To think this level of saving is extreme and I’m right to question it?

[ITru]

My DP earns 3,800 after tax. Although we live together he also owns a home and so our finances have always been separate and we just split food bills and heating for my place. Anyway…

it recently came to light that DP is saving 1,500 from an income of 3,800. He never asks me to sub him or anything so that’s not the issue… the issue is he has often said let’s go somewhere cheaper for dinner or let’s go abroad one less night etc. he’s always trying to cut costs. Now I know he’s saving this it’s really annoyed me. Like I say he does pay his way so that’s fine but I can’t understand why for example we went somewhere average for my birthday dinner recently or why we couldn’t have split the cost of a swanky hotel when we went away in summer rather than camping like we did!!

I know everyone has a different perspective on how to spend money and what to spend it on but AIBU to think this is extreme?

I wouldn’t call it excessive, but it’s not how I would choose to save/spend on that salary.

In some ways I think it’s admirable, but I would feel like I was missing out too much on the now.

This is a pretty fundamental difference in your approaches to life, OP. It doesn’t make either of you wrong, but it might make you wrong for each other. Arguments over finances are the most common reason for divorce.

As long as he is paying what he should towards bills then I think it’s up to him whether he spends or saves his disposable income.

So he's living with you but just leaving a house empty? Seems weird but whatever. Just because someone HAS money doesn't mean they HAVE to spend it, if they don't want. Good for him for saving. That's his preference. If you can't see yourself living with that long term, break up and then you can spend as much money as you like without getting annoyed at a partner for saving money.

Exactly - the savings ratio across the whole country for all adults is an average of 11%.

So anyone past the early stages of their career (as someone taking home £3,800 a month probably is)without children should be saving multiples of that. Because they won't have been for the first 5/10 years, and they won't be for the 20 or so years they are potentially bringing up children in the future.

From a 50 year working lifetime, 30 years will not give much opportunity to save anywhere near even the average of 11%, so for the peak years of earning early (as this couple seem to be at) and pre retirement, you need to be saving a lot more.

Even arithmetically, to get to an average of 11% if 30 out of 50 years is only at 5% saving rate, the other 20 years need to be at 20%. And of course the average includes a great swathe of lower earners that don't save anything at all.

If you want to retire at 60ish, you potentially only have 40 years. So at peak you would need to save over 30% Maybe £1,500 is a bit high, but not abnormally so I wouldn't think, given age / earning power / stage in life.

I would be miffed if the only holiday on offer was camping if you could afford something else, and you were frugal about the restaurants you ate at if there is sufficient disposable income to upgrade slightly

Of course you’re subbing him - he’s living in your house rent free.

what is going on with his house? Presumably it’s not empty so who is living there and what’s the financial advantage to him of whatever the scenario is.

You said he had 77K, while that's a lot it isn't close to100K. Which is correct? It sounds like you're not very compatible financially. There is no right or wrong here, you both have different priorities and different views on this. It's not unreasonable for him to want to save that much and it's not unreasonable for you to have differing financial priorities. If anything I save too little. He's making financial choices I wouldn't make but that doesn't mean they're unreasonable. Even if he was being unreasonable it wouldn't change anything. The solution is still to talk and listen to each other's points of view and then try and work out a compromise you can both live with. If he or you or both of you aren't willing to move your positions at all then you'll need to decide if you can live with this or it's a deal breaker.

I don't think he should necessarily be contributing to your mortgage, if it was my house I'd rather pay it on my own. So paying half the bills seems fine to me. Then you both have a property that is completely yours. Perhaps he's not interested in 'swanky' things? I would love to be able to save that sort of money, so that I could have more freedom in the future rather than have to work into my sixties. But I'm not particularly keen on really expensive restaurants or really posh hotels, they're not what I look for in an ideal holiday. Maybe he's the same? It's probably best that you communicate better - how did you end up going camping if you didn't want to? You should have suggested something in-between camping and the heights of luxury, maybe?

If you are housing him for peanuts and saving HIM money while not treating you - I would think very hard about the relationship. What is he saving for? If you are enabling him to save for a house while you struggle, kick him to touch

It may not be extreme but maybe you could have a chat with him about whether he'd be comfortable on sometimes spending a little more to have a nicer time, for example on special occasions like your birthday. If he's that wedded to the 1500 per month, maybe he can go to 1550 and save the 50s for some discretionary spending?
Is he contributing to electricity as well?

I wonder about the UK education system. His house is not rented - it's said no more than half a dozen times. Yes, he doesn't pay her "rent"- presumably because he is paying his own mortgage just as she is paying hers. He has no claim on her house. He is not saving any more money because he stays in her house when he splits the food and heating with her though both of them are splitting the heating of one house rather than having to heat two houses. I suppose you might say that there is more wear and tear on her property with both of them living there but it's not actually costing her anything. If they broke up, he'd be living back at his house, paying the mortgage, paying for his own food and probably a bit more for utilities. She'd be in her house paying the mortgage, paying for her own food and and probably a bit more for utilities. It would only be unfair if he was renting out his house and living rent-free in hers.

I can't imagine what would compel me to go camping - the only realistic scenario is if I am one of the survivors of a nuclear holocaust when I am holed up with my fellow survivors in some remote region. No, I don't go with all that stuff about cheap meals being delicious and fancy meals being a waste of money - I want white table cloths, comfortable chairs, well spaced tables, well trained waiters and lot of delicious courses and ambiance! I think there is a happy medium about spending money. I have holidays that don't involve tents and expensive birthday dinners but also save by economising in other ways such as by keeping my ancient car which is very mechanically sound and very thrifty to run. I suppose it is really a question of priorities and it doesn't sound like your priorities align.

I am trying to work out if he is a miser / tight with money &/or if you are a spendthrift - both scenarios are bad BTW.

If he is a miser, get rid, people who get joy from actively not spending money are just not fun to be around.
Has something happened in his life which would make him feel he needs lots of savings? Has he been homeless? Was his childhood moving from rental to rental? If there's anything like this that has happened, I can see why he might want lots of savings 'just in case'

There are some things in your posts that infer you might like to throw money at 'stuff' - be it meals out, holidays etc. Sounds like you want the highlife when it may not be needed (or sustained)

It just sounds that both of you have different attitudes to money. If you can't get on the same page, this relationship might be futile

He is right and he is 100% a keeper. Listen to him.

I have a friend who lived like this. He was born in poverty and in retirement he is a higher rate tax payer on his pension. It's definitely worth it.

He should be paying you rent
He's a free loader otherwise

No wear and tear on his house? No utilities being used? He's done a number on u and u can't see it

I try to save around 30% of our household income. Don't always manage to as we have been going on holidays for the past 2 years but that has ended. We earn a household income of nett £7000 per month, mortgage is £1282. We live in London.

I come from a country where the average savings rate is 30% and its an expensive city too- and that 30% is calculated based on nett income after the government forces you to save 20% of your salary- so similar to taxes here (except that forced savings goes into a personal account for your housing deposit, healthcare and retirement). so your husband would be a bang on average person in my home country. My parents used to drill it into me to save 50 to 70% of your take home income (though they are much richer than us) but thats not very realistic here on our incomes and, DH and I only managed to do that living with our parents in our 20s and that all went into our deposit. I think my sister back home probably does manage that kind of ratio as a doctor living with my parents though she would probably continue that kind of savings rate as she is choosing to buy a government subsidized flat.

It is harder here with tax rates (not that its a bad thing as our taxes do pay for a welfare state that make such saving less essential), but I do think 30% is quite normal, 39% is on the high side but then he doesn't have children, i expect many people saving for deposits save 50% to 70%, i think our peak savings rate as a couple was 75% in 2018.

I’m alarmed you think £77 savings is excessive!

🤣🤣🤣

You don't know what's round the corner. So it's good to be sensible and as he has property and a good savings cushion he should live a bit more in the present in my view

Do it while you can!

It's a hell of a lot more than a lot of people have!

And no-one suggests he stops saving or splurges it but he could let a little bit loose every now and again

Except he's paying for his half of utilities and bills at her house? So how is that him doing a number on her?

He's paying all his own bills. She's paying hers.

It's not particularly good for a house to have no one living there though, unless they go there a lot and heat it in cold weather, open the windows etc.

Saving and thinking about his future/retirement = not unreasonable
You thinking he should spend more on/with you = possibly unreasonable

He is being sensible, that's all. And if he keeps on being sensible, you will also benefit from this in the future. There's nothing wrong with being prudent.

Brutal honesty here. end it. Money, arguements over it, discussions expectations the lot is one of the biggest causes of grief in a relationship. everyone talks about sexual compatibility but honestly when the first flush of the relationship is over this is THE most important thing. you will forever be arguing about holidays, the new tv, whether to move or not, furnishings etc. Every time there is a major purchase needed it will be an argument. it will be horrible. do yourself a favour and move on now. Others might think this extreme advice but you stay with him and see if in 5 years time that I am not right.

I'm envious he is saving that much but yes if I was in your position I would be really miffed. He isn't prioritising enjoying life with you in the here and now. I would start being clearer that you want to go on nice holidays and go for nice meals, and you've had enough of the cheapo camping hols.