Wealthy husband won't spend any money

He will never changes and you are so young. My mother in law was so tight and when she died she left a lot of money. She would walk in torrential rain instead of getting a taxi. Hubby inherited it along with his brother and he invested most of it. It belonged to his parents so I didn’t expect a penny and its a good job because I got nothing. I was lucky enough to be able to work until I was 62 and managed to save a little bit of money. I wish you well but you are entitled to a life with some fun.

I have high rate pip because of my rheumatoid arthritis and other health issues. I guess i'm just frustrated we aren't enjoying the money together, we always talked about the things we would do when both retired, I can do things on my own of course. I had a lovely holiday to Menorca with my grown up daughter in May. He didn't want to come, had things to do, around the house, apparently. This thread has made me realise, that perhaps I am the problem. Perhaps he just doesn't want to do those things with me

Debbi58 You say you gave up work and have got Rheumatoid Arthritis - have you thought about applying for Personal Independence Payment (PIP)? If you manage to get it, the lower rate is £405.40 every 4 weeks.

Going out for lunch more - would he "let" you pay?
Ditto something like cinema or whatever?

keepcalm suggests picnics.
Some activities are free - have they been suggested?

I suspect he is like someone I know. As you say, happy to potter in the garage and watch tv.

My late DH always acknowledged that without my support he could never have attained the career (and earnings) he achieved.
Living away from home during the week and often periods abroac, I was a SAHM looking after 2DDs - later one disabled, with a daily 50 mile round trip to school, at least 6 dogs to feed and exercise, plus my beautiful bedbound Mum and elderly Dad to help too. Chuck in a bit of voluntary work as well.
However, we had always had a joint account, the bulk of the savings were in my name and I did all the financial stuff. He didn’t begrudge me a penny, but his idea of a holiday was a week at home, exercising and training his dogs properly.
I accepted that and arranged holidays at home and abroad for the DDs and myself. Even when DH took early retirement in ‘05, I still did the finances. He was never keen on holidays and they weren’t really on the cards, although I persuaded him to do a Nile cruise (I’d said I’d go alone) and 2 trips to New York.
Fortunately, I was able to holiday with the DDs, friends and my Sis-in-Law and still do.

I think Debbie you might have to accept your DH’s outlook - as disappointing as that is for you. He might enjoy garden centre lunches and walks as my DH grew to, but with your own funds, maybe do your own thing, but worth reminding him it’s your money as well as his!!
I’d also tell him he’s a long time dead. Sounds drastic, but many of us on GN lost our DHs long before their hard earned money ran out!

My late husband and I, from the day we became engaged, had a joint account, both our wages went into the account, what what his was mine and what was mine was his and my husband earned a heck of a lot more than I did but it was an equal partnership for nearly 60 years.

I have not read anywhere on this forum that Debbi58 does not share a joint account with her husband, all she has stated is that her husband does not like spending money but that does not mean she does not have any money of her own. Perhaps she could go on holiday on her own but prefers to go with her husband.

I think her husband is selfish for refusing to go on holiday or spend money on a meal out and I don't think he will change. There must have been signs before they married that he was the kind of person that hates spending money.

Germanshepherdsmum

It seems you have no money but want to spend his. How about being grateful that he is keeping you and has been for years, rather than expecting him to take you on expensive holidays. It’s his money, probably accumulated through hard work and being careful, it’s not yours.

Condemnatory tone springs to mind.

Germanshepherdsmum

I have never been kept by a man and never will be. My marriage is and always has been an equal partnership, neither of us subsidises the other.

But that is your position. Not everyone is able to be in that position or may choose to be.

Germanshepherdsmum
You can have an "equal partnership" without having equal funds you know.

I have earned much less than my husband overall but have brought an inheritance into the marriage. We both spend what we want to without needing to get permission.
We are both aware of what we need to run the house however and do discuss "expensive" things - such as building a brick shed or spending on family outings!

My pension is peanuts and my husband's more "sensible" - both go into the same pots and we both see them as "ours".

It may not suit you but it's not unknown to work.

The OP has been supported for 4 years - it makes me wonder why her husband retired so early if he was anxious about funds.
Maybe he was miserable at work.
Now at least he is happy at home I suppose.

There's more to money that makes a partnership.

Debbi58, there are masses of things to do for free or very little. Especially at this time of year. Pack a nice picnic and get out there. I bet the more you get out together and have good times the more receptive he'll become to slightly more 'spendy' activities!

The problem lies with there being an uneven balance in wages though. My husband earns 6 times my wage so we have a joint bank account. He also does the housework and makes me a packed lunch. He's never once suggested I'm a kept wife and I don't really feel like one as he's never suggested I not work (I work full time) Anyway this is besides the point.

David of course you should take respite

Debbie, I don;t think it is unfair of you to expect more leisure time with your husband. Maybe it is something he can slowly get used to doing. Book small trips here and there

biglouis

I agree with GSM to a degree that a woman should always work (if she is physically able) and not depend upon a man for money. Its something to do with self respect and self image. The days of the male breadwinner and the "little woman at home" in a supporting role are long gone.

So, why not envisage a powerful, valuable woman in the home playing a complementary, every bit as important role ( assuming there are children to be cared for)?
And, by that token, should a man not ‘depend’ on a woman to carry out household tasks?

I agree with GSM to a degree that a woman should always work (if she is physically able) and not depend upon a man for money. Its something to do with self respect and self image. The days of the male breadwinner and the "little woman at home" in a supporting role are long gone.

Germanshepherdsmum

It seems you have no money but want to spend his. How about being grateful that he is keeping you and has been for years, rather than expecting him to take you on expensive holidays. It’s his money, probably accumulated through hard work and being careful, it’s not yours.

Ouch! You could also say he should be grateful that she has ‘kept house’ for him, as there’s more than money can be contributed to a marriage!
Would he maybe agree to setting a sum aside every month to pay for holidays etc, which could be booked according to how much is in the ‘pot’?

Germanshepherdsmum

I have never been kept by a man and never will be. My marriage is and always has been an equal partnership, neither of us subsidises the other.

That’s fine for you, probably the majority of couples are not equal, surely treating each other equally is not a unreasonable expectation if they are married.

Germanshepherdsmum

It seems you have no money but want to spend his. How about being grateful that he is keeping you and has been for years, rather than expecting him to take you on expensive holidays. It’s his money, probably accumulated through hard work and being careful, it’s not yours.

Wow!

I'm not sure how to respond to individuals comments. So I will answer some here.
He has always been financially secure , being an only child, to well off parents. He has always worked and so have I until a few years ago, I have paid in enough to receive a full state pension, i do know how much money we have and have access to it now and I'm his sole beneficiary in our wills. I have 2 grown up daughters from my first marriage. He has 2 from a early marriage, they are not in his life . So if he dies before me , I will be a weathly widow , without the man I hoped to spend my life with. I do like the comments about being a kept woman though

I have never been kept by a man and never will be. My marriage is and always has been an equal partnership, neither of us subsidises the other.

Maybe I haven't explained myself very well, the point I was trying to make, is that I would like us to enjoy the money / retirement together. I have some saving of my own from before we met. I also have 3 sisters that I could go out with any time . We are having a lovely trip to Bath Spa tomorrow, to celebrate my recent birthday. I guess I expected bring a married couple, we would do more together.

Hear hear Farzanah.

Else, have some sort of system in place[and hope it sticks] re finances, before getting married, if finances are very unequal.

Germanshepherdsmum

It seems you have no money but want to spend his. How about being grateful that he is keeping you and has been for years, rather than expecting him to take you on expensive holidays. It’s his money, probably accumulated through hard work and being careful, it’s not yours.

That’s a bit over the top.

Couples marry to share their life and both contribute what they can, a spouse “shares” the marital wealth and if they divorce will take part of it with them.
It applies in exactly the same way regardless of who has the most wealth.

The OPs husband needs to realize that if he does not satisfy her “needs” she will leave him, which is going to cost a lot more than a few weekend away and a nice holiday each year.

I believe that when you commit to marry someone you commit also to a sharing partnership, otherwise what is the point?

I can understand if a partner is profligate with money that it may be a problem, but if not, surely there is an obligation to support one another and take care of each other’s reasonable needs. Going on holiday and out for a meal is reasonable, if it is affordable IMO.

I don’t see any point in committing to a permanent partnership otherwise. I couldn’t.

eazybee

He is probably financially secure because he is 'careful' and thrifty. My father was the same, after a lifetime of supporting his mother as well as my mother and me. Remind him that savings will evaporate once he /you need care in old age, and that Labour will most definitely target his money with taxes and charges to pay for the improvident.

But he's only 59. It's all well and good to be thrifty but he might not live a long life.

My father had cancer and died when he was 55. Having had 4 children and got us off his hands he was beginning to enjoy some of the finer things of life. My Mother had Alzheimers and died a few years later.

My FIL lived to be 90, my MIL having died some years before him. I remember him saying that he wished they had done more things, holidays perhaps, whilst they were able to, rather than keep saving.

It seems you have no money but want to spend his. How about being grateful that he is keeping you and has been for years, rather than expecting him to take you on expensive holidays. It’s his money, probably accumulated through hard work and being careful, it’s not yours.

Do either of you have children?
Is he concerned about "legacy"?