Unequal finances

[Itsraimy]

Prompted by another post, but my partner and I (no kids and live together but not married) are discussing how we split our finances.

I earn circa 100k and DP earns circa 25k. Maybe IABU but if our household outgoings are 3k I think it’s fair enough that I put in 2k and they put in 1k.

Partner thinks that’s a bit unfair but I feel a bit aggrieved to put in a true ratio as feel I’m being penalised for earning a lot more.

If we split purely on salary, I’d put in £2.4k and they’d put in £600. AIBU suggesting we go for a 2k from me, 1k from them split?

I think this has got a bit off track. OP's partner isn't a hard working nurse/teacher/career driven and ambitious person who happens to be on a low wage and thus deserves to share their partner's wealth equally.

They're a free spirited, non career focussed, part time idealist wanting to enjoy all the trappings of her/his partners lifestyle with none of the work

I think its a bit much when you are not married and no kids that he effectively wants you to fund his entire lifestyle. He wants nice holidays, meals out, 50% ownership on a house for 600 quid a month
I can see you getting VERY resentful in years to come. Where is his pride ?
Its all very well him thinking there is more to life when you are the one funding that life so he can chill out and enjoy a stress free job
This is far too unequal imo
I would be very careful of having kids with him

I would be very interested if OP were to come back and say they’re a male with female partner. A lot of posters will be very quiet..,

@BillMasen

I would be very interested if OP were to come back and say they’re a male with female partner. A lot of posters will be very quiet..,

I don't see why. The sexes make no difference to the question.

“ I don't see why. The sexes make no difference to the question.”

No but they do to the answers a lot of people give

@BillMasen again, you haven’t read my posts have you? After repeatedly pointing out that I’ve said that the higher earner should pay more if they have the lifestyle of a higher earner.

Lifestyle equates to:

1. Extras such as holidays, free range chicken, a bigger house, what have you
2. The belief in the need to work hard as @wedswench pointed out.

Being a higher earner doesn’t mean you live that lifestyle. I personally would have the exact same on 30K as I would on 60K. In this case there’s no need for the higher earner to pay more is there - the lifestyle is affordable on both salaries.

Secondly is the amount of effort. The drive to build a career regardless of money is a value. The view that there’s more to life than working (and one should work just to have enough to live) is also a value. These fundamentally contradict. If you’re the first type the second is likely to irritate you. Also because they wouldn’t understand why you do what you do and what you sacrifice to get there.

@CastawayQueen I’ve re read your posts and you don’t state (s)he should pay more, just that they would be stuck with them, implying it’s not fair to be “stuck” with them. If that’s not what you meant and you actually agree that a higher earner should pay more then you should be clearer.

I think we differ in our views. I’d happily pay in proportion to earnings, you want to put conditions on that like the lower earner being somehow worthy

Pre kids me and my DH earned similar amounts - so we got a joint account and put more or less the same in.

During my pregnancies & mat leaves, this is when my DH's career really took off and he now earns substantially more than me.

We do % contributions. You earn massively more than your DP, % contributions is the fairest way if you are happy about division of household labour. You should pay £2.25k, DP should pay £750

@wedswench l think you’ve summed it up quite nicely

[quote BillMasen]@CastawayQueen I’ve re read your posts and you don’t state (s)he should pay more, just that they would be stuck with them, implying it’s not fair to be “stuck” with them. If that’s not what you meant and you actually agree that a higher earner should pay more then you should be clearer.

I think we differ in our views. I’d happily pay in proportion to earnings, you want to put conditions on that like the lower earner being somehow worthy[/quote]
Do you also t

As soon as DH and I moved in together, we shared money. Was just easier and moving in was the big commitment.

@Pipsquiggle

Pre kids me and my DH earned similar amounts - so we got a joint account and put more or less the same in.

During my pregnancies & mat leaves, this is when my DH's career really took off and he now earns substantially more than me.

We do % contributions. You earn massively more than your DP, % contributions is the fairest way if you are happy about division of household labour. You should pay £2.25k, DP should pay £750

There is a difference when kids are in a picture and it affected one person's income. Then what you do is absolutely fair

We are in this position to the extent of the numbers being almost identical (we are married, 2 kids though). We split it in the ratio of earnings so I will pay 4x more as I earn 4x more than him. I pay for big things like treats, holidays etc out of the normal 'bills' payments, but every once in a while he will (and I don't argue when he does). I do more of the housework and cooking, he does more of the DIY and gardening. I still end up with more disposable income than he does (but then I end up paying for kids clothes and clubs etc.... so I don't actually spend it on myself... )

Our situation is interesting in that he had a mid life career change so has started again from an entry level position, and his earnings potential is expected to increase by £20k in the next 10 years at least, possibly more, whereas for me after the next 10 years I'm going to have to do some serious juggling around pensions and Lifetime Allowance (first world problems I know) to make sure it's still viable for me to work. So the earnings ratio may shift around once this starts to happen.

I find it seriously odd that married people with children don’t pool their money in someway.

The idea you’d share a life, future plans and wishes for your children but where money is concerned it becomes so transactional.

Thing is, as a high earner your expenditure and lifestyle is probably very different to what DP would spend.
You probably enjoy luxuries that would not normally be available to him, eg meals out, non-budget supermarket consumables, maybe even a bigger and higher-end home. You have a cleaner, for example. Someone on an income of 25k would be unlikely to afford that. So if it your choice to have a more expensive lifestyle, then maybe that needs to be taken into account. You could suggest to DP that you drop the cleaner, and he picks up the load, for example. Or the cleaner is employed to do your share, and he does his share.
I don't think it would be reasonable to insist on a 100k lifestyle and then expect him to pay half, or even a third, if it's not something he would choose and it leaves him short.
On the other hand, presumably it is a choice that he does not work fulltime, and maybe you shouldn't have to subsidise that.
You're not married, you don't owe him anything.
Maybe the answer might be to split basic bills in an agreed proportion, and then you pay more for those things that have been incurred because you've chosen the more expensive options .
It is going to be difficult to get a solution that you both think is fair, but keep the discussion open.

@BillMasen the issue isn't that my posts aren't clear. It's that your view is very 'blunt force'. You're saying that the higher earner should pay more full stop. Whether there are joint kids, a marriage. Whether the lower earner is a student, someone who choses to work part time, is a professional, or simply decides not to work. Whether it's 30K vs 60K or 30K vs 100K. No matter what. Higher earner = more. Full stop. Black and white.

What I (and other posters) are saying that there is a great deal of nuance, depending on the situation. It's human to resent someone who isn't perceived to be 'doing their share'. Lower earner taking care of children/managing family - definitely doing their share. Lower earner working part-time, does no housework - it's not hard to see why there'd be resentment. Again it also depends on lifestyle. If both higher and lower earner have lifestyle that BOTH can afford - why is the lower earner automatically entitled to more free spending money? You keep dancing around this question.

The final aspect is that of household responsibility. Higher earning women often carry more of the mental load regardless of their partner's income. It's a double whammy - more stress at work + more responsibility for family stuff. Can you not see why a woman would be wary of facilitating a man's enjoyment of life while she does all the grunt work? We already see it in THIS specific situation where the OP's partner doesn't do any of the housework. As a man this has probably not occurred to you, has it? Unless you're one of the rare few who actually pull his weight in terms of both actual chores and the mental load.

@BillMasen

I would be very interested if OP were to come back and say they’re a male with female partner. A lot of posters will be very quiet..,

Not really. I'd give exactly the same response, but would remove my presumptive "he"!

Someone upthread suggested working out based on the higher hours you work. Not a bad idea to work your hourly take home rate and paying the mortgage on that prorata basis.

I also wouldn’t be over paying the mortgage. Getting a btl is a good idea - as someone suggested earlier. Then you’d have less disposable income.

You are being very generous despite some comments. It sounds like he thinks of you as his mummy. Taking him on holiday paying for everything. Sounds like he’s angling for paying zero. And if you want kids, he’s already showing he won’t look after you by not cooking and doing housework etc while you’re working so he isn’t a team player.

Yikes, I can't believe you'd be happy to leave your partner with 500 a month while you have 2.6k. Doesn't sound like your really committed to the relationship so is there any point in both of you wasting your time on it?

@CastawayQueen not dancing so let me answer

Yes I think I am a bit blunt in my views on this. I’ve been the high earner for a long time in a few relationships and my sense of fairness tells me that asking a partner earning a fraction of what I do to pay half isn’t fair. Perhaps I would feel that resentment you talk about if I felt taken advantage of but I never have.

I understand your point on the nuances, but I have to say I have never (very rarely) seen it played out in a situation with a male higher earner (well, maybe apart from threads where the sexes are not known). On here, my blunt approach is the default for male high earners and your nuanced one is the default for female ones.

Men have been called abusers for a 50:50 split on here. Never women.

And yes I am influenced by my own experiences. I have lived on my own for years, so fully understand the housework and mental load. In a relationship I do a greater proportion of both the cleaning (I’m usually the more tidy one) and the mental load (would probably be called controlling for that)

I think you’ve misread the op as they say their partner “doesn’t do more” not that they do nothing. I understand your point though

@shivawn but she doesn’t have 2.6K - because she pays for additional things that aren’t in their set contributions.

I find this post quite sad actually. When I met my partner I worked in a factory, done day shift/back shift. I worked for just above the min wage. He earned prob about 4x my salary. I went to work day in and day out and there is no way he thought he worked harder than me because he was earning more. We were a team. I put a percentage of my wages in and he done the same. It did help we had a very small mortgage, so I was still within my means. You knew what you were getting into when you purchased the property with him.

I find it seriously odd that married people with children don’t pool their money in someway. The idea you’d share a life, future plans and wishes for your children but where money is concerned it becomes so transactional

Not at all odd. Sharing everything can work fine if you have the same attitudes to finances. Me and my husband do not. I am careful, hate wasting money and like to save and plan. Husband is a fritterer. He honestly has no idea where all his money goes. It just seems to trickle away day by day with nothing much left to show for it. He earns nearly £70k and we have no mortgage FFS! If all my disposable income went into a joint "pot" that would all trickle away too. What we do works fine. We have been together 26 years.

Anyway the partner I had before was even worse. A musician no less (steer clear). Did part time badly paid work (when the job centre eventually forced him) because he needed the time and headspace to dedicate to his music. He really thought it was a gift to the world! We had separate finances and he would huff about that. When I suggested he looked at getting a proper career he would say only mugs joined the "rat race" and he was a free spirit. Well, free spirit comes with less cash, sorry, I am not going to bankroll you with my "mug's money".

Sorry didn’t read it all, but pls stop assuming people‘s gender