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

It's more complicated than that as OP is self employed. She has to fund her pension, holiday leave, sick leave etc. from her salary. If he is employed he will have all of those costs already deducted from his salary.

I think in this case they should either do 50-50 as he is also the mortgage is presumably quite low since OP paid a huge chunk as a deposit. Or they should not own equal percentages and pay unequal proportions of the mortgage but not other bills.

My ex husband insisted on 50/50, even though he earned a lot more than me. By the time I'd paid my half, I had hardly anything left, which meant I couldn't do a lot of things that he did - days out, meals etc. He could have afforded to help me out, but didn't. There were times when I had to borrow petrol money off my Dad. It's no way to live.

My new husband also earns a lot more than me, but its all pooled. We're in this together.

They probably wouldn't have been able to get a mortgage by just putting in 14% deposit of the property value, it doesn't sound like he earns that much, I think you get 5x joint income so depends on property value..
Plus they might've not been able to even pay the monthly payments on a mortgage that size
Was replying to another post saying she should've matched his 7% contrubution

I would add that given you are in a long term relationship you may need to take a view on or temporarily cover some of these temporary costs if you are the higher earner and have some savings. There is little point in him getting in to debt to cover 50% which will hamstring you both longer term if he is getting caught by interest payments. But keep a record of it and make it a loan that he repays in the form of the new garden furniture or a holiday or whatever in due course as his financial situation improves. You may never "call in the loan" but nor should you in my opinion be the default bank and should he suddenly have plenty of cash to spend on personal items and sees no reason to square that circle that is the sort of thing that can cause resentment.

I actually think it probably IS still affordable for him once we are just paying for those things, it's just that at the moment there are extra costs to do with moving and house (repairs, fridge, van hire, storage etc).

If being 50/50 is important to you then you should have bought a house with equal deposits because the current arrangement has him benefitting from your considerably large amount. I know that you protected you deposit but without it he would have bought a cheaper house and seen a smaller percentage return than the house he bought with you. The only other way to prevent him from benefitting from you would have been for you to buy a BTL and keep the rental income and rent elsewhere with him. Or you agree to live separately so Finances are simpler.

Did you buy based on his mortgage plus bills payment being affordable for him so he still has money left over? Eg he’s paying say 50% of his monthly income so has the other 50% to do other stuff? If you bought based on what’s affordable for you and expect him to keep up then that’s unreasonable and won’t last long term.

I'll get flamed for this, I know. But this is exactly why I have an issue with the proportional split approach - often the higher earner (if the discrepancy is significant) has worked a lot hard for a lot longer. So they shouldn't have to then 'carry' the other person who maybe pursued their dream job, or fancied working fewer days/hours. Yes, many people who don't earn much work hard. But then they still shouldn't expect their OH to pay the difference.

I'm glad I never had to support anyone - and, by the same token, I'd never expect my OH to support me. He'd be happy to if I need him to but I could never let anyone support me financially. I'd feel like a loser. Of course this doesn't always apply if children are involved.

The decision about how to split expenditure is about so much more than money. You say you plan a life with this person. You can't expect him to be struggling and have much less disposable income than you - it will destroy the relationship. Equally he couldn't expect you to use up your extra £20 pa (i.e. the difference between the £45K and the £25K you mention above) first and then to split anything above the first £20K 50/50 - he would be getting off scot free. The proportionate split is by far the most fair and sustainable. Not 50/50.

If you have much more money and you've agreed 50/50 then i'd just assume you'd pay for more things outwith the bills?

Meals, holidays etc?

Did you protect yourself in writing stating you have paid most of the deposit etc. in case you split. It would be unfair if he were to get half of the value of the house considering you pretty much paid the whole deposit. This also means the remaining monthly payments are much lower than it would be without your large deposit. I would definitely be expecting 50% if you have been working hard for these years whilst he pretty much messed around. Has he factored in the fact the payments are only this much as you put in such a large deposit yourself?
He needs to grow up. I think I would resent my husband if I felt I was carrying the financial load whilst he messed around/didn't push on his career whilst I was working long days. 50/50 is more than acceptable in my opinion.

Mortgage payments 50:50 because that's how you would split the 48% equity (that isn't your original deposits) if you broke up.

Other bills/expenses proportionate to wages for each of you.

If that makes you resentful that he pays less because his lower wage is the result of pissing about, break up with him as you aren't on the same page about life goals.

It's the same regardless of the sex of the poster. Both parties should protect their interests. This is why so many women are advised to marry if they are the lower earner but not to marry if they are the higher earner. It just depends who is asking for advice. In this case, OP is female but the advice would be same if she were male.

Yeah, this is what I would do. Match the deposit that he put down, and then put the rest of your money investments for retirement etc. Makes things much easier if you separate and can just split the house 50/50.

This. You've agreed he will shoulder 50% of the mortgage and the non-discretionary* household bills. In return, he will receive 50% of the equity in the house. That is more than fair and your deposit allows him to significantly benefit from a lower cost of living while building an asset unless you two have seriously overextended yourselves.

If he can no longer afford to do that or wants to have a higher disposable income while you cover more cost then you need to revisit the legal agreement. You are not married, you have no children so don't treat it like a marriage where as the higher earner you need to align on finances and your mutual expectations "in sickness and in health".

*if you are signing up for lots of streaming channels, regular lobster dinners or house refurbishment he hasn't budgeted for then you need a conversation because either one of you simply assuming that all costs will be 50:50 is unfair.

So this arse won't commit and has been poncing off you for 10 years? Usually I never say this, but you deserve better. Leave him, let him dick around on his minimum wage in a minimum wage accommodation with minimum wage food. Why do you need this shit at all, never mind 50-50?

OP does not own 65% of the mortgage, she owns 65% of the deposit.

You can ignore the deposit because they will each get back the same amount that they put in.

It's the mortgage that needs to be paid and as the equity is to be split 50/50, the mortgage payments must be 50/50 as well. Otherwise OP would be subsidising his mortgage payment to allow him a greater share of the equity.

I sit in the camp where it isn't normal to want to live a significantly more comfortable lifestyle than your partner.

Are you sure you actually want to move in with him? It sounds like you resent losing your independence, and that's understandable. But don't move forward if it's going to make you uncomfortable!

This is what I think too.

Seems unfair for him to pay 50/50 on a mortgage when his share of the property is always going to be lower.

All other bills can be split equally but equal payments to the mortgage makes no sense to me.

I always like these threads, because women are very quick to say ‘but he could leave you and take your money’ not realising that this is the majority of relationships with the gender swapped 😆

My DH and I used to have a similar wage difference and level as what you're describing here OP, and I think you need to be more realistic about the fact that your DP simply won't be able to afford to pay 50/50 of all house-related costs on 25k.

I would agree with others that you should both put in a % each rather than strictly 50/50, this seems the fairer way. Either that or you just go all-in together and all spends come out of that, so you know everyone is paying what they can, but personally that wasn't something I was ever keen on in my own situation as we have quite different attitudes to money and I felt like I was just giving him a load of extra whilst losing my own ability to save for emergencies etc.

I would go for the % split, yes you will still be paying a bit more but you earn more and say you love this man and want to share your life with him. Even if you pay 60 of house costs and he pays 40 it will help him out a bit.

That only applies when there are children involved which causes one parent (usually the mother) to earn less due to maternity leave, reduced working hours to fit around childcare and lack of promotion. In those circumstances, it's appropriate for the higher earner to contribute more.

If there are no children involved, no woman should expect her husband/partner to subsidise her earnings if he doesn't want to.

If you’re not financially aligned I’ve got no idea why you have got yourself financially mixed up with him. You’re either true partners and it’s one pot, or you keep things totally separate

Is your mortgage way more than a couple both earning your DP salary would be allowed to borrow?

Would it not be better to rewrite your property share agreement that he gets a lesser percentage of the property sale (above the existing deposit related agreement) on the condition that he pays less per month than you.

Also if you bought a property together above his means that pushed you up a council tax band it might be resoanble for you absorb some of this, likewise bills for a bigger property.

But it does start to get awefully complicated.

I get your resentement though over him having had an easier life whilst you worked hard to progress.

I spent my late 20s/ early 30s doing a part time degree alongside full time rotating shifts to put me where i am now. My exH went backpacking and teaching diving in mexico, which is not necessarily a poor life choice but has consequences. I went very part time after having DD (zero family support for childcare and my shift workand also I had health problems) but I still bought in 40% of the household income, but because I was part time i was picking up the vast vast majority of childcare and housework whilst exH had the luxury of no commute (WFH) and an easy homelife of the back of my hard work when I was younger, and I certainly felt resentful as I didn't feel like I was the one benefiting from my sacrifice.

I think you are being unfair to say that OP is ‘leaving him short’. It’s hardly her fault that he hasn’t increased his salary.

Living alone is usually MUCH more expensive than living with someone and sharing bills. He is likely much better off, even paying 50% with OP, than he would be without her.

I have the awful feeling this is going to come and bite you on the arse. Hard.

I think it's really confusing that you didn't do any sums. You both appear to have assumed different things - which is exactly as anyone would expect since you didn't figure it out.

It all just seems a bit transactional - which is fine as two un-linked adults basically house-sharing. But if you are a partnership you need to work like that. If you are two unrelated adults who live in the same place then I guess this is fair enough. Did he choose to buy this new house he can't afford? Does he have equal say in house decisions? I think that's where it gets very tricky as well - if you get a new sofa and you want what you can afford at 50% and he is happy to go without or get a used sofa or get something that works for his own budget... who makes the call?

If he just can't afford to pay 50% of the life you want to lead then what?