Philosophical "how do we split finances?" one

[DrowningInApathy]

So, I frequently see advocated on here "you pay expenses proportionately to your earnings, and so you have the same spends afterwards".

So, supposing I earn 5k/mth after tax and partner earns 1k. So by this logic I pay 83.5% (5/6ths) & he pays 16.5% (1/6th).

Suppose all the bills/housing/food are about 2k/mth. So I pay £1666, and he pays £334.
And that leaves me with about 3.3k, and him with about £666.

If we lived separately, we'd each pay about £1500/mth all in, because the housing and utility costs don't change much, and the food bill would split. (and yes, his income doesn't cover his expenses in that case without him taking on more work)
So separately, I'd have £3,500 left, and he'd have minus £500 (ie £500/mth shortfall/debt)

I don't have children.
He has one, which he has 50/50.
We will not have children together.
We have both been working for ~20 years and chose our careers.
We made our life choices independently, so neither has impacted the other's earning capability.
I pay for going out, holidays, most of the "optional" spends.
We aren't married and don't intend to, and don't have joint finances, but are committed.
We both own the house.

So,

1. Am I supposed to give him an additional £1300/mth of my salary to "even things up"?

1. If so, why, given we both independently made our own decisions as to careers, and neither of us has impacted the earning ability of the other.

1. I am already slightly worse off by living with him. Which is fine, no issues with that. But in the scenario where I also even up the spends, I would be £1500/mth worse off from living with him compared to living separately. But he would be £2500 better off, and would then have twice as much disposable as he actually even earns in a month.

I think having a 5:1 split, and me paying for the optional fun stuff, is fair.
I wouldn't think it fair to be giving him a big additional chunk of my salary on top.

What do you think is fair, and why?

YABU: Pay him the extra
YANBU: Paying 5x as much of the living expenses is fair.

You need to live separately if you don’t want to support him. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Ok, but why?

We both want to live together.
He's better off if we live together. I'm better off if we live together, cos I enjoy it more.

Why am I obliged to support him to that extent if we live together?

As in, if we were dating and living separately, he has a responsibility to look after himself, provide himself with housing, cover utilities etc, and would have to live on his single income.

Why does it then become my responsibility not only to cover the bulk (or even all) the household expenses (which I'm fine with), but then ALSO to pay him extra (which seems unfair).

He still has ~£660/mth disposable for himself each month, which is more than many, and plenty to have fun with.

I'm potentially open to the idea, but it makes no sense to me when I run it through, so would appreciate some reasoned explanations of why I should pay (if you think I should).

Who says you have to top up his earnings/spends? That's ludicrous.....

And, in fact, we spend about the same month to month, but I put a lot more in savings and investments - so does it make a difference because we effectively have the same spends? And if so also why, please?

Based on the information in the op, no of course you shouldn’t be giving him money to even things up. He already has a lifestyle he wouldn’t be able to afford himself, provided by a higher earning spouse. Handing over a chunk of your wages each month as well? No.

It's not a question of right or wrong. All that matters is that you can communicate with each other about finances and both of you are happy with the setup.

Often what happens is that the women start those threads because they are not happy. They don't feel able to talk to their dh/dp about it and come on here to complain or talk it through. For most of us, if we are OK with our personal finances, we are not going to be starting threads about it.

Not your situation, but many women who have children take a financial hit in ways that men don't. I have seen it many times on here, the women are struggling, but somehow their partners seem to be carrying on as they always have. The men don't see any problem and don't want to change.

There are a dozen ways to split finances. And people will have their preferred method, but it doesn't make the other ways wrong. Do what works for you.

Some people pay proportions, some people make sure they have equal fun money, some people pay 50:50. Anyone who thinks there is one right way is short-sighted.

It's a difficult one because you're not intending to marry or have kids.

When my DH and I moved in together I earned slightly more than him and we split it equally so we both had equal spending money after bill like you're suggesting (but the difference was only a few ££). We knew we intended to marry and have kids and my DH career has skyrocketed and he earns 10x my salary. We share everything and have equal access to money. But like I say we are married with children.

Can I ask why does your partner earn so little? That's not even minimum wage full time earnings is it?

I think I'd probably split the bills 4:1 if I were you.

We both work and earn roughly the same these days but there have been wage disparities over the years. Everything goes into the joint account with a smallish amount kept in personal accounts for individual spending. Any large purchases are discussed first. I really can't be bothered with salami slicing incomes into who pays a % of what. If you are married you are a team, emotionally and financially.

So, I frequently see advocated on here "you pay expenses proportionately to your earnings, and so you have the same spends afterwards".

I think a lot of the time that is said by and about people with shared children tbh.

And also it doesn't matter what other people think is the best thing to do.

Why am I obliged to support him to that extent if we live together?

You're not?

Never marry him that’s for sure

The thing is you have chosen to date someone who is much worse off than you

Make sure you realise the resentment this can cause down the line (from both sides actually)

And if you have bought a property together well you should ring fence your share accordingly

This way you get out what you put in at least

I would not be transferring my earnings to top his up

No you don't pay him more / owe him that. That is odd.
Proportional is fine.
Is there anyway of him earning more? £1k after tax is less than a full time minimum wage job is it not?

Who is saying you have to pay him. That ludicrous. Why doesn't he have a full time job?

Good for you if you want to pay more bills but you don't need to actually hand money over to him

The challenge with the proportional approach comes with the disparity in the amount of fun money. You said that you and DP spend roughly the same and you're saving the rest. That means that in the short term there's no issue, in the longer term though if you stay together in retirement, you will have a lot more. But you both know this and agree to this. No problem.
Some women agree to this approach initially then go on maternity leave, or then experience a drastically reduced income due to childcare, it means paying proportionately, their fun money is a pittance and they can't even afford to go out with their DH's. They watch their DH's go on boys holidays and buy expensive clothes and they can't afford a takeaway coffee and have 0 savings. Also because DH's career isn't affected by having children his capacity to earn increases. She sees none of this money.
It doesn't mean the proportionate approach is wrong, in your case it works just fine, but any financial set up should be reconsidered when situations change.

Hard to say without knowing the genders involved.

If the man is the higher earner then the correct thing to do is combine all the money into one pot, pay the bills, and then split the rest so that each person gets half (and hence has equal spending money). Its difficult to understand why he would object to this, stinginess is one of the most unattractive traits a partner can have.

If the women is the higher earner then the correct thing is to pay the bills proportionally. The scenario you describe where you end up with £3.3k, and he gets £666.seems fair - £666 is more than enough to live off, and he can always get a better job if he wants more money. There is no reason why you should be subsidising him.

I think your way is fair as it is about personal choice. It might change if for eg he was unable to work (as your income would prevent him claiming benefits). You don’t have children. I don’t think adults should expect to be financed by their partner where no childcare or career sacrifice is involved - I do think there should instead be much stronger legal obligations of parents to financially support their kids and they shouldn’t be able to walk away from these so easily. I think your retirement may be tricky if there is a huge discrepancy in lifestyle between you. If you want do stuff as a couple he can’t afford then it’s fair for you to pay for that as that’s a choice you are making.

You've missed that when people say 'joint pot' they are only talking about situations where they have children.

If you have no kids, why on earth would you have to 'even out the spends' ?!

His income here is incredibly low, I think when one party has made a lifestyle choice to earn less it isn't right that the other partner should make restitution.

I don’t think the equal spending money after proportional payment of bills is a thing when there’s no marriage and no children. It’s fine for you to pay 50/50 in rented accommodation together.

It gets more complicated when one of you owns and the other moves in, but even then, I don’t think one person has to automatically subside the other, especially when they’ve not made the financial commitment that comes with marriage.

You must realise how ridiculous this is. The genders should make no different all

You must be new here

This is not "philosophical."

I think having a 5:1 split, and me paying for the optional fun stuff, is fair.
I wouldn't think it fair to be giving him a big additional chunk of my salary on top.

I agree.
He's £600 of his own at the end of the month.
You have your 2k+ but buy the takeaways or whatever.
We normally split things like holidays similarly too (I'm 1/4 he's the 3/4 and I buy the flights, DH buys the accommodation)

But I can I ask...
Did you both put equal shares into the house deposit? Will you own it equally or will the 5:1 contributions be recognised if you did split? And this is grim but if he were to die suddenly, would DC inherit half & could that force a sale?

Before we had kids we both put 50% of our salary, after tax and pension contributions, into the joint account. I was the lower earner and earnt double your partner though so I'm not sure it would be enough to cover your bills if you did it that way. You absolutely should not be topping up his disposable income! I earnt less so I had less money to spend after bills.

Now we have kids I put a lesser percentage than my DH but that's because I've gone part time to raise the kids. It's cheaper for me to go part time than pay for 2 full time nursery places so I shouldn't suffer financially for that.

The poster about the genders was surely very clearly being 'humorous' ?