50:50 bills if you've chosen to earn less

[CaribouCarafe]

Inspired by some recent threads, assuming you're in a position where you have no children and have an equal split of household chores with your partner, don't have any disabilities, are of average intelligence...basically have no mitigating factors.

At what threshold of salary would you expect a 50:50 split in bills and household expenses/just expect to pool resources without considering each person's exact contribution?

I often see the argument that expenses should be proportionate to income (e.g. a 33:67 split), but if you've chosen to earn a low income with no prospect of substantial increases over the coming years, is it fair for your partner to pay more to essentially subsidise that choice?

For context, I outearn my DH but we pool our finances. I'm fine with this because he's in a sector that's not particularly well paid, but he works hard and earns over 48k and his earnings look like they'll increase over time so it's not an issue. But I wouldn't be happy to pool finances / have a 50:50 split if he was just earning 25k for example with no prospect for his salary to increase substantially.

I get that marriage / relationships are a partnership, but it seems a lot of the time the advice on MN seems to be that the better earning partner is expected to financially support the lower earning one but few people will advise the lower earning partner to improve their earnings/support their partner by earning more.

Not looking to start a bun fight, just genuinely interested. I guess there could possibly be a lot of projection also going on in these scenarios / consideration that women have historically been in the weaker position.

I agree with you op. I wouldn't want to support someone who deliberately chose to work fewer hours / stay at minimum wage.

I have been both the higher and lower earner (different relationships) and I think it is highly personal and depends on the relationship. Is the lower earner doing a very important role but it's badly paid (e.g a care worker)? Or is the lower earner on a low paid low stress job (one doesn't equate to the other always) due to mental health issues? In these circumstances I would be happy to pay proportionately more. Do they do their equal share or more in the home? Probably I would also be happy to pay more then as they would be taking tasks for the household's smooth running. If however they got home and played the x box for 5 hours a night and just didn't put any effort into their role nor the home, it would be a no from me in terms of financing them.

I think your standard bills - mortgage/rent, council tax, gas/electric and water for example - should absolutely be 50:50. Why should someone else pay for your basic living? If you weren’t in a couple you’d have to pay 100% of the bills anyway. I’d be embarrassed to let anyone pay more. Sure, if they earn more they might put more towards trips, treats etc because they can. But you have to own basic bills as your responsibility.

@Bosabosa I think that's a good point - if DH was working in a charity sector for 25k then I'd probably be more inclined to pool finances in that situation, although would secretly be wishing he earned more

The idea is surely to live the best life with the person you love, doing what you can to enjoy it?

Also as an aside but lots of people earn a lot and actually do varying degrees of actual hard graft. Often lower paid jobs are more mentally demanding even if that means boring etc.

What if one person worked digging up roads slogging thier guts out and fhe other was much better paid in a very easy job

Lower earning man , “damn right he should pay half”

higher earning man “if he makes you pay half he’s abusive”

I think the OP on the previous thread was basically told she was unreasonable, as DP not DH and no children.

@StarieNight I get that to a point, I guess that this is why it's easier to be partners with someone who earns similarly to yourself.

I think I'd be wondering why DH was choosing a job that is hard work for low pay (and would require early retirement if it was manual labour), when he could earn more for less graft.

@Icantpaint that's precisely the attitude I've picked up from a lot of threads, which is why I'm curious to see people's rationale for it!

I think you know exactly what thread inspired this! I had a look at the votes and 77% thought she wasn't being unreasonable though, which I found a bit of a shocker.

It started off completely differently though 🤦‍♀️

Just thinking out loud here but what if one person’s income stretches to a much bigger property with correspondingly higher outgoings? Do they live somewhere smaller with their loved one just to keep things 50:50 or do they choose to pay more?

And as others have mentioned, there are plenty of essential, demanding jobs that are going to be limited in terms of pay progression - teachers for example (£46k at top of upper pay scale outside of London).

I don't understand.
If you love someone and can't live without them, does it matter?

I wad referring the moral superiority of the post looking at someone who earn less.

@CaribouCarafe I think it depends , I think the higher earner should pay 60/40 so let’s say rent is £1000, I would say you pay 600 and him 400 , instead of 500 and 500, but I think it depends on what kind of lifestyle you want to live with your partner , let’s say you are wanting to get a morgage , you’d probably be looking at houses at a higher price than what he could afford , so you shouldn’t be looking at houses in your budget range because it wouldn’t be fare for him to give half of that if that’s not in his budget range , but if you say that you are willing to pay more of it and him less then that would be totally fine , like I said , depends on how fair you want to play with him , 50-50 or 70/30 or whatever you find is fare .

Whatever is discussed and subsequently agreed between both spouses/partners, is fair and suitable - equal share, pro-rata, pooling, sole breadwinning. I think most problems arise when nothing is truly discussed, things sort of "fall into place" but then circumstances change and there are no grounds or conditions to renegotiate.

I think ultimately that if you form a household with somebody who earns a significantly amount from you, then you have to either divide expenses proportionately OR split expenses 50/50 but let the lower earner set the spending levels so they are living within their means, able to save etc.

I guess that's where it becomes tricky. If you're the higher earner and you're the one pushing for higher living standards I guess it's more a case of paying for your own luxury rather than subsidising someone else's aspirations. But then heating/bills/upkeep etc also gets more expensive and the lower earner gets landed with those expenses too. Plus does it feel fair for the lower earner to essentially benefit from 50% of that asset in the event of a split? I guess that's where it feels pointless to keep tabs once a basic agreed living standard is met.

Interesting you chose teaching, that's in the same ballpark as what DH is! Probably why I don't really mind the income differential as I do see value in his profession and am sympathetic to the pay grades which are beyond his control

I think then they would need to live within the lower earner’s means, unless the higher earner was happy to soak up the difference. I just see it as a recipe for resentment further down the line though

We split 50.50 I work three days he works 5. I earn 45k he earns 90k. I absolutely would not expect to be kept by my partner. We have both been unemployed over the years and we pick up the slack for each other of course. He pays more for holidays and takeouts and just bought us a new bed, but living expenses strictly down the middle.

Since you're married, I'd just have a joint account, pay all bills and then use what's left when needed. I don't really see the point of my/your money when you're sharing a home. .I earn a bit more than my husband, and I'd find it really odd if I could afford to go out a lot, but he couldn't because he was skint. Makes no sense to me.

Also, then where do u draw the line? Do you go on holiday together or only if he can afford his half? If you go out together, do you pay or expect it to be 50/50? It just sounds too much effort

I think earning 45k and 90k won’t ever be a problem splitting bills in half , you’d both have plenty of money left over . I think the problem is if one earns only like 25k a year , which is almost only minimum wage , that’s where the money problems would be very tight

@ReadyTeddy1000 I agree - I can't be bothered to keep tabs on who's precisely spending what as long as a basic comfortable living standard (which we both agree on) is met

So if you married Elon Musk or Donald Trump, you would expect him to eat in McDonalds and holiday in Butlins to keep things at 50:50? Yeah, I guess I'm glad I live in a culture where people still get married and share, - what's mine is yours; what's yours is mine; unlike all the people on MN, who seem obsessed with splitting the cost of every bill down the middle.

@Iloveshihtzus personally, I wouldn't be able to have a relationship with someone earning that much more than me - I'd feel a massive lack of independence/agency and would better enjoy being in a more equal partnership

It's clearly not black and white.

If I worked in investment banking and my spouse was a teacher or worked for a charity I would 100% support them and share everything.

If, however, I worked in a very demanding medium paid job (say, retail manager) and my spouse felt they could work part time as a receptionist or something, I don't think I'd feel the same, and I'm not sure I'd be in that relationship.

As it is, I outearn my partner by nearly 3x, we don't live together, but I pay for a lot. My reasoning is that if I want to go on holiday, gigs, plays, opera, trips etc, and I don't want to do it on my own, then I need to fund that. He doesn't take advantage, and he brings other things to the relationship.

dh has always been the higher earner and I am minimum wage. I didn’t work for many years for various reasons. Later in life he had a period where he didn’t work for a couple of years. From day 1 we’ve always had joint finances. You never know where life will take you and the last thing I want to be doing is renegotiating the split with the love of my life every time there is a significant life event. If you are getting married it’s bizarre that you would do it any other way. If you aren’t mature enough to see past your income disparities then you probably shouldn’t get married.