Should you pay her to have our baby?

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.

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

Husbands don't pay their wives to have babies or compensate them for whatever salary they will lose

Should he make up the difference in her salary to have their child?

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.

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.

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.

Is this the story?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/shelbyheinrich/woman-wants-money-for-baby

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?

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?

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, 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?

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.

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.