To think it's not fair? (DP & Finances)

[MalcolminaX]

I am late 20s with a boyfriend of two years, who in in his mid 30s. No kids. I have been saving for a deposit for four years, so before we met. Finally I’m in a position to buy though I’ll be very poor for two years paying back money to family that I’ve borrowed in order to raise the full deposit.

It would be fair to say that buying this flat is one of my top priorities. Having grown up in an unstable situation, I have a deep-seated need for security, independence and privacy. My adult life has been shaped by these needs in terms of education and career choices.

My boyfriend’s priorities are very different. He prefers to spend most of his wages on accumulating possessions and going on holiday, mostly alone. He does not care for privacy or security in the way I do and is content with a rented room in a rundown shared house (…and I am not).

Although I earn a lot more, I work more hours, in an equally stressful job. We get paid about the same per hour worked. I save a lot each month and I have significantly less money to spend on leisure. This is my choice: I am happy to do so in order to safeguard my future as much as possible.

So – we both say we’d like to be together forever and build a life together. We’d like to live together in the future, though he doesn’t want to move into my new flat as it wouldn’t have enough room for his guitar collection. He’d like to ‘go in’ with me in a few years to buy a bigger place, with my approx. 65k equity, and his approx. 5k savings (that he’s planning to accrue over the next three years, during which he’d spend about 10k on solo holidays and things for his hobby).

AIBU to think that’s just not FAIR?
Or AIBU because I'm no worse off than if I were single?

though he doesn’t want to move into my new flat as it wouldn’t have enough room for his guitar collection

I'd want a bit more than this from a bloke in his mid-30's.

He might be great, OP, but you're not on the same page at all.

The thing is, when you get married everything changes so I am not sure that you could protect your input. And the fact that you want to screams as me that if there is one thing you definitely should not do, its marry him.

You can love someone and them still be completely wrong for you.

It's fine, you'd buy as tenants in common and draw up a deed about what proportion of the house you each own.

So to start with it's 'you x%, him y%, the bank z%' based on your deposits. After a few years, paying agreed proportions of the mortgage, which could be equal, proportional to your income or whatever you agree, you revise it to reflect present reality. Decide at the outset what % you each want to end up owning. So if it's half, or two thirds to you, you might end up clearing your mortgage payments earlier, then the remaining mortgage is his.

Of course if you get married, everything becomes both people's anyway. Then it's to your mutual benefit that you bought early and grew your equity. But that's true in lots of marriages - one person owned the house, resources were not equal at the start. The important thing is fairness and respect for each other from that point on. So what would be worrying is if he expected to continue to draw upon a larger proportion of family funds for his leisure activities than you were. You'd need access to the same amount and to agree on holidays etc.

Why would he have the same attitude as you now? You're very aware of where your needs came from and that he doesn't share them. But, if he's thinking of a future together he does need to start thinking about what that future is going to be like and making it fair.

There will come a day when you will meet a man who you wont have any of these worries about, because he will treat you, your property and your money with respect. He wont see you as a meal ticket or an easy way to get on the property ladder. The reason this feels wrong is because it is.

If he moves in, charge him half of what it costs.
(That's what most folk would do if they bought a flat and got a flatmate. Unless that works out very cheap, in which case charge a market price minus 10%)

Also, when he does 'come in with you' his tiny deposit will limit what you can buy together. That might make the difference between an extra bedroom, a garden etc or not.

That is likely to coincide with you deciding it's time to have children - if you do. Thereafter, loss of income to maternity leave / part time working / slowed career progression will probably affect you, as a couple.

Even if you don't have children, you'll welcome the opportunity to live as comfortably as possible, in as nice a house as possible, but that stage of your lives.

So, your chance, as a couple, to save for a good deposit, is from now until the children decision. You'll almost always do better by moving up the housing ladder earlier of course too.

I am not a lawyer but I thought that prenups are dodgy and not airways upheld. It would be tricky if something changed, for example you have children.

I am going to go against the grain a bit here, I don't actually think it is OK to piss your money up a wall while waiting around for your parents to die. Attitude wise it is all wrong. On a practical level if one or both ends up in a care home it will mean massively less but even if not he will hopefully be retired himself before it happens.

I don't think you should let him move into your flat at all, but if you really have to charge him market rent plus bills. He sounds like a potential cocklodger to me. And moaning about you charging him full market rent will confirm that.

Tbh he's in his thirties he isn't going to change. Find someone else who isn't a man child and believes they have to provide for themselves (and most people with mc backgrounds believe they have to provide for themselves btw).

I think if he's not keen on moving in now because you can't buy something big enough, then don't rush to move him in. If you do, it might be worth a chat with a solicitor, possibly a tenancy agreement?

Being compatable with the same outlook to money /security is more important than being compatable in bed IMO. Charming but feckless won't stay charming for long. If he was early 20s, I might say "he'll grow up and change" - many early 20s men and woman haven't started thinking long term, just enjoying first chance to have spare cash, but to be in his 30s, with a professional career and under £5k to his name is worrying.

Don't set yourself up to a lifetime of being "the grown up", "the mean one", "the one to say no", the only one to worry and plan.

And while you didn't ask for advice beyond securing your savings, I would say at late 20s, if you want DCs, you really should be thinking about dating a man you can build a long term future with where you'll both be happy.

Well realistically, even if he starts saving heavily now he's not going to be able to match your deposit.

At the moment, you have different priorities. If you then have the same priority in a couple of years (a house together) and between you you have the deposit, I can't see the issue - as long as you sign something official to state that if the property was sold you each get back your initial investments before any equity is split.

Of course, if you end up staying together forever and getting married and not selling your house then you'll never really be 'better off' than him. If you can't get over that 'unfairness' then I think you should call it a day now.

When dh and I got together he had huge (to us, then, in our teen years - £5k) debts he run up. He contributed less to our rent/food etc for a couple of years so he could clear them so we could get a mortgage.

Provided you don't get married, yes you can protect your interest in the property, but I think it's going to take a lot more than that.

As others have pointed out, you have really different attitudes to finances. Maybe a result of your upbringings. I'm not saying yours is intrinsically better than his, not at all. The housing market has fucked over nearly everyone under 35ish, so refusing to scrimp for some overpriced property and opting out as far as possible is arguably justifiable in itself. But there's a problem arising, because he wants to benefit from your attittude to finances without putting any of the work in. The equivalent of that would be you getting equal use of someone's 65k guitar collection having only thrown a few grand in. And it's not just about the money. You talk about fairness a lot, and it seems you view these years scrimping as very formative, something character building and a source of pride. If his well off family gave him 65k tomorrow, I'm not sure that would actually solve the fundamental issue. You would still think very differently about money and saving, and I wonder if you'd end up resenting him.

Someone who is reasonably well paid and mid 30s but has no savings at all has a hugely different attitude to you. I wouldn't fancy tying myself to them in the long term. Especially not in a very expensive city. Not the optimum environment for being carefree.

BTW - when we bought this house, DH put in a lot more money than I did (think he had around £100k in savings and I had £20k), but he'd earned significantly more than me for a long time before we bought, we'd had similar attitudes to saving and debt, it had taken more sacrifice on my behalf to get that £20k together than it took for him to save that £100k and so although on the face of it it was unequal, it didn't really matter.

Fairness isn't always about actually having the same numbers, but same effort.

I see Dinosaurs has just raised the same question that sprang to my mind: is it the amount of money he will save, or that fact that he could have saved more? My husband earns significantly more than I do (we are talking quadruple my wages) but we own our home equally and I would be mortified if he felt that was 'unfair'. If he earns the same as you then obviously my question is balls but if he earns significantly less then maybe it's worth thinking about.

Also, I am not expert at all on house purchasing, but can you not buy as tenants in common and state the percentages you've put in? I thought (and may be wrong) that protected you somehow?

Why does he holiday solo? Why don't you go too?

I know you're saving and don't want to waste money on holidays, but if I were him, and my intentions were good, I'd see you slogging your guts out to save and buy a home (and know I may benefit from that some day) and I would pay for you to come on holiday too as I'd have more fun if you were with me.

This whole thing just doesn't feel right OP. I too think there's a big question mark over him.

A financial disparity isn't fatal in itself. When I met my DH, I had spent ten years studying, doing minimum wage jobs in between and then renting privately in London so I had very little (but was finally in a position to save) and he had spent ten years living with his parents (who charged a pretty tiny rent) and building up his career... We earnt about the same but he contributed 98% of our deposit. Our solicitor drew it up so he owned X%, I owned Y% and we each own 50% of any amount paid off the mortgage.

We're married now and have a daughter - so obviously if we spilt it would be a bit more complicated whilst she was still living at home. But ultimately I'd still want to respect the fact that his investment was huge compared to mine (although I've done some overpayment on the mortgage since - it's still nowhere near made it up). Equally his pension arrangements aren't great!

The essential aspect is respect. Will he respect your investment and allow you to protect it?

I remember saving up for the deposit and OH just plodding along. It wasn't that he didn't want to have his own place, it's more that it would be out of his reach - we live in London and pretty much everyone he knows has a council property.

Anyway, I've always been brought up to be independent, so I was going to buy a property with it without him.

I eventually gave him an ultimatum and he stepped up to the plate and started saving towards the deposit. I earn more than him, but we both put in equal effort.

I do sometimes joke to OH that all of my nagging has paid off as now we have our home.

AIBU to think that’s just not FAIR?

Well, it could be fair if, after having fun and saving up his 5K over several years, he were then to knuckle under and take the main financial burden for the next few years so as to preserve both of your financial security and lifestyle while (for example) you focussed on starting a family. Sometimes these things can balance out in the long term, if his perception of “fair” is the same as yours.

But really, what are the chances of that happening?

A word to the wise: I am old lady and therefore old enough to recognise that when someone says “I'll only make the decision [to have a child] when I'm in a suitable position to decide (stable home, relationship, finances etc). If I'm never at that position, so be it.” what that usually means is: “sooner or later I will want to find someone who can share enough of the financial responsibility and build enough emotional and domestic stability so I can have a family”. In the end you are going to resent fiercely being tied to a man who can’t or wont do that. Either you two could have a stable long-term relationship with no children, or you might be having children with a man you can’t depend on for support when you need it. Are either of those what you really want?

I do think we have very different views on finances and our future plans.

You do. Can you ever see that changing?

Or AIBU because I'm no worse off than if I were single?

You will be worse off if you pour many more years of time and energy into this relationship and it doesn’t go where you want it to go.

Buy your own house and enjoy seeing your boyfriend, but don't tie up your financial future with his and do think about putting an end-date on this relationship in a year or two if your partner doesn’t start to show signs of growing up.

'So if he moves in, what the hell should I charge him, or is that another thread?!'

Just don't. He'll be telling you he needs to pay for storage for his guitars.

I've never seen a problem in settling down with someone but keeping finances separate. It doesn't seem as "romantic", but by the time we hit our mid 30's, its more about being practical than Mills and Boon. If you marry, do as previous posters suggest and have it written into an agreement that you own a higher proportion of the property due to your larger deposit - that's perfectly fair enough! It has to go both ways though - if his career suddenly soars or he inherits, then that's his money and not yours. I'm 36, and that's what I'd do, as I've worked too hard to sign my belongings over to someone else - and wouldn't want to live off the efforts of a man either.