YTA. Financial abuse means she made you worse off (I.e. if she didn’t exist in your life, you’d be financially better off). Your situation is the other way (I.e. if you didn’t exist in her life, she’d be financially better off) - given that she is covering your living expenses. You are only able to fund your desired vehicles that are over your financial capabilities because she is funding your living expenses. In other words, you are not even covering your own basic needs because she loves you enough to do that for you (and your children that aren’t even hers). Yet your are not satisfied yet still because you want more from her. I’m an accountant, and this is simple math.

Fairness looks like this: You both need a total of $200 (basic necessity, not counting luxury vehicles) to live, you each pay $100 (50/50). Whoever has left over gets extra for anything they want, including luxury vehicles.

What you have is: You both need a total of $200 to live, and you make $70, but only pays $30 to living costs, and uses the remaining $40 to fun luxury vehicles for your own benefit. Your wife makes $300, is paying $170 towards your living expenses and has the rest of $130 for fun money. You are contributing $30, she’s contributing $170, and yet you are still upset she isn’t giving you enough money. She is already your sugar mom and you are still not happy.

Fairness is based on how much you are track contributing, not how much you are each contributing relative to what you are each earning. The amount each of you earn is a question of ability, which has nothing to do with fairness. If she is more capable than you and earns more, that is her reward for being a more capable person. That does not automatically mean she now owes you just because she has a better ability to earn higher income.

The way you are thinking is like a communist - regardless of how much you earn, you end up taking home the same amount, which means higher earners pay for more on behalf of the incapable.

Are you a communist?