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 should be 50/50 at the start, with yes, the level of rent determined by the lower-income person.

Else you will keep having to rejig it every month with salary increases - what if one puts the extra into pension etc.

Once you come to buy a house, then re-assess. But going to joint pots for someone you are living with, no commitment sounds mad. then again i am 10 years of living together and still no joint accounts. We just each pay 50/50 of the bills.

As for kids, I haven’t even begun to think about what maternity leave I would take or what would happen then as we’re nowhere near that stage. At that point I think we would have to reassess our finances and work out what’s best for us as a ‘unit’ (which now involves a child whom it is both of our responsibilities to support) - if we did change our finances to split proportionally I certainly wouldn’t be ‘having my cake and eating it’ - we would be doing what’s best for our family.
If you were to expect to be able to do those things (such as unpaid section of leave or going part time) then that is a case of wanting to have cake and eat it.

If you want to go down the route of individuals who pay 50/50 and it's not your problem if he earns less then you have to be able to say hypothetically that you'd be more than happy both working full time if the household was better off having two working parents paying 50/50 for everyone, including childcare. You couldn't say that you'd be wanting things proportional because you're doing what's right for the family, and expect someone else to accept that as an approach if you've previously been insisting that you shouldn't subsidise him.

It's an attitude issue that could easily cause resentment.

This all sounds a bit too pedantic at this stage. I agree with the "three way split". Each puts an amount from a single account into a joint account for running the household.

I would find the "meanness" a bit of a turnoff.

I knew a couple [and it was years ago] and the man doled out "housekeeping" some of which had to be given back to him for mileage when he drove her in the car for shopping etc.

It will be no surprise that it did not last!

@Ace56

18 months in is way too early for sharing a bank account or pooling money. You don't have children, not even thinking about them yet. Do not tether or enmesh yourself financially to this man (or any man until you're ready, you want to, you trust him, you're a team.)

This is a guy you are dating and want to rent a place with. 50/50. If it was me I'd be also using my additional income and offering to cover the check at dinner more often than not, but I wouldn't make a formal arrangement to subsidise the living costs of my boyfriend to whom I am not committed.

You sound young. Stay independent and dependant free until you want more. Don't be pressured into it.

I agree with your follow up post- if you do have children with this man- then that is a whole different kettle of fish. You won't be bound by some precedent you set when you were both young and dating. You'll be making a decision with your life partner for the good of your family.

This guy is not your family yet.

We have 1 joint account for bills, each put £500 a month in.

We both have our own separate personal accounts & I'll keep it that way. Plainly because my OH bills are twice the amount of mine & he has more outgoings for what i call unnecessary crap 😂

@DontStandSoCloseToMe have to agree with you! We are ttc at the moment - and I’m putting money aside for maternity leave now so I have my half of the mortgage available when I’m off! I don’t expect my husband to fund everything even if he does make more money to me

18 months in is way too early for sharing a bank account or pooling money
I'd agree with this.

But I still think proportional is the fairest way if two people are serious about the relationship.

There's many ways to arrange finances and there's nothing wrong with many different arrangements as long as both people are in agreement and have a similar approach to finances. It's the different outlooks that cause issues.

Less than a 2 year relationship and in your 20s It would be 50/50 all day long, you shoud not have to subsidize someone else's lifestyle, if he wants more money then get a better paying job, he is probably saving by moving in with you anyways so will have more disposible income than before anyways

At this point in relationship I would go for proportional to income and i feel it is the fairest way to do it. I'm not against 50/50 but If you go for that option then you need to consider the one earning less. Also I wouldn't compare this to a roommate situation cause in a relationship you don't just consider yourself and personal finances.

Money pooling, joint finances, same ammount of spend in money comes down later down the line.

We are ttc at the moment - and I’m putting money aside for maternity leave now so I have my half of the mortgage available when I’m off! I don’t expect my husband to fund everything even if he does make more money to me

I am astonished that you think this is fair. Your husband makes more money than you and not only are you paying 50:50 now, you also expect to continue to pay 50:50 throughout your maternity leave when you will be at home caring for his baby, whereas his income remains unaffected.

Wow.

At this stage you shouldn't have to subsidise him at all. As long as he has enough to cover his outgoings / some disposable income he will be fine. Much different if you are married or with children though

If you were to expect to be able to do those things (such as unpaid section of leave or going part time) then that is a case of wanting to have cake and eat it.

I think you are making a lot of assumptions here. It may be that he OH goes part-time especially if OP earns more. It may be that they jointly decide to use savings of hers to cover mat leave. Making different decisions at different points in the relationship is not in any meaningful way 'wanting to have your cake and eat it'.

He doesn’t expect me to pay 50/50 @peperethecat I’d r at her jeep paying my way as long as I can! Once I return to work things will change as il prob only go back to work 3 days and at that stage my husband will pay more !

If I save up now and pay half the mortgage and bills while off we will have way more money for things like holidays and things like that. If I didn’t save up then my husband would pay for everything and we’d have no spare cash for much else! And I don’t want that

50:50 definitely - sounds like you're still working out if you want to become a long term unit or not. I agree with not subsidising your bf. And as you say shouldn't be necessary if you rent/live somewhere within his means as it sounds like you intend to do.

I'd be slightly concerned, not sure why he thinks you should have same amount of money for savings and spending when he earns less than you and you arent married / civil partnership etc yet.

I think the suggestion that the OP wants it both ways if she was on maternity and paid proportionately, is so unbelievably ridiculous.

Whose child would she be having exactly?

Of course your partner should support you financially during maternity leave.
Anyone who wouldn't is financially abusive and a twat.

They are young and trying things out.

Separate finances completely until they both decide differently.

You use half each, you pay half each. If he wants more spending money then he improves his pay or job, why should your hard work and achievements be for his benefit??

And this comes from the lower earner in my relationship

@KaptenKrusty Don't get me wrong, of course saving for your maternity leave is a good idea. It's just that the way you worded your post it sounded like you felt funding your maternity leave was all on you. Once you have a child everything should come out of the family pot really.

alittlerespectgoesalongway
No assumptions made. I was saying that it would be wrong to take the approach '50/50, your income is your problem, why should I subsidise you' if later you expect the option to take unpaid leave, reduce hours to be home more and so on and finances be proportionally split and the other would have to lump it.

For example, again hypothetically, a couple could spend 5 years with everything 50/50 because one person has insisted that proportional is them subsidising their DP and it's their problem if they earn less, the relationship is built on the "our finances are our individual affairs, both pay equally regardless of income", but later when there's a child their DP isn't happy being the breadwinner and wants them both to work full time, continue to pay 50/50 including childcare costs as this is the better financial situation for the family. It would be wrong for anyone to turn round and say but now I want to drop my hours, reduce the overall household income and make it proportional because now I'll benefit.

It's important for both parties to be on the same page with attitudes to money, and right now it doesn't sound like the OP and her DP are.

Of course your partner should support you financially during maternity leave.
Anyone who wouldn't is financially abusive and a twat.
Anyone who doesn't say it's fine to take 3 months unpaid is a financially abusive twat?
Part of maternity leave is paid, the other is unpaid. Nobody can unilaterally decide they are going to go to zero income had their other half should suck it up.

Both parties have to be on the same page regarding finances otherwise there's issues.

We have separate accounts plus a joint bills one, together nearly 30 years now.

When we're both working, we always split the payin to the joint account proportionally to cover bills and shopping etc - and the higher earner takes on any surprise odds and ends like a failed MOT fixup or blown boiler etc. We've had wages as far apart as 75/25% but each of us has been the high earner at different times.

When one isn't working, the other shoulders the lot of course.

I don't really understand why a cohabiting couple would split it any other way. 50:50 would be grossly unfair on the lower earner who'd end up with no personal cash, and having to go cap in hand to the other would be shit even though it'd be "of course!" with us.

Proportional is fairest. Also sets a precedent for future should you earn less and he earns more

TimeForACheeseSandwich
We do a similar arrangement.

I couldn't imagine DH and I still being together if he had the attitude of "your job, your problem, why should I help". We've both had time as the higher earner.

@LolaSmiles
But when did I ever say I would EXPECT to take unpaid maternity leave and for him to subsidise me? I said we would need to talk about it and decide what’s right for our family. If that’s us both working FT and still paying 50/50 then so be it.

I’m also at the analogies that keep being mentioned of him being absolutely broke, not having any disposable income while I sit on piles of gold! Obviously I wouldn’t want that. I’ve said we would rent somewhere HE would feel comfortable affording/paying half for, with enough left over to be disposable.

I think there is no "one size fits all" answer there. People have such polarized opinions because they're assuming this to be a long term relationship, which it may or may not be.

I think at the beginning, when just moving in together and testing the waters, it makes sense to do 50-50. As for not having disposable income at the end of the month - if I was the lower earner in such a scenario, I would make sure we rent a place where I have enough left over that I'm happy and comfortable with.

If the relationship evolves to be long-term and there is an actual commitment, then ot makes sense to go proportional because then you really become a unit. By commitment I mean engagement, marroage, kids, buying property together, any of those.

As for the OP earning less on mat leave - well, first off kids are a long term commitment that justifies changing the split of bills. And second, she is earning less but contributing to the unit in other ways (not having to pay for childcare, maybe doing more housework, and not least creating a human being !)

Right now the DP isn't contributing to the relationship in other ways so there is no reason for him to pay less.

I'd feel different of course if my partner wanted to rent a place that was too expensive for me to afford - in that case I'd tell them that either we move somewhere I can afford, or they pay the difference.

I've skipped to the bottom, so hope I'm not repeating what anyone said.

The question you need to ask yourself is if you are sharers or partners. If one of you lost their job, would they be expected to move out so they could be replaced with someone who could pay their way? If so, you are sharers, and 50:50 makes sense.

If the one still in work would be expected to pay the bills until the other was in work again, then you're partners, and a proportional split makes more sense.

But are you sitting on piles of gold OP? 😁 You both sound young, striking out into a joint rental property together, and you happen to be earning £150pmth more. So potentially you're not 'fleecing him to his last 1p', you're just asking him to pay his half?