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?

I think it depends on the exact amounts.
Eg: if paying half each meant that I had 500 pcm extra spending money but he only had 200...I would probably pay a little more: eg, cover the council tax.

But if it was a case of we both would have 400+ left over then I would feel a little ill at ease with him suggesting I pay more.

Proportionate split is fairer.

This isn't about subsidising someone - your partner is right that you are becoming a unit, so equating it to a house/flatmate situation is not the same. In a relationship you are supporting and enabling each other to have a good quality of life - which includes reasonable spending money if you have disposable income available once bills are paid. I would find it difficult to have a good relationship with someone who would happily see me struggle at the end of each month, if they had £100s spare for their own hobbies and social life.

Attitude towards money is a key thing to sort out before you live together. I would find it difficult to have a good relationship with someone who would happily see me struggle at the end of each month, if they had £100s spare for their own hobbies and social life. Incidentally I am the main earner so have skin in the game so-to-speak. However we have very similar attitudes towards spending so we pool everything into one joint account and all spending goes in and out of that.

I think it should all go in one pot. What’s left after bills should be split. If you’re planning on having children at some point then there’s a good chance of you earning a lot less than him in a future, maybe even nothing at all if you become a sahm. If you make too much of a point of splitting everything bang of 50/50 and keeping all your finances separate, then it could come back to bite you if you end up relying on him to support you

@Headbangersandmash How would my bf be subsidising ME if we split 50/50? A house costs X amount to rent. We both pay our half. It’s equal.
If we do it proportionately, I’m paying my half and then some of his share, too. Hence I’m subsidising him.

We split proportionately.. I don't really understand why people are saying that isn't fair; i earn more than my partner, but we both pay in 70% of our wages into the joint account.. obviously I pay in more, but proportionately we pay the same?

Proportionate seems fair in this situation - and agree with the other posters saying if you were saying you earned less and he earned more then everyone would be calling for it to be proportionate!

I also think it's unfair that you want to go 50/50 now but if you have kids you want to then go proportionate or share in a joint account.

Personally when me and my now DH moved in together when I was 22 we just immediately pooled all money and had both of our salaries paid into a joint account and had a "what's mine is yours" approach from day 1. But I'm aware that this only worked as we had been together for such a long time by this point.

I can't even remember how we split money when we first moved in together (were engaged and bought a house together so maybe more commitment). I know we both kept our own accounts and transferred money into joint account but found we were going over drawn in one account when others had money so a month before we got married we moved to one account and its been one pot ever since.

I think proportional is safest and fair. You are the higher earner now but wont subside hik but if your pay reduces when you have kids suddenly you expect it all to change? Of course I agree when children come into the picture you should work equally but I just think it makes it easier and fairer and sets the status quo that you pay proportionate to what you earn.

Because as a percentage of your income, you’re paying less, at his expense.

Him stamping his feet about it being fair is a real turn off.

Years ago I bought a flat in London and my boyfriend moved in. He gave me £40 a week towards stuff. When I sold the flat I used the profit to buy a car and two kitchens which we shared and share. No issues.

Some people would say I did wrong.

I think you'll be doing wrong because if his attitude and phrasing.

I think it's a longer term conversation you need to have.

For example, if one of you gets a bonus or an inheritance, how would that be split? If you have a baby and go on maternity leave, will he be prepared to step up and cover the bills etc?

I'd go 50/50 with him now because £4k isn't a huge difference but you need to have your eye on the longer term. Have the conversation and make sure his current beliefs fit with the long term picture of your relationship.

My partner and I pay the same amount into a bills account each month but he earns more than me so he has the car payment coming out of his person account. We're having a baby in September and we've already planned what will happen to our finances when my wages drop.

I'd say proportional. long term that's fairest and also means flexibility when circumstances change.

My DH and I operate our finances so not only do we pay proportional amounts but we also have exactly the same personal disposable income.

I don't think a mindset of 'subsidising' him is going to help very much. If you proportionally pay an amount depending on your incomes, then it's fair, and there isn't any subsidising going on. I can't really see how you came to that conclusion tbh. If you pay 50/50 then he is getting a much worse deal than you are, but this way you are both the same. You aren't worse off than him because you have more incoming money in the first place.

You need to stop thinking in terms of housemates, you aren't housemates living separate lives in the same house - you're a partnership embarking on a life together.

@WinterAndRoughWeather But it’s not at his expense. He would be paying his fair share. If that’s a bigger proportion of his income, that’s got nothing to do with me.
Should a millionaire pay more for a banana than someone on 10k, just because it’s a smaller proportion of their income? No. A banana is a banana - they are buying the same thing for the same price and getting the same outcome from it.

Taking maternity/reducing hours with kids is totally different. That is impacting your income to support the family. Hardly having cake and eating it.

I think it also depends on personal circumstances. We're not married and I earn very slightly more. We split 50/50 and I balance the extra with the treats for us. However, I like to work overtime for a bit of extra each month, he chooses not to. I wouldn't want to do a proportionate split for me to basically work an extra 20+hrs and to see no financial benefit from it.

I think the fairest way is the "three account" system. Both you wages are paid into one joint account and all bills come directly out of this. The leftovers are split 50:50 and paid into your single accounts as your disposable income.

We do a three account system but like a pp we put the same amount into the joint account and the rest is our own money. I don't want to have to justify the cost or the reason I've just ordered a new fancy pants tablecloth.

You don't mention how long you have been together? I'd definitely split it 50/50 to start with as long as the place you pick is affordable to you both. However, maybe have a conversation about how this may change further into the relationship.

However I can also see a previous poster's point who said that doing it proportionally now sets the tone for the rest of the relationship and eases the path for later on.

Look at it this way, I wouldn't want my partner to be potless at the end if each month if me paying a little extra could prevent that. And I'd expect the same kindness from him if the roles were reversed.

But if he would have plenty left over to save/spend either way from splitting 50/50 (even if it was less than me. Then I'd consider him a chancer for suggesting I pay more.

Sorry - I earn 20% more than DH but we pay the same amount in.

My DP earns 25k a year more than me, but we contribute 50/50. I don't expect him to subsidize my life.

4k a year is a fairly negligible amount. I'm surprised it's a point of contention either way. If it bothers you, don't agree to it.

Your last post - you are a in a relationship with this person, they aren't Joe Bloggs in the street! If you get married you will be a family. You are thinking of yourself only, 'his financial situation has nothing to do with me' - I've got no doubt it will very much have something to do with you if you have children along the line and are on maternity pay and can't pay your half of the bills!

It looks like you only care about yourself and your money.

I totally agree with him. I also think it is unfair to plan to switch it when it benefits you later on

We've always done 50:50 into an account and mortgage, council tax, internet etc all come out of a joint account. When it comes to paying off the credit card or needing to get something, neither of us discuss it we just do it and that's that.

Well since you don’t sound like you consider it a partnership you might as well keep it on a flat mate basis.