AIBU for not wanting to go 50-50 on bills and other costs?

[bathoils]

I suspect that I will be told that I am being unreasonable but here goes.

I am in a relationship that is loving and committed and serious. The relationship is great and he makes me very happy. I hope and believe that I make him happy too and I think we are a good team.

The issue is... DP and I are from a culture where typically husbands pay for essential costs, such as food, bills, and essential clothing. It is not expected that luxuries are paid for however.

DP was raised in this culture but I was not born into it. I entered into later on in my life in my very early 20s.

Long story short, and yes as anti-feminist as it might sound, I have zero desire to split bills 50-50 or even proportionally in relation to income. It is my strong preference that DP will pay a little more than me and that we split things 70-30, or that he perhaps pays the bills and food costs and everything else we split. He doesn't want to do this and I did not realise this when I entered into the relationship as we did have a lot of conversations around how we would like a relationship and marriage to be, but this part seems to have caused confusion between us.

Essentially, there is no meeting of minds on this matter and DP says that this is not the sort of relationship he wants. The problem is that when we started dating this is exactly how things worked so I was of the understanding that they would continue on in this manner.

I am not looking to freeload off my partner, and would be very understanding of him not wanting this set-up until we are married, which is also my preference, but to not ever have it at all has caused me to feel 'less than' and down and depressed, as though somehow I am not as valuable as the women who are in this arrangement.

It is also important to state that I do not intend to give up work or to become financially reliant upon my partner once we are married, so the argument that I will be making myself vulnerable is not relevant here I don't think.

Given that it is so much more expensive to be a woman ('the pink tax'), and the gender pay gap, and the fact that at present I earn considerably less than him (although in the future that is set to change), I feel it is only fair. Not to mention the fact that I will have to make untold sacrifices to have children with him, in terms of my body, my pension, my career stagnation, my mental health, etc. For those reasons and more it feels fair to me that the split should be 70-30 or similar.

Has anyone been in a situation like this and how did you figure things out?
Breaking up is not an option. I really do love him. It is just that this has made me feel sad and confused. It has also impacted my libido as I am stressed about what the future holds.

I have put my hard hat on and I am ready to be told I am being ridiculous. This is just the way that I feel however, and I can't really change that.

Thank you in advance for any advice or musings!

I am not looking to freeload off my partner, and would be very understanding of him not wanting this set-up until we are married, which is also my preference, but to not ever have it at all has caused me to feel 'less than' and down and depressed, as though somehow I am not as valuable as the women who are in this arrangement.

Your value as a human being is not based on what a man is prepared to pay for you.

If you won't be splitting finances to your liking when you marry then surely it's best to walk away?

This is the only truly equitable way

I expect that when you tell him how much it’ll cost him to have you, he’ll probably weigh up his options and decide to find someone who’s just as nice and attractive but not so expensive!

Nobody can seriously answer this, as its almost devoid of context.
What culture?
What salaries?
What future salaries?
Who knows, but I reckon it wouldn't matter and you just want to be told you are right.
So yeah, you're right. Happy to help.

I agree that 50/50 isn’t remotely fair if you earn different amounts. Proportional contributions depending on earnings isn’t equitable either.

Surely, the safest option is to pool your money into one pot. Pay all bills from that, agree a spending and savings plan, holiday goals etc.

Then decide how much each person can spend on themselves per month that they don’t need to discuss/seek approval with the partner.

However, you then have to divvy up the household duties fairly. Shopping/cooking/cleaning/diy/gardening etc.

If you can’t come to an agreement at this stage, when you’re both keen to make it work, definitely don’t bother getting married!

Essentially, there is no meeting of minds on this matter and DP says that this is not the sort of relationship he wants. The problem is that when we started dating this is exactly how things worked so I was of the understanding that they would continue on in this manner.

This relationship can never work.

There are some things that you can let slide or compromise on but this isn’t one of them.

I honestly would end the relationship as I can see in a few months/years this is going to be a massive problem and you’d have wasted time on a relationship that was always destined to fail.

I personally could never be in a relationship with someone who wasn’t willing to go 50/50 in relation to income.

For me, it wouldn’t even be about the financial aspect, it would be the fact that he somehow thinks he’s better than me and brings more to the relationship which is why he should pay less.

If my partner doesn’t see me as equal to them, then I wouldn’t want a relationship with them.

Given that it is so much more expensive to be a woman ('the pink tax')

The pink tax? What on earth is the pink tax?

Proportional contributions would be much fairer, to take account of your lower income at the moment.

As other people have commented, is he going to reject all of his cultural norms, or just this one? Is it a culture where the men are expected to cover the majority of costs, but the women are expected to give up work to look after children/ be responsible for all household stuff/ look after elderly in-laws? You could end up having to do all the traditionally ‘female’ work without the benefit of your husband supporting you in the traditional way.

I’ll also say that when you have children, it’s easy to slip into the ‘roles’ you saw/ absorbed when growing up. So your DP might say that he wants to be an equal parent, and mean it, but when the baby is here you could find that he automatically/ subconsciously thinking that the baby is your job. I think a lot of men are like this, really, but it could be more pronounced if you come from a more traditional culture.

Is it correct that, even if in the future you earn a lot more than your partner, you would still expect him to pay 70% of all expenses? That can't be reasonable.

Freeloading off a man does not make you more valued as a woman. It makes you grabby. You should be paying proportionately to your respective incomes. If you won't agree to that, I can quite understand why your partner wants to bring things to an end.

IMO it should be split roughly in proportion with income. If you go on to have children then your income reduction due to maternity leave should be taken into account.

Walk away. He deserves better. Much better than you.

The "pink tax" is a myth. Think about the costs of shaving every day. I know not every man shaves, but most do to some extent, and the costs of periods can be minimised by the use of moon cups etc.

He should be paying more because he earns more. If you were the higher warmer, you should pay more.

If you get married, you might have one pot of money between you or keep the proportionate arrangement.

Your attitude seems archaic. Do you think you can get over this fundamental difference?

You should split bills based on your incomes and adapt as that changes. Gender shouldn't be a factor. That's ridiculous!

I have zero desire to split bills 50-50 or even proportionally in relation to income.

So how do you feel about the third option, which is that when you are married all income, whoever earns it, goes into one pot, from which all expenses are paid?

In practise this achieves the ‘compensatory’ element of pink tax/gender pay gap/childbearing disadvantage.

Are you guys Muslim? Can you elaborate on the cultural element because this is relevant.

DP says that this is not the sort of relationship he wants. The problem is that when we started dating this is exactly how things worked.

By this, do you just mean that when you started dating he picked up the bill a lot more?

How long have you been seeing each other and what’s prompted this conversation now - are you about to move in together?

This is exactly what my parents did and it makes so much sense. It means each partner has the same amount of independent spends, and everything else is joint.

If you pay less of the bills based on gender, you're setting the expectation that female income is for "pin money" - while male income is the "important" work that pays the bills.

Then in future, if there's conflict between his work needs and yours (moving house for a job, who gives up work for family care, etc), you've set the idea that his salary is more important - so you'll be the one giving up work, or scrabbling to manage childcare alongside a job.

Is that what you want?

I agree with the commenter who said you might want to think about whether your culture also gender-based expectations on housework and childcare.

But perhaps this is really about you feeling valued - that's an entirely different conversation.

I'd pay proportionally with income. And have a separate conversation about whether you feel valued.

This is why DH and I merged our wages as soon as we set up home together. In the early years, there were times I earned more and times he earned more. It didn't matter it was all our money and all in the joint account. I appreciate this couldn't work for everyone. But if you marry the right partner and have a family together, it's the most simple solution.

YABU to pay 30/70 if your salary and his salary does not reflect this is the split on cultural or "pink tax" expectations.
But if he earns considerably more then it should be a ratio as this is fair and leaves you both with disposable income in theory.

Either way you need to do the sums and work it out and have a conversation about it. I would ask what he would expect in terms of paying for childcare, maternity leave etc if he thinks you should be 50/50 on bills at this point (on the assumption that you both live together etc)

Because you weren’t raised in this culture, but converted, obviously something within you really responded to the traditional gendered roles and traditions. You’ve assigned value to your husband being a provider. Now your potential husband says he doesn’t value the same thing. I think this is much more about your feelings, potentially around being an ‘outsider’, than it is the actual monetary split itself.

You really do love him but you don’t want to share expenses in proportion in income?

You want to treat him unfairly and freeload off him. Just own it. If breaking up isn’t an option, he’ll come to resent you if you continue like this, or vice versa if you cave.

Even in many cultures around the world where this has been the norm for centuries, the women are doing things to support their spouses.
The stress on the man in the arrangement you want, can be enormous. Why do you want that for him?
If you jointly decide that you should stay at home after kids, it’s a different scenario.

Freeloading but you’ll probably get loads of support as it’s encouraged as part of Mumsnet, they just choose to call it family money.