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?

@BillMasen that’s a fair response.
The blunt approach is more common for men - because not only are more higher earners men but also because their partner is likely to have given up careers to have kids. The majority of posts on mumsnet are in this situation. I’ve never seen a post going ‘I earn less than DP, we have no kids, AIBU to want him to pay more ?’ I’ve seen only 2 posts like the OP and both were vague about genders.

Also as a responsible man you’re very much in the minority.

At the end of the day it doesn’t matter as long as both partners have the same perception of the value of what they bring to their relationship. When no children are involved there’s not really anything ‘U’ short of abuse. Different people value different things…

@BillMasen

Threads like this annoy me

The other way round and there is pretty much consensus. Either all one pot or pay in proportion. Anything less is considered unfair and possibly abusive. It’s always like that

Then a higher earning woman posts and it shifts. There a more even split with a fair proportion of posters saying it’s fine to not be in proportion, or even that 50-50 is ok

One poster even said to split up with the “chump” as hell never earn te same. That would be roundly condemned the other way round.

Op. Split in proportion. Don’t be a dick

I did not advocate the OP splitting up. I was talking about my choice at the time and I decided to throw my lot in with "the chump" and 20 plus years later we've had a great life and I couldn't give a shit that to my earnings made it so.

@honeylulu I get that - I’m the fritterer but we pool our money, pay all the bills, put away savings, but the things the kids need and have our portion each month that’s for us to do whatever we like with.

I spend mine on nonsense and wool, he spends very little and has accumulated a few thousand which he’s using for himself (obviously).

I just wouldn’t have a marriage where one had less access to money than the other.

@Watchingyou2sleezes you’re quite correct and I apologise for misrepresenting your views

@CastawayQueen I have to disagree slightly. I’ve seen many many posts saying precisely that and the consensus is always that he should pay more. Not to do so is considered unfair, tight and sometimes abusive. Perhaps my grumpiness about mn double standards make me more attuned to seeing those.

Within a marriage, with kids, yes!

But in this case OP and the OH need to sit down and do what they should have done before buying a house 50:50. Talk through the financial aspects of their relationship and not leave it all in the hands of 'true love's etc.

And whilst I agree, there are threads, posters, that do have double standards, but the majority of posters do take them to task.

Maybe you remember them more because they hit more of a nerve with you, so you may not notice the ratio of responses.

@Hallyup6

You sound selfish.

He should run far, far away from you.

And find someone who will subsidise him even more, to take life easy?

@EveryoneIsThere

Two of my adult kids are the higher earners in their relationships and having seen how hard they have worked to get their careers I wouldn’t discourage them from not splitting their money evenly with their partners. Their partners chose not to work so hard. I don’t see why my kids should be subsidizing them. (Obviously I NEVER say this out loud 😅). I know some people can’t ever end up in high paid jobs due to lots of reasons but for many they made active choices not to dedicate themselves to studying etc. BTW before anyone slates me for this opinion you should know I am in the group of people who have chose NOT to dedicate my younger years to getting a high paid career.

Excellent point - if it were your kids who were the higher earners, would you still encourage them to sub their partners? Especially partners who have less money because they chose to work PT (even though they have no kids)?

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz yes, of course I'd sing the same song were the sexes swapped. It's matter of principle, not gender.

Some people's sense of entitlement is astounding.

[quote BillMasen]@CastawayQueen I have to disagree slightly. I’ve seen many many posts saying precisely that and the consensus is always that he should pay more. Not to do so is considered unfair, tight and sometimes abusive. Perhaps my grumpiness about mn double standards make me more attuned to seeing those.[/quote]
You’re right - those posts do exist and I’m always irritated by the double standards too.

I also hate the implication that Lower paid = not worthwhile

There are teachers, teaching assistants, nurses and more on £25k or less. I earn more than that part-time but I guarantee they work harder than I do.

Merryoldgoat
Yes I agree with you too

[quote Itsraimy]@TheFoundations I’m fine with my partner not wanting a stressful job and thinking there is more to life.

I’m fine with paying 2/3 of our household outgoings and paying for holidays and overpaying our mortgage.

I’m just not sure I’m fine with paying almost all of our monthly outgoings. Clearly I’ve split opinion.[/quote]
If you intend to have children and carry the mental load, you may feel very different about "Mr. Laid back", within a few years.

@Merryoldgoat

I also hate the implication that Lower paid = not worthwhile

There are teachers, teaching assistants, nurses and more on £25k or less. I earn more than that part-time but I guarantee they work harder than I do.

But the point isn’t about worthwhile though is it - it’s about whether someone’s a dick for being resentful about paying more. In a family where someone stays home/goes part time to look after the kids and manages the household it is 100% U for the higher earner to not pay more. But if someone is resentful that an unmarried partner bring less to the table financially - that isn’t U. They have to either make the choice to continue paying more or leave the relationship and find someone better suited to them. It depends on what they value. People may say that it’s ‘shallow to look at money’ but people can pick partners based on whatever criteria they want. OP bought a house with a partner knowing what he was like. She has to leave if she really can’t stand it or reconcile. It’s her decision. But neither choice is dickish.

I think your dp wouldn't have such large outgoings if he wasn't living with you? Presumably you have a big ish mortgage? It depends if you agreed everything before buying a house. Maybe he doesn't want to pay 1/3 of the cleaner costs or whatever and would prefer to clean himself?

Once married things change, but before that I think it's fair enough to split it in a different way but you need to agree everything before committing to big costs.

Also to add - we can’t judge whether OP is being U because we don’t know how much she has left at month end. Out of the 2.6K remaining how much is she actually paying for all the others things?
Until there’s true figures it’s hard to say who has more left at month end.if OP wants to maintain a high earner lifestyle and expect partner to contribute equally its U but she seems to have been very generous already so…

YABU, I don’t think relationships work as well when you don’t treat money coming in as joint. There was a time when u earned £100k more than DH (then DP) and we still split bills on a percentage basis. The higher earner still ends up with more spending money but it feels more like a partnership.

Also, no idea whether this applies in your situation but often the lower earner would probably have gone for cheaper options for accommodation/other things if they weren’t with the higher earner. Unless the higher earner wants to move somewhere less nice or smaller then they should pay more.

On the other hand, if DP is just lazy that’s different. If he’s working part time and can’t be bothered and you’re not ok with that then you shouldn’t have to subsidise. But if he’s working a comparable amount (or contributing to the household in another way ie childcare/housework) then I wouldn’t feel comfortable getting him to pay more than his percentage.

I think there are lots of factors to this.

I think if you aren’t married with no DC either then household Expenses (mortgage/rent, bills etc) should be 50/50. You use half each so you pay half each.

Other expenses are debateable. You can have your own e.g phones, gym etc which if you can afford to have luxury, you do, if your partner can’t, they don’t.

But if it’s things like holidays, days out, regular activities that you want you both to do and you want to do ‘better’ because you can afford to (example a holiday to the Caribbean vs a holiday to Spain), then realistically you are probably going to have to pay more of a portion, or compromise and do the cheaper holiday.

I am all for supporting eachother but I would also be loathe to pay so much more just because I earn more. Same as I wouldn’t expect my partner to pay more if he earnt more, unless we were married had DC and we’re making compromises as a family like maternity leave, working less due to childcare etc.

Otherwise I would instead look to maximise my own income to try and get closer to my partners to have the luxuries too!

@shivawn

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?

But the partner doesn't do any more housework. The partner could earn more but wants to work less hours. The partner could have more disposable income but they chose not to.

If they stopped working should OP pay for everything then?

Why should she pay the way for someone who makes an active choice to work 4 days a week and remain at the current pay they're at?

Your dp is unfair to expect you to subsidize them more than you already do while they chose to work a 4 day week.
If they wish to have more disposible income per month, they should first increase their work days to 5 a week. They seem to think they should have the best of both worlds, work less while you work more hours and share more of your income.
Only when there are children would I expect to totally sharing a full time and part time income in a relationship.

Contribution to the household should be proportionate with the salary or at least that’s how we always had it in our house both pre-and post children

Genuinely interested that some people seeing marriage as being more significant to buying a house together.

Getting out of a marriage with no children can be far easier to get out of than disentangling from property.

I don't think OP has any qualms about her DP earning significantly less than her and she does seem open to paying more - it's just how much more.

I think people saying it should be 50/50 as they aren't married and don't have children, when there is such a disparity in take home pay are bonkers and says more about them and how much they usurp money over functioning happy relationships

If they were married, you might have a point as assets would usually be considered joint (i.e. 'family money') in a marriage.

I'm married, and we have our own money. I earn double what my partner does. I pay a token amount more into the joint account each month, and pay double what they pay in mortgage over payments, and that works for us.

I think they've got a good deal, they're paying half what the OP is paying, doesn't matter if they're only earning a quarter, they're still being subsidised generously, especially when they're 50:50 on the deeds and have no kids, partner should be doing more, no good wanting a "laid back lifestyle and job" and expecting someone else to foot the bill.

@Rach212

You earn x4 what they earn. Therefore surely you should pay x4 what he pays??!

Why should he pay more because he earns less

Because part of the reason he earns less is because he chose not to work full time.

While you are unmarried and don't have children together, or any other mutual commitments, and while you have such a huge disparity in earnings, a financial split that leaves you better off than DP is fair. You are already subsidising DP quite a lot.

I also overpay our mortgage frequently and we own the house 50:50.

If you own the house 50-50 and you are not married then it's daft for you to overpay the mortgage. Mind you given your different attitudes to money it was probably a bit daft to buy a house together in the first place, especially not on a 50-50 financial basis. Amount owned should have been based on the amount you each put in.

partner is just very chilled and thinks there is more to life than working

There is, espeically if someone else is subsidising your life. Would DP feel so relaxed if you suddenly decided to go part time and only earn 15K a year?