So, the stay-at-home mom or dad is inferior in the relationship because they make no financial contribution? If the working spouse earns $60k/year, they should live on only $30k? Are you going to have this put in a pre-nup?
No, I was driving at the concept that your idea is incredibly inefficient, condescending, and horrible economics.
Money really is the biggest cause for arguments in couples. My parents and my inlaws are polar opposites. On my parents' side, my dad worked all his life. While my brothers and I were young, my mom stayed at home and took care of us. Once we were all in school, my mom got a part time job, and has been working ever since. Now that all the kids are gone, both of my parents still work, and for a while it looked like my dad might get to retire early (economy tanking fucked that up, though). On my in-laws' side, my father-in-law has been working all his life. My mother-in-law stayed home and took care of the kids. When the kids went to school, my mother-in-law didn't get a job. She continued to stay home. Now that the kids are leaving, she still doesn't have (and doesn't plan to get) a job. My parents never, ever, ever fought about money. My in-laws, on the other hand, fought all the time. The main argument was that my father-in-law would get pissed when my mother-in-law would go nuts with the credit cards at Christmas (or other times, but Christmas was the big one). It has taken my wife a long time, but she is finally starting to enjoy the Christmas season again now that it doesn't have to live with a month of mom and dad screaming at each other over money. The biggest difference I see is that my parents view themselves as a partnership, and they always consult on any major purchases. They had a plan for Christmas (apparently, Christmas money always came from their tax refunds) and birthdays, and always talked about those things. That communication doesn't seem to be there with the in-laws, and the result is my father-in-law works 50 hours a week only to come home and find that his wife has dropped some absurd amount of money on clothes or some other shit that he didn't feel they needed, so they'd fight. I guess my point is that the reason it works between my wife and I is that we communicate openly about everything. Neither of us makes crazy purchases without the other knowing. In fact, after discussing it, when I start working full time, she is going to cut back to part time at her job (She'll still make 2x as much as me, even at part time). I'm all about that, as it will make her happy, she'll get more time at home with the (future) kids, and once I'm working, our income won't change much. It is all about planning and communication... if you communicate and work together, it really doesn't matter who makes more. While I agree that you should have clout when it comes to big ticket items, I think that is more about what I just said: communication. No one in the relationship, no matter who makes the money, should be buying huge expensive shit without the other person getting a chance to give some input. I do think throwing your bigger paycheck in her face might eventually backfire on you, though. If you get fired from your job for some reason, she will absolutely own your nuts.
I can see how you'd think this is condescending and inefficient, I don't personally, but I understand how you could. I'm interested to hear how you think it's horrible economics though, if a couple makes $150 and lives off $100 the other $50 can be saved and/or invested for a later date which is a lot better than going out to eat twice a week or buying electronics you don't need. I suppose one argument that can be made is if you lived off say $140 then you could purchase a better home that would ideally appreciate faster than most investment accounts, but as we can see in today's market that doesn't always work and it's much easier to sell stock shares than a house when shit goes down.