4
   

Should you pay her to have our baby?

 
 
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2022 05:38 am
I was listening to my morning radio program and they were discussing this story. Wanted to get your take on it.

A couple, not married but had a committal ceremony several years ago, decided they wanted to have a baby. They do not have a joint account and none of their funds are combined. They both work in corporate America and the woman makes around $100k a year. She feels that if she gets pregnant and has to take maternity leave she would be losing around $50k while she's out. Since "they" decided they wanted to have a baby she feels that he should compensate her the $50k while she's out.

Women who are surrogates for couples probably don't make that much during the pregnancy but since she is having their child she wants him to make up what she's going to be losing while she's out.

How do you feel about this? Should he make up the difference in her salary to have their child?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 4 • Views: 249 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2022 06:02 am
She's going to be out of work for six months? She does not have any short term disability? Seems high a half year salary. But maybe if she us considering any medical she may need to pay.

To me if they make this agreement they should split the costs in half. So if it were determined her cost of having a baby was $50k he should pay $25 k towards these costs ...which I think is far to consider in the cost of money she would have made while on maternity leave. Same as going forward ... It is similar to say paying for child care...I would think they each would pay half.
Barry2021
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2022 06:18 am
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:

She's going to be out of work for six months? She does not have any short term disability? Seems high a half year salary. But maybe if she us considering any medical she may need to pay.

To me if they make this agreement they should split the costs in half. So if it were determined her cost of having a baby was $50k he should pay $25 k towards these costs ...which I think is far to consider in the cost of money she would have made while on maternity leave. Same as going forward ... It is similar to say paying for child care...I would think they each would pay half.


Yeah, I thought that too. Women who take maternity leave still get paid, just a percentage less. It's not like she's going to not be getting anything. You want a baby but don't want to lose any money in the process. What do you think will happen to that $100k a year salary once the baby is here? A good portion of that will be going towards the baby. Yes, he should pay half of the expenses after the baby is here but I don't think he needs to pay $50k before the baby gets here. Husbands don't pay their wives to have babies or compensate them for whatever salary they will lose so why would you think you deserve it simply because you're a girlfriend in corporate America? Now we're getting into the category of "push presents" which is something I will never understand. Giving a woman a gift simply because she had a baby. If you don't want to lose any money then don't have a baby with your live-in boyfriend.
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2022 06:29 am
@Barry2021,
Actually I don't think you got what I wrote ... I do think it is fair that he compensates her ...but for half of what her costs are..her costs can be the loss of salary she would have made. But they should also consider anything that is covered from disability so if say she is taking off 6 months...gets 3 months 100% paid short term disability, her lost wages are $25k. Since they share the child and any costs associated with the child...he pays her half the $25k.

The difference to me here vs most married couples is that typically married couples pool their money together...so there is no point in a husband paying for list work wages as all your money is the same.

One other thing to consider is if the dad is going to take any paternity time off and what would be his lost wages .... To be fair you should
consider both situations.


engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2022 07:22 am
@Barry2021,
Barry2021 wrote:

Women who take maternity leave still get paid, just a percentage less. It's not like she's going to not be getting anything.

That depends on the company. My employer pays for eight weeks of maternity leave (2 weeks before, 6 after) and then unpaid for the remaining time up to six months. My understanding is that is fairly generous in corporate America.
Quote:
Husbands don't pay their wives to have babies or compensate them for whatever salary they will lose

Sure they do. Husbands pick up all the financial load when that second paycheck stops coming in. It may be disguised because the funds are comingled but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. He is now covering the entire rent, grocery bill, utility bill. The entire family switches up its spending to account for more expenses and less income.

Kind of weird to see this as just a financial transaction, but if I were to approach it that way...
4.5 months of unpaid leave = $37.5k
After taxes = $22.5k (he would be giving her post tax dollars)
Assuming each parent pays half = $11,250.

That's actually pretty fair. $2500 per month to cover living expenses while she is out would be great if they could afford it. Based on their income and my guess about their lifestyle, I think that would cover rent, utilities and food. Of course it would make a lot more sense to live together to reduce expenses and help with childcare, but that's not the question.

In the end, taking time off for the child is going to cost some money. It doesn't make sense that only the mother's savings will be depleted if this is a joint decision, so I guess it makes sense. I wouldn't call it "paying" the mother as much as sharing the burden.
Yalow
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2022 11:46 am
Quote:
Should he make up the difference in her salary to have their child?

...Yes.
0 Replies
 
Barry2021
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2022 12:40 pm
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:

Actually I don't think you got what I wrote ... I do think it is fair that he compensates her ...but for half of what her costs are..her costs can be the loss of salary she would have made. But they should also consider anything that is covered from disability so if say she is taking off 6 months...gets 3 months 100% paid short term disability, her lost wages are $25k. Since they share the child and any costs associated with the child...he pays her half the $25k.

The difference to me here vs most married couples is that typically married couples pool their money together...so there is no point in a husband paying for list work wages as all your money is the same.

One other thing to consider is if the dad is going to take any paternity time off and what would be his lost wages .... To be fair you should
consider both situations.





So if he takes paternity leave should she compensate him or should that just be a wash?
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2022 12:47 pm
@Barry2021,
Depends - if it is a wash - but the same applies. Whatever he is out they split the cost in half.

If they make exactly the same and the net cost is the same then yes it is a wash and neither pays the other.
0 Replies
 
Barry2021
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2022 01:00 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

Barry2021 wrote:

Women who take maternity leave still get paid, just a percentage less. It's not like she's going to not be getting anything.

That depends on the company. My employer pays for eight weeks of maternity leave (2 weeks before, 6 after) and then unpaid for the remaining time up to six months. My understanding is that is fairly generous in corporate America.
Quote:
Husbands don't pay their wives to have babies or compensate them for whatever salary they will lose

Sure they do. Husbands pick up all the financial load when that second paycheck stops coming in. It may be disguised because the funds are comingled but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. He is now covering the entire rent, grocery bill, utility bill. The entire family switches up its spending to account for more expenses and less income.

Kind of weird to see this as just a financial transaction, but if I were to approach it that way...
4.5 months of unpaid leave = $37.5k
After taxes = $22.5k (he would be giving her post tax dollars)
Assuming each parent pays half = $11,250.

That's actually pretty fair. $2500 per month to cover living expenses while she is out would be great if they could afford it. Based on their income and my guess about their lifestyle, I think that would cover rent, utilities and food. Of course it would make a lot more sense to live together to reduce expenses and help with childcare, but that's not the question.

In the end, taking time off for the child is going to cost some money. It doesn't make sense that only the mother's savings will be depleted if this is a joint decision, so I guess it makes sense. I wouldn't call it "paying" the mother as much as sharing the burden.


No, this is not to just cover living expenses while she's out. They live together so that is going to be covered regardless. She expects him to give her the $50k she'd be losing by having their child, not "honey, can you take care of the mortgage while I'm on maternity leave?" "The car payment is due soon, can you take care of that?" This is about him paying her the difference in her salary since she'll be taking maternity leave. Over the time she's off work he'll give her the $50k or whatever she won't be making.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2022 01:02 pm
@Barry2021,
Do you have a link to the story? Your original post said they have completely separate finances. If they mixed their finances, he would effectively be getting half of her salary and she would be getting half of his. When hers stopped, she would still be getting half of his. The only thing that makes this unusual is the separate finances.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2022 01:19 pm
Is this the story?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/shelbyheinrich/woman-wants-money-for-baby
Barry2021
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2022 01:25 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

Do you have a link to the story? Your original post said they have completely separate finances. If they mixed their finances, he would effectively be getting half of her salary and she would be getting half of his. When hers stopped, she would still be getting half of his. The only thing that makes this unusual is the separate finances.


There was no link to a story as the radio DJs were just discussing it on the air. One of them found it on a website and I don't think they mentioned the site but they did say that since they were not "technically" married they still had separate accounts. They had some sort of spiritual committal ceremony a few years back but not an actual wedding with a marriage license and all the stuff that goes along with it.

I'm just looking at it at face vbalue not in regards to joint money or him helping out with her portion of the bills. She wants him to give her what she'll be losing by being on maternity leave and that being around the total of $50k. Wire transfer or you just write her a check.
0 Replies
 
Barry2021
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2022 01:31 pm
@engineer,


Reading it now but yes, that sounds like the story.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2022 01:38 pm
@Barry2021,
Yes, he should put some money into her accounts, I would say the equivalent of half of his salary post tax. Then they should continue to share expenses as usual so she would contribute to expenses as usual. He's getting off easy at that. The negative implications of taking a year off on a professional's career is fairly substantial. Although the original poster said she wants to be "paid", it would be more accurate to say she wants to share the financial burden of not working which is reasonable to me.
0 Replies
 
Barry2021
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2022 02:01 pm
Reading the story now and the comments I now have this take. She is stating that by taking maternity leave for up to a year she will be losing out on around $50k. First question is this. Who takes a year off work due to having a baby? Her employer is giving her up to a certain number of weeks at a reduced salary but anything after they it sounds like they will still hold her job open but they're not going to just keep paying her not to work. Zero compensation after that. Secondly, fathers are now granted paternity leave so let's say he decides to take his leave thus losing money as well, would the deal still be in place? He's still have to pay her or would she now have to pay him as well? Sounds like it would be a wash to me. And lastly, if they make that kind of income then they are more than able and capable of putting the child in a top notch day care they both can agree upon with only a slight decrease in both their salaries. And they both go back to work thus losing no income.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2022 02:31 pm
@Barry2021,
Barry2021 wrote:

Reading the story now and the comments I now have this take. She is stating that by taking maternity leave for up to a year she will be losing out on around $50k. First question is this. Who takes a year off work due to having a baby?

My wife did resulting in losing over six figures in salary and options. She never regretted it. If you can do it, there is a lot of value to it.
Barry2021 wrote:
Secondly, fathers are now granted paternity leave so let's say he decides to take his leave thus losing money as well, would the deal still be in place?

Most professional couples I know who do this, do it in series. One takes leave, then the other. If he were to take leave and she was working, she should contribute half her salary to him, just like he did for her.
Barry2021 wrote:
And lastly, if they make that kind of income then they are more than able and capable of putting the child in a top notch day care they both can agree upon with only a slight decrease in both their salaries. And they both go back to work thus losing no income.

Or hire a nanny. Because they make that kind of salary, they have the option not to do that. As someone who has done both I can tell you that there is a benefit to keeping a child home for a year in terms of illness and family bonding and a cost in terms of dollars. If he wants to insist on a day-care, he should propose that.

Note that each of these people make about 3x the salary of the typical US household. If this is a stumbling block for them, they probably shouldn't be having children.
Barry2021
 
  0  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2022 08:37 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:


My wife did resulting in losing over six figures in salary and options. She never regretted it. If you can do it, there is a lot of value to it.
[/quote]
Most professional couples I know who do this, do it in series. One takes leave, then the other. If he were to take leave and she was working, she should contribute half her salary to him, just like he did for her.
[/quote]
Or hire a nanny. Because they make that kind of salary, they have the option not to do that. As someone who has done both I can tell you that there is a benefit to keeping a child home for a year in terms of illness and family bonding and a cost in terms of dollars. If he wants to insist on a day-care, he should propose that.

Note that each of these people make about 3x the salary of the typical US household. If this is a stumbling block for them, they probably shouldn't be having children.
[/quote]

Engineer, I would assume you and your wife discussed her taking a year off thus losing that income, but did you also discuss you compensating her for what she would be losing? Yeah, I'm sure you covered the majority of the bills like most husbands would do but did you actually hand over to her actual money for staying home and not working?

And the day care thing is also something to think about. Sure, any new mom would probably welcome the idea of staying home with their newborn for a year or so but most Americans don't have that luxury. You get your typical 8 - 12 weeks of paid maternity, maybe the dad gets his as well, but then you need to figure out what to do after you go back to work. And with their incomes I would assume they are living comfortably. Not to assume though because if they are living above their means then bringing a baby into the mix now is pointless.

I still just don't understand why the woman feels he should just give her the money she is losing by taking time off after the baby is born. This sounds more like a business arrangement or a contract negotiations than a couple wanting to have a baby.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2022 09:58 am
@Barry2021,
Quote:
Engineer, I would assume you and your wife discussed her taking a year off thus losing that income, but did you also discuss you compensating her for what she would be losing? Yeah, I'm sure you covered the majority of the bills like most husbands would do but did you actually hand over to her actual money for staying home and not working?

Effectively, sure. We have a joint account so every paycheck I put in there was half hers and she was free to spend it as she desired. If we had separate accounts I would have had to put a half paycheck in each to achieve the same result.
Quote:
I still just don't understand why the woman feels he should just give her the money she is losing by taking time off after the baby is born. This sounds more like a business arrangement or a contract negotiations than a couple wanting to have a baby.

I don't see why you don't see this. Money is fungible. Regardless of the account it is in, the family has the same amount. Yes, it does sound more like a business arrangement but that is how they have structured their marital accounts and honestly, reading the article, if really sounds like the wife just wants to husband to understand that their contributions to having a child are not equal. She is the one that takes a career hit, loses seniority and future income. From this article...
Quote:
One of the worst career moves a woman can make is to have children. Mothers are less likely to be hired for jobs, to be perceived as competent at work or to be paid as much as their male colleagues with the same qualifications.

For men, meanwhile, having a child is good for their careers. They are more likely to be hired than childless men, and tend to be paid more after they have children.

These differences persist even after controlling for factors like the hours people work, the types of jobs they choose and the salaries of their spouses.

If they both put their paychecks into the same account, you wouldn't have a concern about her spending half his paycheck.
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2022 04:23 pm
Wait for the baby to grow up and then make him pay. The poor kid's going to pay one way or another with parents like that.
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Should you pay her to have our baby?
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/07/2022 at 05:05:27