Rent and bills. Doesn't seem fair. AIBU?

[Perfectworld]

How would you split bills / rent in this scenario?

Both of us have 1x child each from previous relationships, both late 30s. Fiancé earns £120k, I earn £28k. I currently get child benefit and UC top up, which will cease when we move in together. He has suggested we pay half the rent each, plus he covers all joint utility bills, meaning I still have all non 'joint' bills e.g. my mobile phone, my car payment. Due to this, I will probably be left with less that I currently have spare each month (which is already very little). The rent I pay will be the same as I pay currently, due to needing a bigger house to support both of our DC. I will be worse off some months, and others about the same financially because I cannot claim UC or child benefit. On more expensive months, for instance, the months when DC's school dinner fee is due, I will be worse off than I am now. He will be saving approx £2k per month in this scenario, which he has said will be put towards joint savings.

What do you think is reasonable for each person, how would you split finances?

@Nothappyatwork I’m with you. There is every chance that someone on £128K, with no reason to know about UC would have no idea how much UC get on £28K.

I mean - that’s half as much again as NMW. I bet loads of MNers wouldn’t know you can even get UC with that income. I’ve certainly seen posts on here with people saying, “do you really get it at £x?” and the number of times people have to point out it’s an in-work benefit.

This guy might be an arsehole, I’m not ruling it out. But what I see here is someone hoping to get half his money who might be called a cocklodger on another thread, who appears not to have had a proper discussion with him yet.

It was student finance who said the stepdads income meant they couldn’t get maintenance loan, and that the family were required to support the kid, but the step dad wouldn’t pay towards what the kid lost out on because of his income

@Midlifemusings

@Midlifemusings I can see your point. And obviously, ideally partners would earn a similar amount. But life isn’t like that. I also wouldn’t want to split my money the way I suggested, so I wouldn’t commit to blending a family unless and until I was.

If one child can go to uni and it’s off the table for another, or one adult can swan about treating themselves or the family on a whim and the other can’t, it’s not really a family. There’s an expectation of communal resources, and inequality of wealth could breed enormous resentment . If you aren’t ready to throw in your lot, you aren’t ready to move in together. Which is 100 percent valid and something in wouldn’t consider.

I would possibly agree, on a temporary basis, to ringfence assets or savings previously acquired while you have a trial. But they should be not part of the picture at all for the duration, and everyone’s spending should reflect that. It might even work to keep personal savings previously built up separate for good (I’m thinking of a running away fund! I’d always want one of those!). But going forward, the family income should be, well, for the family, especially with children involved.

We are in the same boat ex cannot stand up to new wife who has done the university thing and supported her 2 to get good degrees but apparently the same rules don’t apply when it comes to mine. We don’t even actually want her money, what I want is for him to pay his half of maintenance towards mine so that I don’t have to pay literally nine grand a term to cover all of them.

The youngest is living at home and working at the same time as Uni and he’s actually taking keep money off her. While step mummy keeps all of her pennies to herself.

OP, don't do this. You'll be at his mercy. He'll hold the different in income over your head forever. A partnership should be a partnership, meaning you pool your money and pay the household expenses from that. After what's left you each get 50/50 off of that.

I mean, does he plan on doing 50/50 childcare duties? 50/50 household duties? I am willing to bet he is "far too important" for that. You'll be stuck with it all and paying for the privelege of being his live-in mommy bangmaid, supplementing his income and lifestyle to boot. And he'll expect you to be "grateful" for being "allowed" to live in such a fine house you could never afford on your own.

This doesn't seem fair and to be honest, I would make a bet that 'joint savings' are meaningless if you are not married.

There are other things to consider too. As a higher earner, he's possibly going to want really nice holidays or really nice meals out. Does that have to be 50/50 too?

I think you need to have a proper talk with him and explain you're not looking to financially benefit from being with him but you are also not prepared to be worse off. I think his reaction to this will tell you a lot about him. If he's understanding and immediately looks to compromise, that's a good sign! If he's defensive, angry etc, then this is a sign that you've got bigger problems on your hands. How a person reacts in this scenario will tell you a LOT! Watch his reaction carefully.

This doesn't stack up-home improvements should be done via savings or through extending the mortgage.

If he really did rack up £25k in personal debt on a joint asset then he is an absolute plonker.

Avoid.

Wait until you’re married to move in together? Do you have a date for the wedding? If not why not?

Have an honest conversation about finances. If he genuinely loves you and sees a future together, he won’t want you to feel so anxious about money. Good luck!

@CaptSkippy “A partnership should be a partnership, meaning you pool your money and pay the household expenses from that. After what's left you each get 50/50 off of that.”

So in my case, I should work a high pressure job that I made sacrifices for, for years, but when it comes to choosing to give my child a house deposit (not obligatory but not unusual to want to) I have given away my money to my second husband?

I put some numbers behind thar earlier… I’ve got £3000 after bills, him £1200.

So if I’m to have £2100 not £3000, then £900 a month for 10 years is £108K.

He’s £400 a month better off living with me anyway. So he’s already £48K up over 10 years. That’s not all directly money I have earned and am paying out “for him” - some of it is forgoing a contribution as I earn more. A good example is council tax. I’m paying £200 when without him it would be £150. So he directly costs me £50. But I’m actually saving him £150 as he’s paying nothing, and I’m “giving up” the possibility of getting a £100 equal share from him.

So is it only a partnership if in 10 years time he has “made” £48K from the situation and not £108K? And I’ve lost the chance to give my child a house deposit?

I’m using language like “costing me” to illustrate clearly the financial impact. To be clear: that is not how either of us feel.

It is how I’d feel if I was £108K down over 10 years though 🤷🏻‍♀️

“I think if we are not at the stage where we can be equal partners in love and money, I'd rather just stay as we are now.“

Forget love and money… the first issue is to be equal partners in communication!

Is your partner's job not "high pressure"? Does he just laze around the hours he in not working?

Given that you're engaged and about to move in together, I would think it's reasonable to start thinking of your finances as joint. You need a plan for him to pay off his debt, which should be achievable within 1 year if he can save 2k per month. If it's a difference of £100 per month, then negotiate the rent payments so you're not worse off.

By the way, how much does he spend if he only has 2k spare every month from a salary that size? Perhaps he needs to cut back on his spending a bit otherwise you could find yourself in hot water once your assets are joined when you're married. I found Alvin Hall's What not to spend was a useful book.

Because that's how paying for things works? No other aspect of life is costed as a percentage of income, and is cheaper for you if your income is lower, so why should the living costs of someone with a high earning partner?
This is not a young couple starting out together, supporting and helping to build each others success. This is two established adults with their own means and liabilities. If the wealthier is happy to subsidise the other, fair enough, but there is no justifiable reason to expect it.

This guy doesn't sound like he loves you or your child and he certainly doesn't give a shit about you.

I would definitely not move in with him, he's got his agenda and it's definitely not with you in mind.

I just didn't think anyone who cared about you would try and set you up for financial hardship while they used you to save money.

I suspect he sees you as the gravy train.

@5128gap well currently the taxpayer is subsidising it via universal credits so it’s not unusual or unreasonable to ask that ends the question is who’s picking up the slack ?

Fair would be paying the same % of your salary each into a common account to cover everything. So you 30% of £28k and him 30% of his salary

This was identical to our finances when I met my DH. We were engaged and living together, but no kids. We worked out the cost of all the bills and then split the payments 80:20 so we paid a proportion equal to our incomes. He would never have wanted me to have been worse off or struggling while he had thousands and thousands spare, and nor should your partner. It’s very selfish. Can understand him wanting to retain some while you aren’t married, but not to this ridiculous extent that you are more skint living with him than you would be living singly. Why on earth would you agree to be worse off for pooling your resources and him be the only one to benefit?

I’d worry that this is the start of an ‘I’m the main wage earner so I get to control the money’ attitude which might spill over when you get married. It can happen so fast. He won’t see it as control, but it will be. The messages will be that you earn less so your job is less important, so you’ll do all the chores to help support him while he brings in the money, and he’ll get the final say on all purchases as it’s his money. It won’t be equal. It won’t be shared family money. Then you’ll find yourself running purchases past him, having your spending scrutinised and that will be the moment you’ll be utterly reliant on him.

So don’t let that happen!

Ps also agree with you about his debt - he shouldn’t be saving the left over thousands into a ‘shared savings’ pot - he should be clearing all that debt. Savings obviously don’t exist if he has debt! Everything saved is already owed elsewhere and probably incurring interest so there’s no logic to him not tackling the debt first before saving. Sounds like you are quite a lot more realistic about finances than he is from what you say. You also sound smart and practical so listen to your gut.

Run!

Not only is he being unfair and stingy, he's clearly a twat. He earns 4 times more than you! Not only should you not be splitting the bills, he should not even be letting you pay for anything.

“Is your partner's job not "high pressure"? Does he just laze around the hours he in not working“

No, it isn’t. He works in a job that he loves in an industry that is poorly paid. He works for himself. It’s a practical job, there’s nothing to think about after he finishes, nothing to take home. He works 4 days a week. Next year he’s taking a month off to do a bucket list motorcycle trip. Earlier in his working life, he took a full year off to travel. Twice.
He has literally never worked late in his life - even when not self employed. It just isn’t a feature of his industry.

All great choices.

By contrast, I’ve worked really long hours to reach my salary level, and still do sometimes. Not an issue - I love my job! I’ve also worked away from home. I needed a degree to get into it, so I had debt from that. I have a team to manage, which I love, but comes with stress. I have targets to deliver and if I don’t - my team is at risk as well as me. Don’t get me wrong - these are also my choices, and I’m happy with them, and love my job. But he’d be the first to say that he has an easy worklife, and mine is far harder.

When we’re not working? We both do an equal share of lazing about! 🤣 He’s an equal partner in the home - cooking, cleaning etc… he gets off a little lighter on life admin. I pay all the bills, so I get all the admin on that!

The key thing for us is that we are really open about it. He simply wouldn’t take half a joint pot because he’d feel like he was taking the piss. But, because we love each other he doesn’t feel the same way about me paying for all our holidays, for example. I pay the maintenance for stepson’s uni because my income impacted it. I also pay for him to come on our family holidays, and plenty of other things.

What I don’t do, is give exactly half the pot.

I think we are both cautious and worried as we have both been burned in the past. Not necessarily financially, but relationships not working out and ending very bitterly. I struggle to discuss the financials as I don't want him to think I am a gold digger or looking for a gravy train, although on the flip side people could say the same about him with his debt etc. Having such a wage disparity is hard. If I was the high earner, I can hand on heart say any relationship I enter into where my DC or theirs are involved, I would want us to be a family in all aspects. I have supported those on less income in the past, not only one ex who had a period of unemployment, but also an ex who earned significantly less than me so I paid for most dinners out, days out, dates etc. I'm not a shirker when it comes to money. I am a single parent with no support from my child's father, that's why I cannot work and earn more. I would be expected to do most of the childcare for my DC, a lot more for his too I imagine, and most of the household chores, cleaning, cooking, washing because his job is much longer hours and more demanding so it makes sense that I would do those things. I think one pot or a percentage split is the best way to go about things, but I am so conscious of being viewed as money grabbing which is so far from the reality.

I think you should stay as you are now as otw, this is clearly where are you headed. You, and by extension your DC, will be worse off financially if you move in and he doesn't make up directly to you the money you will lose by moving in together.

I was in this situation a few years ago but on working and child tax credit - which dropped when partner moved in
we agreed he gave me monthly the exact amount that I lost in benefits
then we split all the bills
He still had more disposable income than me so he paid for all the extras such as holidays, meals out etc
I was better off than before he moved in as he shared the bills that previously I had been paying on my own
maybe that would work for you?

If that works for you, good! But it doesn't look like it will work for OP. She'll and her child will be severaly disadvantaged by such an arrangement.

And going by statistics, it's likely she'll do more life-admin stuff, household chores, child rearing (plus paying for everything her child needs) and living in a house she literally can't even afford half of.

In her situation the benefit is all for him. Even if they were to do as I suggested earlier, pooling their money, he would likely benefit in ways that would make his life a lot easier than it is now. So in this case her partner is taking the piss.