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.

He earns an incredibly low salary. He can't be working full-time then. I would tread extremely carefully before having financial connections with someone in such a different position to me.

you pay expenses proportionately to your earnings, and so you have the same spends afterwards

This only works if both partners earn the same. Otherwise basic maths shows that it cannot be true when earnings are different.

It also doesn't work if the disparity arises before there is a commitment to live together eg because there hasn't been mutual give and take such as one partner stepping back in their career to raise joint DC or follow a job move by the other.

In your case, you are not obliged to support him if you live together, although if you get married, you're then held to the 'all I have I share with you' clause in your marriage vows, unless you put alternative legal protections in place.

But the differences in incomes will be an issue because you either have to live according to his means and you save your unspent income, or if you want a lifestyle beyond what is affordable to him, you need to pay for it.

Otherwise you can't live together or he needs to earn more, or he needs to provide non financial input to the relationship, eg if he did all the cooking, cleaning, laundry, grocery shopping, household management, money management, etc leaving you free to work and little else, that should be considered as a contribution to the relationship.

Although of course, if a female lone parent was planning on moving in to a high earning partner's house, giving up their independence and needing to increase their working hours while having 50/50 care of their DC and needing to do all the domestic work, MN would tell them to not do it.

Assuming £1k pm is representative of his income, why does he earn so little? Even NMW would be over £1500 pm if he worked full time - does he work PT and receive benefits? If so, you'll need to at least account for his loss of benefits if he moves in with you.

We pay proportionate to our incomes, but don’t have equal personal spending money after. These are two separate concepts.

My approach has always been that our career choices are our personal decisions. I chose to go into a less high paying but more prestigious career than Dh. He’s a business owner so technically earns more than me most months, but it’s variable and it’s also risky (the whole thing could go bust, if say the business burnt down or something). I’ve chosen to work PT because I want to, not because Dh made me because I have to do the childcare. So I probably have less personal spending money, but pay less for bills. If I wanted money for something, Dh would just transfer it over. I have more money in my pension than Dh. In the end it all balances out very equitably and neither of us goes without.

OP isn't married.

OP, who is telling you that you are obliged to even out "spends"??

You aren't. Direct your excess funds to your security (savings and pension) not to boosting his lifestyle spending.

How much of the house did you pay for? Why does he earn so little? What are your ages?

I think there was a hint of sarcasm in that post, or at least I hope there is 😂

I have been the lower earner and the higher earner at different times in my relationship (not married, no children) depending on jobs we are working. I don't find any splitting of finances easy. When I earned a lot less I used to think why doesn't he notice I'm skint, now the situation is reversed I think why should I give him the money I have worked really hard for. Which indicates I'm probably completely self centered and self serving. However in my defence when I was poorer I worked hard to increase my earnings. He has chosen to soft retire which seems to consist of watching the telly and riding his bike and I'm not subsidising idleness. Living the romantic dream 🙂

You’re not married and you don’t share any children why should you be subsidising him? How is he currently affording to live alone if by your calculations he’s -£500 on house and bills etc? If you live together and split the bills evenly he should be happy with the fact he’s not going into debt every month. I don’t see why you should be paying more in this case.

But what about my situation, where both partners are women?

Checkmate.

I was never married but had one child with my ex (of 14 years). We never shared money. I'd pay half and him the same. What ever we have left over was ours.

Worked for us.

I actually think you are doing it wrong if he has 600 to himself but you cover ALL the fun stuff. I mean he's choosing his lifestyle by earning so little. Unless there's a drip feed where he is caring for a disabled family member so can't increase earnings etc I'd say you cover holidays and take aways are split 50%. If you don't incentives him earning more he never will

Imagine, working hard to climb the career ladder for years, then meeting someone with a child who earned only a proportion of your salary (assume that they have not been as concerned about earning well)

Then handing over a share of your income every month?!

No thank you!!!

I would not enter into this relationship for a start!

Love does not pay the rent!

I know there will be a lot of “you can’t reverse the sexes”
posts, but when a higher earning man makes his lower earning partner pay half the bills, leaving her with less money, coupled with the lower earner not being allowed on the deeds of the property, there are often cries of abuse.

im assuming no one is accusing you of that

I don't have to imagine, because that's exactly what happened with us.

It works just fine and there's no resentment, because we've always been a team, and neither of us are particularly money-oriented. I hand over a fair wad of cash every month - not enough to mean that we have the same amount of disposable income, but just to make sure neither of us ever have to worry about money be it for our hobbies or anything else.

The point is...we have struggled, but neither disproportionately. It doesn't make sense to change the arrangement now that we're both more comfortable.

The fact that you aren't married and you don't have kids is relevant. Often the woman goes part time to look after the kids and the man earns a much higher salary. Since she is providing labour for the family in the time she's not working, it's not fair for them no to have "equal spends" so long as everyone agrees that she stays at home with the kids. If there are no kids and each adult is free to earn more or less money as they see fit then it's the lower earner's choice to earn less and have less disposable income. The situation might be different again if your partner was unable to work (for health reasons, for example). In our case my DH chooses to work part time and earns about 1/4 what I do. Until our youngest was in Y1 I paid for everything but then I told him I wanted us to start paying for bills in proportion to our earnings. I pay 3/4 and all optional/fun stuff but we don't have equal disposable income after that, I normally have a few hundred more. I think this is fair enough as he does not want to work full time!

You're already too kind paying so much of the bills.

I think the theory you're describing works when you have children together. If you don't, I think 3:2 would be fair.

I agree with the way you're doing it and we did the same. The lower earner has less spends but could choose a more lucrative job / more hours if unhappy with this. They are being massively subsidised on living costs and joint treats like holidays.

What happens if the boiler breaks down / the house needs a new roof or new kitchen?

He is on the deeds to the house so is building his own share of equity but my share is protected as far as it can be.

He pays for half of the food and half the bills as that’s what he consumes - he still has money left to buy what he chooses to or save each month though and if he were unable to work in the future due to health issues etc I’d have no hesitancy about paying in full. That said at times when I haven’t been able to work I haven’t expected him to pay more than his half

How is the unpaid labour distributed in these households with proportional bill paying? Because it often seems that the lower earner gets less money and then also has to do the bulk of the childcare / housework too. It definitely doesn't seem like a good distribution for them if they end up being the partner who does the most work for the least pay.