To ask is it fair to split costs 50/50 when my equity and salary is a lot less

[Desperatetobeamummyonedaysoon]

I live alone with my small child. Im 37. I work 4 days a week, my salary is a good salary pro rata but i work 4 days so my take home pay is still good but is lower than my partners. I own my own 2 bed house and have a good amount of equity in it and live a normal, comfortable but not luxurious life! I work hard and have to save hard for holidays etc (like most people!)

My partner is 5 yrs older and bought a house young, he doesnt have kids and bought a 2nd house and has a lot of equity. He earns a good salary and has savings, shares etc of 35k! Hes worked hard and saved hard. Hea almost cleared his mortgages!!!

We are looking at buying together (been together three years). He wants it all 50 /50. He wants to only put in a certain amount of equity so we own 50/ 50 and wants the mortgage to be paid 50 50. I feel as though he should want the best for 'us' and should want to put more equity in?/pay more. I dont want or need his money and in fact i hate money and the complications it brings. Because hes saved hard and built up all this money hes extra thrifty and slightly obsessed with savings and bargains etc

The other thing we looked at (for various reasons) was him keeping his house and renting it out and me keeping mine and renting it out and buying a new home together. If we did this my disposable income would be £50 a month! And his would be £800 a month because my equity in my home is lower and my salary is lower but id be paying half mortgage and i do have a few more outgoings than him like car finance. He didnt think this is unfair for him to have more disposable imcome because he said hes worked so hard and saved and i have a gym membership etc.. he said he '"wont be working hard to fund my lifestyle"!. Its all so bloody complicated. I said well i cant afford to keep my house and rent it out. He didnt offer to pay more of bills but did say hed pay more meals out etc.

The other option i suggested is i will sell my house and he keeps his to rent out. Weve looked at the new area we want to live and its more expensive. I suggested i may need a little help from him eg him lending me stamp duty and legal fees would mean i could get a slightly bigger home for us. He said he would consider helping but was concerned how id pay him back! My dad makes comments to me like what the hell is he accruing all this wealth for? He cant take it to the grave!

My partner and i have discussed this issue and will do again.. its very complicated. If we had a baby he has said he would pay more of mortgage while im on mat leave.

What do others think?

swingofthings she's working 4 days and funding her own life, paying her own mortgage, having 3 days per week with her small child. Her partner isn't funding her. Why on earth should she give up this well balanced, successful arrangement so she can work more hours, see her child less, pay more childcare and have less disposable income for the honour of house sharing with a man who gets to keep everything his way. She'd be making all the sacrifices and giving up her security to appease his principles.

They are not compatible to cohabit. She certainly shouldn't have a baby with him, he will be too busy guarding his money to parent.

There is a reason this man is in his 40s never having been married or had a child. Don't be the fool.

You say if we split I certainly wouldn't be after his dosh!

Really? So you'd have 2 young kids (already trying is ridiculous btw). You'll have sold your home and given up your financial security to plough it into a house you can't afford. Insane.

I don't blame him for wanting to protect his assets but you should be doing so too.

Your dad is onto something. He can't take it to the grave. No, and should he die you won't get it either. And you'll be sat in a house that might go into negative equity with 2 kids and you can barely afford half the mortgage.

Don't do this

My dad was very careful with money, the exception was with my mum and he was generous in the extreme with her because he adored her. Sorry, OP, but you don’t protect your assets and put your partner in penury if you genuinely love them. And I say that as the wealthier half of our partnership.

You have your own doubts don't you. I think you just needed clarification from mumsnetters.
I can't see this being an easy ride for you, Read mean for thrifty.
What happens if you have a child together and you have no income of your own ? Will he just buy stuff for his own dc and leave yours without ?

Think seriously before committing to this tight arsed sod

she's working 4 days and funding her own life, paying her own mortgage, having 3 days per week with her small child. Her partner isn't funding her. Why on earth should she give up this well balanced, successful arrangement so she can work more hours, see her child less, pay more childcare and have less disposable income for the honour of house sharing with a man who gets to keep everything his way. She'd be making all the sacrifices and giving up her security to appease his principles.

^^ this 100%

It's fair to keep what you have already, and any profit, income from it, even if you marry. Though this may be taken into account later in a divorce.
It's not fair for one of you to have more disposable income, and keep accumulating after you marry (or live together in anticipation of marriage, you are not flatsharing). Anything acquired after marriage is. 50/50. You will feel unequal asking for money and if he pays for things from his money unless there is some agreement of what is fair.
He's a skinflint, leave well alone.

This is not a viable arrangement.

When one partner has a lot more money than the other, they have two choices. They can either live at a standard that the higher income allows, and accept they will pay more than 50%. Or they can have it 50/50 and live at a standard the lower earner can afford.

The problem arises when they want both: the more expensive house/lifestyle AND the 50% contribution. He can't have both. It's just not going to be possible.

How can I post a photo here?

Click on the paperclip symbol below the comment box

Financial security is priceless, OP. It is especially important for single parents: it's what your child needs.

You have it at the moment, please don't jeopardise it by getting involved financially with this man, unless his attitude changes. Make sure you protect yourself.

Don’t move in with him. Stick to your life as it currently is, bobbing along nicely in your own home with your DC. He sounds tight fisted and this won’t end well.

Sounds like you'd be getting the shitty end of the deal there OP. Doesn't sound like a partnership if he's happy to have 16 times more disposable income than you. The bit about him paying more when you're on mat leave (I should bloody well think so!), but what about the other outgoings? If you're going to live together and have a baby together then you need to be a team.

Doesn't seem like it makes financial sense for either of you to buy together tbh. For you, makes no sense to sell your house which you can afford, and buy one with him and live off just 50 quid for disposable income a month! Also doesn't really make sense if he is nearly mortgage free with two properties already.

Also, what if house prices fall? Brexit. I'd stay put if I were you.

She'd be making all the sacrifices and giving up her security to appease his principles
Or he is the one who has to make sacrifices to appease OP principles of working only 4 days. The problem here is one sticking to their principles is at the cost of the others. So no right or wrong but indeed resigning themselves that it might take longer or never before they are both emotionally prepared to give up a bit to be together.

Please don’t do it OP. You are going amazingly on your own and you will put yourself and your child in a horrible and vulnerable position if you sell your house to buy with him.

He’s clearly accrued all his wealth being a miser.

I can see the threads now if you did sell your house, bought with him and had a baby....

He wants to only put in a certain amount of equity so we own 50/ 50 and wants the mortgage to be paid 50 50

What's wrong with this? Relatively short term relationship, not married, no joint children - 50:50 would seem to be the way to go, as long as they buy within a budget that OP can afford her 50% without having to scrape by.

At this stage of the game, I really don't think her DP has any responsibility to support her. Further down the line, and especially if they have joint children, it might be a different matter.

He's keen to protect what he has so he'll have to understand that you want to protect the financial security of yourself and your child. Personally, I would just say in very matter of fact way that you're better off as you are. You love him but you have to put your child's interests first. You shouldn't have to work full time etc as you've worked hard to put a life together that works for you and your child. He isn't willing to compromise anything. And I may be being dramatic but I bet if you had a child with this man and went on mat leave, he'd treat you like the help and he was contributing more.

The question is, do you want this misereble life?

mrsm43s, he'd have a disposable income of £800 a month, she'd have £50.

They are supposed to be becoming a Partnership. If you'd happily have £750 a month more, then as said, you are really hoping for a lodger that you can shag.

He's told her that he will pay more if she's on maternity leave, not take over the payments.

The OP shouldn't be even thinking of giving up her security for the deal he's put on the table.

I doubt he's sees himself as a Step-Dad, so to the OP's young child, he's just the man Mummy lives with, Nah.

That sums it up. You have a lovely lifestyle and home as it is. This man sees everything in terms of money. I imagine he's thinking, "Hmm I'll save on half the bills if we live together..." Soon it would be "You're at home that extra day per week - you're using electricity on those days so you should pay for that."

Absolutely. I had an ex like this. He lived in my flat and paid half of the bills. He had a spreadsheet to make sure we both paid exactly half of the shopping and would go through the receipts taking out things that only I had eaten (eg. raspberries). I would have to pay for them separately. The bill for the food we had both eaten had to be split down the middle and he worked out who had paid what and at the end of the month either paid me what he owed or billed me for what I owed him.
Then he started on about paying for the heating. He said that because MY cats slept on the radiators they were preventing the heat getting into the room and therefore I should be paying more than half the heating.

An extreme case but there are men like this out there. Your 'D'P sounds like this. I can understand him wanting to protect his assets - it is a relatively short relationship and you aren't married but him saying he doesn't want to fund your lifestyle just sounds all wrong. And saying he'll pay more of the mortgage when you are on maternity leave sounds all wrong too.

If he wants to start a family with you and buy a house with you then he should do it properly. He should marry you and the money your both earn should be family money.
Anything else will put you in a vary precarious situation. What if you buy a house and have a baby and the relationship breaks down? You've rented out your house to tenants and can't get it back straightaway. Where are you supposed to go with your child and the baby? You'll have to rent somewhere privately and it could be very expensive - you won't be in as strong a financial position as you are now when you are maybe earning less because of having the baby.

No way would I be buying a house with him. He could move in with you so you could both see if this is likely to work out long term.
Or you bin him off completely. Nothing is more important than financial security for you and your child. Why risk it all for some fucker who sounds like a right tight arse.

Can you imagine the inequality in this family - dad gets everything he wants because he can afford it - does he choose the holiday because he's paying or does he go alone because he doesn't fund anyone else. Does he get to chose what does in the house - because the OP will have difficulty making ends meet never mind buying extras. Does the child you have together get more stuff because she belongs to him and your other child doesn't? Seriously you will be lodgers who have sex, not partners in life.

Forget to say:
You are financially incompatible.

I don’t think he’s necessarily wrong for wanting 50/50 but you just need to explain to him that you can’t afford to pay any more for a house/bills etc than you already do. If that means you can’t afford to buy somewhere so be it.

I also agree with those who have said he’ll never marry you because he won’t want to risk you having any claim on his money.

Op You've got a good life that you have worked hard for. You're able to own a home and support your kids as a LP.
You don't need to be financially shackled to the miser.
Carry on in your own home.
He doesnt need another home, he's got 2 already!
Why not keep things exactly as they are right now?
How do you think things would change financially if you had kids with him?
Nightmare, that's what I think.
There are no pockets in a shroud.

@Birdsgottafly

mrsm43s, he'd have a disposable income of £800 a month, she'd have £50.

I didn't read the OP like that at all. The OP said
"The other thing we looked at (for various reasons) was him keeping his house and renting it out and me keeping mine and renting it out and buying a new home together. If we did this my disposable income would be £50 a month! And his would be £800 a month because my equity in my home is lower and my salary is lower "

so those figure relate to a different scenario, which I agree would not be acceptable. But OP hasn't given any indication of whether or not she could afford to go 50:50 on a jointly owned house with them both putting in the same amount of equity, and sharing the mortgage payments equally.

Since she currently owns a property with an amount of equity and an affordable mortgage payment, then surely together they can afford a property twice as expensive as her current existing house, and she will be able to afford it exactly the same as she affords her current property.

This would be the situation I see fair - they both are equal, and select an option that is affordable to both of them.

It seems odd that if OP owns a 2 bedroom house in which she has "a good amount of equity" that it would cost her more to pay for half of a bigger house. How much nicer is this house, if it costs more than twice as much, and needs to accommodate just one extra person?

I think don't move in with him, don't sell your house, don't buy a property with him, definitely don't have a baby with him.

This^^. Really it shouldn't be this hard - and sounds like it will only get harder if you get financially more enmeshed with him - especially if you end up having a baby with him and need to stop work for a while...