It’s a contribution and percentages one!

[MoneyAndPercentages]

Need some advice…

Fiancé (DF) and I are buying our first house! Budget approx 1mil ( London prices, we're not getting a mansion)
We have rented together for the last few years. Background: I have 1 DC, work in a highly paid job in finance (£300k a year, average after bonuses etc) DF has no children, works a public service job that although he loves and serves a tremendous social purpose, will never come close to mine salary wise and has stagnated around £40k a year. Marriage has obviously been discussed and will happen one day but no rush. We don't want more children. So far we've paid bills etc proportionately to income.

DF has a recent inheritance and has approx 600k in savings. I have around 100k. The plan is for DF to put in 500k, then we'll get a mortgage for the other 500k, and keep 100k each as personal savings.

DF understandably wants to ring-fence the 500k. Totally get this, although we are both currently lovey-dovey honeymoon phase, I read him enough MN threads in bed for us both to know how quickly that can change 😂 I know we need to get this sorted prior to house buying paperwork.

We sat down today to build a budget, and I always assumed we'd do the 'chuck it all in a pot and split what's left after bills' method (I have no problem with this). However it's now abundantly clear I'll be paying all mortgage, bills, holidays, food etc in order for us to have similar left afterwards - to the point where it's not worth having a joint acc etc because DF can just keep his salary and I'll keep what's left after paying everything!

Here is my dilemma. DF is assuming if anything happens and we have to sell the house, he'll get his 500k, and then we split the rest because 'we've both contributed'. I'm feeling a little salty because I'll pay the mortgage (and try and pay it off as early as possible!) and think it's fair for him to take the 500k, plus 50% of any rise in value, but the rest should be mine. So if I pay off the mortgage, we’d take 50/50.

On one side, I understand I'm being a total hypocrite after saying I was all in and happy to split proportionately! On the other, I don't see why if we split up, he's entitled to the 500k PLUS money I've solely put in. In all other matters I'm fine with contributing more, this is just putting me out a bit! I think he's likely to agree either way if I bring it up.

So -
YABU - let him ring fence 500k and take 50% of the rest!
YANBU - He ring fences 500k (plus 50% value increase), I take the rest.

50/50 without doubt. What’s his ability to save vs yours overtime?

I think you go 50:50. His 500k is cash. Yours is mortgage. You then pay 2/3 bills once DC is a teen, and 50:50 for fixed bills. You then each save remainder of your own salaries and contribute equally on house repairs or upgrades. You can treat each other for meals holidays gifts as you wish. You might put your 100k down as a deposit to save on interest.

I'm a really old fashioned type of man...in that I don't understand that if your a couple you put money together to pay for stuff in a shared account. You may have your own account for a bit of "fun" money but everything chucked in together because you are a couple to death do us part. So both wages go into the pot, except a bit of pocket money and everything is shared and it doesn't matter who put more in.
I assume that you work longer hours, business trips and he deals more with the home, shopping etc....which supports you to earn the good money....so just if he were a SAHM, his contribution is equal.
I agree ring fence his £500k. Which will always be enough to buy a property even if not quite in London, you have the other £500k if you split and are responsible for the mortgage...any growth in value is split 50/50. This is the fairest solution.

It’s nothing like being a SAHM because they don’t have kids together and therefore he is not sacrificing his career to look after them. Plus you have no idea if he picks up extra chores around the house

I agree on equal split ownership of the house. He is putting in half of the buying value as are you, it's just that his is up-front and yours is mortgage. So upon sale you each get half of the sale value.

With bills, as you proposed: pool income, pay bills, split what's left equally. It just works out that what left is his actual salary so the pooling doesn't need to happen - he keeps what he earns and you pay.
I think this is actually more than fair, given that you said you prefer a more luxurious lifestyle to his simple tastes (presumably meaning he would choose a smaller house and cheaper bills), and that some of the bills are for your son, who is not his son.

You also need to have a conversation about what happens if your income is lost. It happens - sometimes things happen in life that you just can't foresee. How will life work if the family drops down to one salary? Have an agreement in place.

I agree!
Also it's the marital home once you're both married it's 50/50 whoever paid more.

I do understand his position as I'm also a middle earner with inheritance as equity in my property. If I met a rich man and we got a bigger house I would need to protect my equity if we split as I'd have no way to earn it back, but a high earner like you could get it back in a couple of years.

I don't think he can have his cake and eat it though. You could ring fence his 500k and then say for any remainder it's owned 90% you and 10% him or whatever proportion you contribute to household costs. That is the fairest and You need to protect yourself and your son.

I don't think she should pool her 300k income especially when she has a child to pay for and he doesn't. Giving away 150k a year to your fiance could make the difference between her son attending or not attending private school.

Eh? My guess is that OP managed a career and her dc just fine before she met her fiance and she doesn't need 'support' to earn good money.

I agree that the mortgage should be taken out by the OP alone and that she and her partner would then own 50% each. He would own his 50% outright from the start. She would pay all the mortgage and eventually own 50% too. I imagine it would be easy to overpay a £500,000 mortgage very easily on a £300,000 salary, so it might not take too long.

As far as the bills are concerned, the OP should pay more than 50% of the household bills because she should be covering her child's share (proportion might depend on child's age: a teenager will use more electricity and will cost more to feed than a three year old). She should also pay for all her child's additional expenses (clothing, toys/books, childcare, extra curricular activities etc).

Given the income discrepancy and the fact that her partner is happy with a simpler life than the OP, I think it makes sense if they pay for other normal expenses proportionally, but that she should pay if she wants something like a luxury holiday that he wouldn't be able to afford.

Then any SAHM wife should not get part of her husband's money should they divorce if he had that job/business before they met. But it's acknowledged that in staying at home, she has contributed to the marriage. The sexes are reversed but the same principle holds true.

What I was trying to say is they are now a partnership bringing different things to the table. She clearly has great earnings, he sweeps up more of the domestic stuff and they split things equally. Or I hope it's that way

But he's not a stay at home dad. He neither stays at home nor is a dad. And there's nothing to say he does any more in the home than the OP.

Well, the OP doesn't care cos they've not been back to engage today.