AIBU to expect 50 50 house costs with lower earning partner?

That changes my opinion, you made it sound like you are a high earner earning much more than your DP. In your situation I think 50/50 is fair, but if there’s bigger expenses you both want like a holiday or big house things for example then you pay proportionally to income.

this.
similar arrangement with my DP, no kids or plans to. Together 7 years, living together 4. We are tenants in common for the property and as I paid a large % of the deposit and own that %, I pay the same % of the mortgage and of property maintenance and improvements. I earn double DP, but pay more than double for the shared home (and my ownership share is more than double). We split utilities, food 50/50 because DP uses equal (if not more) of these, and I refuse to subsidise their long hot shower habit or keep them in artisanal coffee beans any more than I already do!! I was desperate for DPet and pay 90% of their costs. Neither of us are short, but sometimes I do feel a bit of a jolt when I realise I’m paying thousands more for eg plastering. But taking into account differential spending on housing and pet costs, we are left with relatively similar amounts, though i tend to pay for more weekends away and buy new clothes kore frequently. he is welcome and very able to find himself a more lucrative job (he could easily retrain in a year and work his way up in my field!) but he values his artistic side hustle and his flexible low-demand office job which allows him to do it alongside. I also feel DP benefits from living in a nicer house then they’d be able to afford with another partner earning the same as them- DP’s side hustle is the reason we upsized- so they can have a home office which allows them to make an extra. £4k per year. That’s only possible because my salary and deposit allowed us to buy a bigger home. I’d have happily stayed in our smaller house where we both had lots of surplus….
BUT before we moved, we had a huge spreadsheet to calculate affordability and tweaked the ownership proportions until it came up with a figure that worked for us both. So in practice, we live as if we’re paying proportionally to income (and have wills leaving everything to each other), but if we split I’d take away more (in line with what I’ve paid in). We both feel this setup is fair.

Oooooh, I hate that expression "bring to the table" in dating! Triggered, lol! It's SO transactional.

I bring to the table my company, and if that's not enough, they can sod off!

I think the problem is that the word "partner" got lifted over from the gay community. Its kind of a form of appropriation IMO. Partner used to be used in gay communities as the word for lifelong, long-term partnerships where marriage was not an option.
Then the straight community coopted it and IMO misuse it. Generally boyfriend/girlfriend is what is actually meant by partner these days.

It could work if they both put the same amount into a joint account for all household bills including mortgage, utilities, shared subscriptions, food and general household items.

They should then each put the same amount each into a savings account to pay for routine essential repairs and maintenance on the house.

They should have their own separate accounts for personal purchases, personal subscriptions, phones, clothing, family gifts, etc. and anything left over is their own to save or spend how they like.

They can then decide who pays for a holiday or a new sofa or whatever, with the person with more cash available paying a larger share.

That is how you can do 50/50 sensibly.

If he is going to own the house 50/50, then he should pay for it as such. I would also say bills should be split 50/50 as both of you are using those services.

I understand where you are coming from, its a fine balance and its very naive for posters to say all money is shared.
If I'm chosing to work a stressful job because I deem the financial trade off to be worth it, why should I subsidise someone who's chosen a vocation that is low stress and low pay.. (excluding kids from this)

That's a super simplistic take on it, and I honestly dont think there's a right or wrong answer. It has to be what you are both happy with.
Personally I started 50 50, initially we bought/had the lifestyle that worked with the smaller budget. 20yrs later it's a bit more hazy, I wanted a house with land so I was prepared to pay more to achieve it, that kind of thing.

If you expect him to contribute 50/50 despite being a lower earner, there will be compromises in other areas, because the gap between what you can afford to do (holidays, leisure etc) will widen. If you're OK with that and happy to do things he can't afford by yourself and he doesn't think that's mean of you, then it could work I suppose.
Tbh though, if I was prepared to let my partner be financially stressed to make sure I got an equal contribution, I'd probably be considering if it was the right relationship for me. Because if financial equality is more important than a partners well being I'd be looking for someone who earned the same as me.

Can you work it so that, after putting away savings and pension contributions, your monthly take home pay is the same as his?

I’d worry that he’ll drop working again leaving me with all the bills plus only half the equity. I don’t think I’d have bought with him unless he could prove a commitment to getting, and keeping, a higher paid job or at least one he could see salary progress in. Is he an equal in other ways ie: cooking,chores, shopping?

I think 50 50 is fair given you are not married and don't have children. I don't really get the people saying that if should be proportional of that all money should be "family money" . If you feel that you would get married. I probably would just pay for extras given you earn more.

I would split in proportion to salary.

Or lower expenditure to what he can afford easily.

Maybe. I am not sure actually. I would find it easier to split proportionally if kids were involved.

I would say it is highly unlikely he views you this way. OPs situation is pretty unique.

My comment is not about one partner earning more, or supporting the other. I am a SAHM to a 1 year old so as a family we rely on my husband's wage.

But the fact is OP hasn't felt that she has been able to pay a single thing into her pension, for a decade. Because she simply could not afford it.

And she couldn't afford it as she was subsidising her partner (not husband, so not legally & financially tied). So that he could work very part time hours in a low paid job.

He wasn't at home looking after their children. He wasn't studying to improve his career. It doesn't even sound like he was doing important but poorly paid vocational work that really benefits society. And the fact he has chosen to work now he has to shows that he was always capable.

This is a tricky one. My friend bought a house with someone on the basis of 50/50 but once they moved in he suddenly announced he couldnt afford it. She was the higher earner but had only committed to the bigger mortgage on that basis. She then lost her job and had to take one with a slightly lower salary and then he decided to leave his job and take a lower paid job because he didnt like his boss and then announced he couldn't contribute at all. They are now in a financial mess. So if he could earn more but chooses not to and if he is going back on what you previously agreed yanbu but on the flip side if he is working hard and genuinely cant afford it are you happy tonsee your partner struggle? Does he contribute in other ways or does he have expensive hobbies? There are many factors at play here

You have been subsidising your partner for a decade by stealing from your future self.

I hope my husband doesn't think this way about me ...... (although I suspect he doesn't).

Oh okay, that is madness. You have been subsidising your partner for a decade by stealing from your future self.

In that case I would put my money in pension, which I can see that you are considering. A good rule of thumb is the total contributions should be roughly half your age when you start, the downside of self employment is that when working for someone else that 10% is usually made up of tax relief, employer contributions and your contributions.

But honestly, put in what you can - time is what you need for a good pension, not high contributions. That would probably take you down to equal amount of pay anyway, in which case equal split of bills is definitely fair.

Remember compound interest! If you save £200 for 50 years, you will have more than double the amount than saving £400 for 25 years! Start your pension today!

I just wouldn't consider that to be a life partner then tbh. Just call it a partner and be realistic about it.

From reading your op, the issue may not be that he earns less per se, but you feel he’s not pulling his weight. For much of the ten years, he’s been ‘playing’ at his job ( hobby,), and you’ve been supporting him, and although he’s done quite well at times, it’s not turned into a long term career.

No doubt there were lots of promises that it would be good, and the next big project was around the corner, but for whatever reason (you describe him facing a ‘quiet’ time),lack of planning, marketing himself etc, it never happened and now he’s on a NMW job, so back to square one, probably not what you anticipated when you got together.

… and this frustrates you, as from a monetary point of view, you’re not equal partners.

Do you have a private pension? You can still pay into a pension pot as a self-employed person.

Maybe she's just realistic. However much you consider someone to be a life partner, it's sensible to always have a plan of what wpuld happen in the event of splitting. No partnership is immune to an abrupt ending.

I am purely talking about the definition of 'life partner' which OP is using.

If you're calling yourself 'life partners' it's a bit weird not to share equally with that person because you are worried what might happen when you split.

Obviously there are other reasons people might split things differently - whatever works - but if it's because you're worried about what happens if you split up then that's not a 'life partner'.

Loads of people, married or not, don't pool everything. There's no blueprint for a relationship that says you have to. It's your opinion. With the legal contract of marriage, assets are split on divorce but there's nothing to say you have to do this while married. Works for many people.

OP, Im in the exact same situation, down to the self-employed angle and the same figures as you and not paying into a pension. PM if you'd like :)

Indeed. But if you're going to call someone 'life partner' and view them that way then surely you're happy to just share everything 50/50.

Calling someone a life partner and then worrying about financial split is a bit hypocritical in the same way as people who say they are 'not trying but just seeing what happens' with babies 😅

There's not really a grey area.

You're a life partner, all in, or not a life partner. You're trying or not trying 😅