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?

@Midlifemusings I assume because dss couldn't get loan due to his earnings and I maybe dm couldn't afford to. I think I would have moved out at that point.

This man is going to be living a cheaper life as you’re putting in half for the bills, whereas before he paid 100% of the bills

he needs to give his head a wobble if he’s earning £128k and you’re going to be financially worse of moving in with him

he needs to be adding to your life not making it worse

If OP is the same some months and slightly worse others I don’t see how the Bf could possibly be 2k better off. OP isn’t contributing 2k so it’s impossible.

On the face of it the proposal isn’t that crazy, he isn’t suggesting a 50/50 split of everything. It would be 50/50 rent and he pays for utilities and with the price of gas and electricity that could easily be equal to rent so it could be anywhere from a 25/75 split to 40/60.
OP have you actually sat down and worked out numbers? I don’t think it’s fair for you to be worse off, otherwise don’t move in but I can see how he would think his proposal isn’t unfair.

When I first moved in with my DP, before we were married, and he was a much higher earner than me, we split all bills in proportion to our income. Bills came out of one joint bills account. We then put spending money into another joint account, to cover food, meals out etc, again we contributed to that in proportion to our income. Things like mobile phone contracts, gym, haircuts etc, we paid ourselves. In your situation, if your DP won't agree to a more fair split, there is no way on earth I would move in.

You're engaged. Everything in one pot, no his and hers, because that's ridiculous if you're making a lifelong commitment to each other.

I think you are just not compatible. I am horrified everyone suggesting joined accounts given such inequality in the income. It is not the situation of a woman giving up her career to raise this men's children based on the mutual agreement. He is effectively taking on board 2 extra dependents and based on his proposal he is not very happy with that.
OP, it is simply the matter of math. Walk him through your numbers, I. E. How much cash you have coming in now, including all the extras you will be loosing and your outgoings. Under no circumstances you should even contemplate moving in with him if you are loosing out in any way. If he doesn't take your comments on board I would continue living apart.

He’s using you to help pay off his debts and this will make you financially vulnerable. I wouldn’t marry him and am not surprised he’s divorced. He sounds like an absolute twat.

I suggest doing a percentage split so you both end up having a similar percentage left over. So say you put in 5% (or whatever figure) of your take home monthly pay and he does the same. Tbh if my partner was on that salary he would pay for the house in it's entirety, I'm surprised he's not offering to pay more

Oh. Well that's a ridiculous comparison for her to make then. Of course he's going to be better off, he earns a hell of a lot more.

So,

• She's bringing a whole other person with her, but only being asked to pay half the rent.
• He's paying all the household bills for 3.5 people (the 0.5 is for his child) and 50% of her child's food.
• She can still get child benefit, even though she said she'll lose it.
• He's going to put £2k into savings for them both, while she contributes nothing.

He doesn't sound horrible at all. He's actually going to lose money by living with the OP. Yet people still think he should be paying more!

He is not the issue. The issue is the OP's lower income and child/lack of CM.

I'd expect all money to go into one pot and then for that to be your joint money for everything. I imagine he would expect the same if you were the one earning the 120k.

I don't know why people are criticising his debts. He can afford his debts. It's the OP who can't cover hers without UC.

He will be saving approx £2k per month in this scenario, which he has said will be put towards joint savings.

Chinny reckon on this one. "He said" being the operative words. What he claims to do could turn out very differently.

Lets rephrase it - he will stash away £2K / month in his name for future needs of him and his child, you mark my words.

stay put, you don't need to move in together, not under the financial circumstances you've outlined.

Does his ex do the majority of the childcare? Expect so if he's on £120k.

But I suppose you could say that if he’s covered his share of rent, he’s paid towards the food of everybody and he’s covering all the bills, that he’s well within his rights to stash his two grand disposable income. I started off on one side but I think I’m definitely leaning towards why should she get her paws on his cash.

They just aren’t compatible this is why I would never date somebody who was earning significantly less than me just doesn’t work does it. I’m quite surprised he’s gone there.

While I understand all the "shared pot" suggestions, I can't help but feel if the sexes were reversed, the advice would differ.

That said, his proposal that leaves you out of pocket, and him better off, is grossly unfair.

Perhaps a different way to do it would be to work out all your finances as they stand now, and work out all the costs if you moved in together. (Remove personal bills from this, he shouldn't be paying for your mobile, you shouldn't be paying for his debt) Work out exactly how much money is being saved overall by living together and split it 50/50.

So, plucking numbers out of the air, if your rent, bills, food came to 1000, and you have 2000 coming in every month. After personal bills, child related expenses, you have 200 leftover.
His rent, bills, food came to 2000 and he has 5000 coming in. After personal bills , child related expenses, and debt repayment etc, he has 1000 left over.

7000 in,
3000 bills,
2000 his personal bills
800 your personal bills
1200 left.

You move in together, your income goes down to 1500, your shared bills up to 2500, and I'm assuming his personal bills will decrease a bit, say to 1500.

6500 in
2500 Bills
1500 his personal bills
800 your personal bills
1700 left

That's a JOINT saving of £500, so you should BOTH be better off by £250.

Which would mean that your figures are

1500 in
800 personal bills
450 left over (200 + 250)
250 joint bills contribution

His figures are
5000 in
1500 personal bills
1250 left over (1000 + 250)
2250 joint bills contribution

That way you're both benefitting equally from the merger.

If he argues that in the above scenario, he is paying much more, you're actually contributing £750, and him £1500, because your reduction in income (no UC/child benefit) is subsidising his reduction in outgoings (I'm assuming less maintainence to pay )

To be fair to the DP he might not be being unreasonable, and merely be unaware of the position his suggestion puts OP in.

At first glance he is paying 50% of the rent when OP’s child will be there all the time ( maybe getting the better bedroom due to this?) and his child will only be there 50%.

He is then offering to pay ALL joint utility bills, and again OP’s family usage will be higher than his.

Unless his half of the rent is less than he currently pays in rent he is likely to be spending more than when living alone, and possibly thinks he has been very fair.

He may be willing to adjust his contribution towards the rent so that OP is not worse off than she is now.

They are not married, don’t have joint children, and it sounds like he has come out of his previous relationship owing money. I can understand why he might not want to go down the ‘one pot’ route at this stage.

Yes, I definitely agree that a very large differential in earnings can bring in a lot of tensions to even the strongest of relationships.

It can work if all children are jointly their's but in this situation a blended family brings in a whole layer of complexity.

You're getting married. Split all income 50/50 after bills. Everyone has the same expendable income that way. We call it play money. You should be better off in this scenario-even playing field. Do whatever you want with your half.

Yeah how dare he pay towards the utilities and food for OP’s child and then have the nerve to save money for his own. What a horrible father 🙄

If OP was the higher earner and saved 2k a month for her child’s future she would be to to NOT spend it subsiding his children instead.

I’m with the “one pot” brigade.

If you are moving in together, with children involved and planning to get married then you need the same concept of family.

It’s his choice to be with someone of substantially lower income and live with them so there can’t be a constant disparity whereby OP and her kid are the “poor relations”.

OP don’t do this in this way, you will resent it and you will be constantly scraping together money for clothes and birthday/Christmas presents for your child - resenting your high earning partner.

I do understand that he may be feeling self protecting of his high salary but he needs to make his peace with the lifestyle change before you make it and someone gets hurt.

Well, the defenders of the poor 120K-earning DP have certainly arrived en masse, haven’t they?

@Perfectworld I would start a thread in Relationships setting out why you feel so very unsure about this proposed move, quite apart from the financial aspect (which is clearly causing you significant worry, and rightly so in my view).

Even from the little you’ve said it feels to me as though there’s more to this story and you might find advice away from AIBU helpful.

But threads like that are as rare as rocking horse shit.

it is very uncommon for a man to have to sacrifice their career when they have kids, because it is invariably the woman who takes the hit. High flying women with big pay packets of the £120k variety won't come on here with that dilemma. Far more frequent for a working mum to have been left with 1+ children while the man swans off Scot free and maybe sees his child/ren at weekend, so get to continue progressing and getting promoted

Look to the future here , you will be less better off .
So Christmas / birthdays , he can afford to buy the best , high end presents for his child all wrapped up under the tree , whilst yours still have presents , obviously , but will they look the same as the other child's . Will they be lavished in gifts , designer trainers , hoodies whilst yours are High St ? Children will notice this sort of thing . How will holidays / days out work ?

Why isn’t your ex paying any child support? I’d be inclined to pursue that avenue if that hadn’t been exhausted already.

He has the financial advantage.

He will know that the OP will lose all her benefits but has done nothing to rebalance that loss.

nothing you can say to me will convince me he isn't a squeaky tightwad and the OP is setting herself up for worse to come with someone who wants to ringfence their finances to that extent yet claim to care about the OP as supposedly their life partner.