a household with children.  When one partner makes a drastic change that afffects the flow of money , ALL members of the household will feel it.   If it is a priority to have one parent at home with the children, then the whole family must adjust to living on the reduced income.

Depending on whether the total household income can meet the total expenses, personal money may become a luxury that is sacrificed.

For a number of years while I was a SAHM, my husband and I each received a small "allowance" every payday for personal use.  The rest was pooled into the household budget, general savings and long term investments - which are in both of our names.

Answer 11

Yes, and vice versa.

Answer 12

when you choose to be an at home mom then yes the father of your child should support you. Some see the word support as in the basic needs but when you give up your money for your child then the father should respect that and be there wo give you the things you need which include clothing and all those things. No mom should have to sit home because she chose to stay home with the kids. She still deserves to be able to go out and have money in her pocket. We give up alot as mothers, especially thise of us who stay home. We deserve to be taken care of. Maybe my hubby has just spoiled me but I think he thinks i really deserve the things I get. He works and I take care of everything else. When he gets paid it goes straight to our bank account, I pay the bills, grocery shop, and then split the rest up where i see fit once everything is taken care of. He also realizes that if I didn't take such good care of his finances he would be in bad shape and not have some of the things that he has. I am very picky about where our money goes and knows that benefits us much more than him trying to be greedy. I hope your childs Dad will do the same.

Answer 13

Spouses should support each other and parents should support their children. If the numbers become an issue seek a councillor not an accountant.

Answer 14

I suppose we all have different ideas, but we just have one pot so to speak.

Many years ago when I first had two of my children I did not have to work, my Husbands wages were enough.  Lucky old me, so we just had one bank account and I took whatever I needed.  I did not see it as wages it was just a team effort. My job was the home and all that goes with it, if I needed anything for myself I just got it.   I even managed to put extra money away for a rainy day in a secret account and then when I had enough I booked a special holiday for us all.  Those were the days.      How strange it is now that I have to work to keep us afloat and all our kids are grown up, yet we never seem to have enough even for luxuries.  Just goes to show you the state of the economy.

Answer 15

Yes that's kinda normal or was in the pre-feminist era

Answer 16

Don't they?  That's what happened in my family when my mom was a stay-at-home mom.  Actually, she still gets money from my dad even though she's working, although he can get money from her too.

I'm personally a beliver in most of the money going into a joint account.  But I'd think he should if she stays at home, and vice versa.  How else is she going to get any money?  She is taking care of the kids.

Answer 17

Giving a woman an allowance is kind of stupid when most couples I know of share the expenses as a team anyways.

Answer 18

yes he's supposed to support her n the kids its his job

Answer 19

If it is a decision made by both in a relationship then yes, if the man has extra cash, otherwise i'm sure the man would still pay for basics; food, bills, clothes. If it is solely the womans choice then I don't think the man should be expected to give any extra cash to the woman, he should have a choice, but of course it would be nice of him to do so.

Answer 20

I believe the working partner should take care of the stay at home partner and their children, but not necessarily give him/her a salary out of his/her checks.

The only problem I have with that is when the working partner uses the fact that they control the finances to assert power over the stay at home partner.

In any situation, the working partner should recognize that the work the stay at home partner is doing is equal.  Imagine the list of duties required when one stays at home.  I wonder what that salary would be equal to!

Answer 21

Here's what seems to work well for a lot of people I know.  

All earnings go into a joint account which is used for all household expenditure.  Partners agree on an amount for personal spending which is debited from the joint account to each partner's individual  account - this gives each partner some 'me' money for buying presents, treats etc.  and saves a lot of petty arguments.  

If there is money to spare at the end of the month it goes into savings accounts - partners agree how much goes to saving for childrens' future and whether to have a joint savings account or individual savings accounts.  

This system takes care of all the joint spending and allows each person individual control over their personal spending and it seems to work well in both single and double income homes.

Looking after children is work and should be regarded as such, but thinking of it as a 'wage'  or an 'allowance' can make a simple issue complicated - no responsible adult who is doing any kind of work should have to ask another adult for money, and this system avoids the 'dependent partner' mindset.

Answer 22

Does not matter.In marriage everything is 50/50 regardless of who makes more or any at all.

All assets are owned equaly.

Why do you think they call it marriage anyway.

*Edit*

If we are not talking about marriage then what are we talking about?

If the man and woman is not together then why is he supporting her or visa versa.

It does'nt make sense.