Moving in together and splitting bills - how?!

[Ace56]

DP and I are planning on moving in together in the near future (when it’s possible with the current situation...). We’re in our twenties, no children. I earn slightly more than him, about 4K more per year. This is the first time either of us has lived with a partner, just the 2 of us as a couple and no other housemates etc.

He thinks rent, bills etc should be split proportionately according to income, so I would pay slightly more. I think we should split everything 50/50, as I have done in the past and as is normal for housemates/friends living together. I KNOW living with someone you’re in a relationship with is different to living with a friend/housemate, but I can’t understand why I should be effectively subsidising his living costs when we’re not married and don’t have joint finances? His reasoning is that it wouldn’t be ‘fair’ as he would then have less spending money/for savings than I would. I said that this is true now, when we don’t live together, so what’s the difference? He thinks that when you live together you effectively become a ‘unit’ and so it should be more equal.

In reality, because I don’t earn that much more than him, I know the difference would be minimal if we did split it proportionately. However I think it’s the principle that bothers me. I think it should be 50/50 but you should both live within the lower-earner’s means - ie. if he says he can only afford 600pm for rent, then I can’t expect him to pay more than that, and if I want a more expensive house then he has every right to ask me to subsidise him. But if we both live in a place that he can afford, why do I need to pay more for that? AIBU?

We split pro rata to income for all shared expenses. Our income is about a 60/40 split.
It’s always felt fair to both of us.
(No DC)

50/50 until marriage or children.
Spell that out now.
(don't have children without the marriage though)

Me and my husband pool everything. Everything we have, including our house, is jointly owned. We have a child together and another on the way.
It may be controversial to say this, but in my mind this is what constitutes a "unit". We have made some huge commitments to each other and we can't just simply walk away if it doesn't work out.
In your situation, I would certainly NOT be pooling resources at this stage. What's to say things will work out long term? You should not be out of pocket.

I think if you're going to start to think proportionally you need a more nuanced picture of the finances - or you joint them completely. E.g. when my OH and I moved in, I was earning more than him, but he worked from home and his commute costs were of course, nothing. But my commute cost money. I would have resented us considering proportionate payments when my effective take home, after costs, was not as much than his as first appeared. If you're just living together, not married, no kids, I'd go 50/50 for now.

50/50 until married, kids etc.

Yes I pay approx 40% which was actually more than he wanted me to pay anyway. He lived here on his own before me and the flat belongs to a family member so he’ll get a share when we move out and it gets sold. There’s really not much extra cost to him by me living here but I now have to commute to work which costs more and the rent on my previous flat was quite low. So if I’d moved in and paid half of all bills and rent it would have been a big benefit to him but I would actually have been worse off each month. This way we both have around £400 extra a month to save towards buying a house.

I agree proportional as well - you shoul aim to have the same spending money after bills are paid. Not sure why the red flag comments - op is waving her own red flag right there over a couple of hundred quid a month.

If you insist on 50/50 it'll bite you on the arse when you're on maternity leave with no income.

Moving in together as a couple confers a new status on your relationship. While you're living separately you're bf/gf and semi independent of each other, so perfectly reasonable that you pay your own way and have differing lifestyles. When you move in together you're sharing your life, and therefore shouldn't have disparate lifestyles at all.

Imagine he earns £70k and you £20k and he wants to go to Bali for three weeks and insists on you paying half. Fair?

As a PP has said, pretty much every thread about this with the woman as the lower earner has a consensus to split in proportion of earnings, (or pool everything).

Threads with the man as the lower earner are more mixed.

I’d always split in proportion. Anything else is unfair.

You are in a new relationship with no children and earn roughly similar amounts so it should be 50/50. Once you are married or have children then you can switch to proportional or joint finances, but don't tie your financial wagon to him so early.

It's a red flag that he is being so petty over a relatively small amount of money this early on.

We each stick the same percent of our income into the joint account and keep the remainder as personal spends. That means the higher earner pays more in terms of bills but also has more disposable income. We are married but it's how we've done things since the start, minus a period of time when everything was just pooled because I was on maternity leave. It seems the fairest way. The balance of who earns more has shifted several times during our relationship, but neither of us has ever felt hard done by or resentful with this way of working.

Thanks for the replies so far. Seems like a mixed bag.

In response to PPs - yes, I think the situation completely changes with marriage and especially children. Obviously if I am on maternity leave/working PT then it should not be a 50/50 split. In this case, I would agree with the joint pot system - what’s mine is yours etc. But not right now as an unmarried couple.

And yes, I would feel the same if I was the lower earner! I’ve lived with friends previously where I was the one earning less and we still split equally - I wouldn’t dream of asking them to subsidise me. But I could still afford it - we were living within my income which is what I’d expect to do with DP.

I would say proportionally is fair. It isn't fair to do 50/50 because then one person is worse off than the other. You are living in a partnership, not separately as housemates do.

I think you need to discuss with him more about when/if you plan to combine finances.

How does this work in other areas? Eg do you split the cost of meals, tickets etc? If so does he expect that to change moving forward and be split proportionally too? Or if you have a joint account for food bills do you pay more?

You need a talk with him about what you both consider reasonable and reevaluate as and when you hit each relationship milestone

I'd split 50/50 but I'd also be prepared to even it up a bit by paying for the odd takeaway through the month if he's got less disposable income.

Trying to remember when I lived with my ex. Pretty sure we did the bills proportionate (I paid a bit more) and we kept what was left of our own money.

When children all bets are off.
We just have a joint account all in, all out.

I agree with your partner, we always did it on a proportional split (we even had an excel spreadsheet with formulae that would automatically adjust the amounts as our earnings changed).

At some points in our relationship he’s earned more, at others I have.

It seemed the fairest way to us. Whoever’s earning more still has more spare spending money, it’s just proportional.

Me & my partner moved in together when we were 19, we got a joint account, put all wages in there, took £60 each to spend then the rest went into savings.

If we needed clothes etc that would be on top of the £60.

We are still doing the same thing now and are in the process of buying our first home opposed to renting. I suppose it's about what works for you, but this is the way it's always worked best for us.

We pooled money when we moved in with each other but by then we had been together 3 years and were planning our wedding the following year and children soon after that. So for us, being a single unit at that point made sense.

I disagree with 50/50 split. Moving in together for the first time is the perfect opportunity to set your finances up for the rest of your lives. Yes, you earn more than him now but what about in the future, if (for example) you take time off for mat leave you will expect him to support you financially as your wages drop away. It's not fair that you shoulder the burden of childcare, career break and loss of income.

It'll be so much easier to negotiate this type of circumstance change together if you set the tone now.

50/50 DH has always earned a lot more than me but we've always put 50/50 into a joint account for all the bills. He has all the hassle and works hard so why shouldn't he benefit from it. I would never expect to be subsidised by anybody

50/50 unless one of you earns significantly more and wants to rent in a place out of the other persons budget.

FWIW we do a 3 account system. Our wages go into our own accounts, we both pay in to a joint account such that we have the same £ left that's our own.

Joint account covers mortgage, utility/insurance bills, food shop, expenses for DD, any joint family fun like trips and meals out.

Our own accounts cover our cars, gym memberships, phone contracts, clothes, gifts etc. It works for us and roughly how we've done things since moving in.

Definitely proportional, and actually you don't sound very charming when you say things like 'I don't want to subsidise him' he's your partner!! What happens when his income changes and overtakes you, or you go on mat leave? I'd hope he'd want to subsidise you.

Like PP have said, when a woman is the lower earner it seems to be proportional but when the man is the lower earner it seems to be 50/50. I don't get it.

Just read your update OP. So you think it should be 50/50 now but if you were off on maternity leave THEN you think it should be proportional? That hardly seems fair at all!! That’s very much wanting to have your cake and eat it.

Doesn’t matter how you want to do it but you should have roughly the same spending money left after all your expenditure. Whether that means you split the bills more proportionately or you agree to pick up the takeaways, it’s up to you.

Agree with @titchy completely - can’t see at all how this is a red flag on his part, I kind of think the opposite - I’d be concerned about your attitude if I were him.