To think this level of saving is extreme and I’m right to question it?

But he’s living in OP’s house!

But the point is, she could also be saving a similar proportion of her salary as he is, but doesn't think saving that much is a good idea. That's why she's worse off. She would rather spend than save. Otherwise she would be in the same position. It's her choice not to; why should he be penalised for that?

If this was the other way round and the woman was saving, would you expect her to compensate him for not saving?

Well OP, he might want to take advantage of not paying CGT by almost maxing out his ISA allowance every year? How old is he? Does he have a pension and how much?

It's all a bit out of context. Hard to know if he's being sensible or a bit extreme. I put 1k into my pension each month and save another 1.6k into an ISA in my early 40s. I live well, I just don't care about swanky hotels etc. as most of the time it's just not worth it.

You two probably have a different view on money. If I don't want to spend something it doesn't mean I am stingy. I just don't see the value in some things and don't want to pay over the odds for something that makes no difference to my happiness etc. and if it means I'd just help make someone else rich. You are both entitled to have your approach to money.

I do find it odd that he keeps so much money for the future, but is not living and enjoying the moment a bit more.

He is though. Going out to dinner, for me, is about the people I'm with. I genuinely wouldn't make any difference to "the moment", in terms of my overall enjoyment, whether it was a half decent pub or a swanky London restaurant. The same with holidays. In fact, it's only since I've been forced to holiday alone(ie less happily) that the destination matters to me at all.

Or, for anyone whose not an idiot, they both have their mortgages paid off. It's 1 and 1. The bloke isn't renting out his place, he's paying the mortgage himself. He also doesn't have the comfort of living in his own chosen place.

I don't think his savings are excessive. Security means different things to different people.

Whilst he's paying what you deem a comfortable amount, what he does with the rest is his business.

If your lifestyles are incompatible, look at whether that works for you. Say no, I'd like to spend 7 nights, not 6. I'd like a 3 star meal, not chips etc. If he's unmovable, then he may not be for you.

She's protecting her position by not having him contribute to the house. Very sensible.

Bottom line is, if you split, what happens??

He's lived rent free for x years....and has still been paying his mortgage off.

You've just been paying a mortgage off.

He has 2. You have 1.

Which is less.

How on earth have you got to his costs being minimal? He is still paying his full mortgage, his council tax, standing charges for water and electric plus then some usage. He's then paying half the food and electric bill at the OP's. I sometimes feel like MN is a damning indictment of the UK's education system.

Many people I know, including me and my late husband, had our own properties when we first met and kept them for a while. After all, who knows how a relationship is going to pan out...best to keep your options open. Renting one out wasn't that common in my day, as it immediately restricts your options again. Generally what happened is after a few years, and marriage, both houses were sold and a joint / larger one bought

I struggle to see why people are so fixated on what is to me a relatively normal approach, and why people think the OP weakening her position by having him contribute to her mortgage is a good thing

as I’ve said many times, I’m not subbing him in any way

^

Your paying his rent with your mortgage

Living situation aside, he’s not unreasonable to be frugal and you aren’t unreasonable to want to go to better places. It seems your attitude towards money is incompatible and that’s ok. Find someone who is more on your wavelength. Life’s too short!

This. Your partner should pay you rent.

I do find it odd that he keeps so much money for the future, but is not living and enjoying the moment a bit more.

This property not being rented out and becoming income is so at odds with his savings level though. If the pair of you are sharing, it really does make sense to do something with that house to make it work, rather that it sitting empty, costing a mortgage, insurance, council tax, energy bills etc.

He also should be getting advice on savings, as a pension immediately adds +20% or more, many employers match employees etc. Also, £77k can turn quite the investment over time if placed carefully in a tracker fund / ISA.

It seems like he needs to take a bigger look at his finances, particularly when being so focussed on it leaves you feeling less than cared for.

But he's paying his own mortgage and bills???

I don't really see how he's gaining/taking advantage if he's paying his own mortgage but his house is sitting empty? OP has been clear he's not renting it out so doesn't have any income from his house, he's just paying for it. If anything both of them are gaining on only paying half the bills of a house.

OP I can see how this niggles you but I think it's just different attitudes to money. I am a saver (though not to this extent! I wish) and my DP is not. At the end of some months I will be skint until payday but this will be after savings have been DD'd into my other account...so theoretically there is money there, but not that I consider to be free to spend. Whereas my DP would have that money back over straight away if it was him.

I do think it's an issue though if he's really making you downgrade what you want to do - holidays etc - by saying he can't afford it when he actually could if he put the breaks on saving for one month, for example. However if you're still doing decent stuff but just not the most lavish version, then I don't think that's an issue.

So he will have bills on his empty house, won't he? Who pays those bills?

£77k isn't that much especially depending on what age he is. Are you stashing savings away yourself or do you have more than he does?

Probably for the same reason a lot of people in their 30s and 40s who are dating (and not married) have to do this. Because they are homeowners when they start dating and maybe don't want to give up the security of having their own home until they know the relationship has legs and / or you're getting married / having kids.

Me and DP both owned houses when we got together. We used to split time between both but eventually my house became our "home" and so he sold his to move into mine (couldn't realistically rent it out as the rental market in the area was terrible and wouldn't have covered his mortgage payments). But he didn't do this until we knew we wanted a future together and we had discussions about finances / security / marriage etc.

The rent question is completely derailiong the thread despite the OP repeatedly stating it's not relevant. We don't know how long they've been dating; if it's only been a year, he may have "ended up" living at hers just through habit or convenience, but it's too soon to take the step of renting his own place out properly (and maybe he doesn't want to be a landlord anyway).

The question is about attitudes to saving. Personally I think a sensible approach to money is only ever a positive in a partner. I don't get "tight" as a criticism because I don't want a partner who throws money away without thinking on stuff that isn't worth it. So I don't think there's an issue with him saving whatever he feels he needs to.

As for its impact on OP... well you have agency here. Restaurants? The quality of a restaurant isn't linked to how expensive it is. Some of the best meals I've had have cost peanuts. Some of the most eye-bleedingly expensive have been bang average.

Holiday? You don't have to go camping if you don't want to! Nothing on earth would persuade me to camp, I'd rather just stay at home. There's a middle ground between camping and swanky hotels though? (Tbh swanky hotels are definitely not worth the money... I mostly stay in them for work and every time I do, I always think I'd never pay that much.)

OP, it seems fair to me that he pays half bills and food at your house, and he's still paying his own mortgage and bills at his house. it's not wrong he wants to save that much, it's his money and his choice. neither is it wrong if you want to spend more. it's just an area where you may not be compatible, you either need to learn to live with it or end things.

This is likely just his personality. Extreme saving/ economising is like a form of hoarding, just hoarding money. There will be no point at which he thinks, oh great, I have x in the bank, now I’m going to indulge myself and @ITru .

In reality the addiction can get worse. The buzz he gets from reading his bank balance needs a top up? Increase the saving to £2k a month and stop buying Christmas presents/ camping/ only buy economy food.

Have you actually discussed this?

It's a FIRE approach, which is an established approach that many people do. The whole point is long term thinking, to be able to retire early. In fact a lot of FIRE people would save a higher %.

Apparently so.