For wanting my partner to pay more of the mortgage?

[AnyPomegranate]

My fiancé makes about £90k pa plus bonus. I used to earn extremely well as a lawyer but decided to career change as I loathed the work and long hours. I now earn £35k with good future earning potential. We live in London and pay about £3000 pm for mortgage/bills which we split mostly 50/50 (see below).

Currently I'm about £200 short per month. I'm doing my best to increase my income and reduce expenses, but ultimately £35k doesn't go far in London so I'm finding it a little stressful. Part of the problem is that my partner isn't making it easy to budget - he insists on staying in London (I want to move) and because he earns well he wants to regularly eat out, go on holidays, buy what he wants in the food shop etc. It feels silly to say that I'm finding it hard financially on a household income of £125k, but obviously the vast majority of that money is my partner's and not mine.

I was reading online that some couples split bills as a proportion of their income, rather than 50/50. So today I asked him if he would mind paying a little bit more of the mortgage so that I have enough to break even, just temporarily until I'm able to get a promotion. He told me no, it was my decision to take a pay cut. He also pointed out (reasonably) that the bills have gone up so he's already paying about £200 more than me as it is (the bills come out of his account so I wasn't aware).

I can see his point of view so I'm not sure if what I'm asking is cheeky or reasonable. Please be gentle, I'm aware that I'm in a privileged position compared to a lot of people.

It's only fair if you can both trust each other not to take the piss though. Me and my ex did this, and when I got a promotion at work he went part time without telling me beforehand because "we" could now afford it.

This. @AnyPomegranate if you did move and then he advised he was stopping work to train as a self employed balloon artist, youd support him?

He isn't affording it though, he's asking OP to subsidise half of it while he keeps the rest for himself. Just because he earns 90k doesn't mean they're joint expenses need to rocket to that level especially when it's on things only he wants to spend money on while she covers half of it.

Logically speaking, a proportional % of income doesn't work (in this situation) if it's being thrust upon one party

Once again theyre already paying a proportional % of their income except OP is paying the bigger portion and her partners got basically her salary pre contributions left over after his contributions. If OP had remained on 75k and not quite her job, are you still saying her partners salary should go up to 90k and a 50/50 split is still fair? If so you need to actually explain how it's fair for any reason other than "partner not happy!" You're accusing OP of living beyond her means while ignoring or not reading that her partner is adding his whims and fancies to the joint household bill - HE is loving beyond her and their means.

Again, they are essentially boyfriend and girlfriend. I'd have a very different view if they were married, and that would change, throwing children into the mix.

They own a property together and they're engaged! I agree it's not marriage but it still doesn't mean one can financially rinse the other (and no the one being rinsed isn't the one with leftover salary, accepting a loan from OPs mums, and getting a higher % of the house while splitting repayments 50/50 and.chucking expensive food and takeaways into the mix ).

Wow!!

You aren't well matched. He wants to burn the candle at both ends while he can, whereas you went for a lower stress career before you even had kids.

She did discuss it with him, so it is unfair to say that she made the decision 'unilaterally'.
This woman is his fiancée, the woman he has asked to share his life with him, his love, his companion, HIS WIFE. He should be delighted to be in the position to help her, support her and treat her to lovely things
He is niggardly, resentful, passive-aggressive and punitive. My partner and I have had fluctuating incomes over the 20 years together. I am now the higher earner, I am so happy that my income can allow us to have a good life-style for both of us. My partner is completely unmaterialistic, ( I am bloody well not!) money and possessions are meaningless to him, if he has a windfall he gives me the lion's share. I feel privileged to be able to pay for nice things, treat him, share wonderful experiences.
For those responding that she should refuse to go to expensive restaurants and luxury holidays and if he were to accept that and be perfectly happy to do these things without her, that is simply beyond my comprehension. If our positions were reversed and my higher earning fiancé happily indulged in his expensive lifestyle without me, I would walk out without a backward glance because he had shown me what his priorities were.

Definitely try and iron out any issues before you get married - particularly how things will look financially if you have children.

You are earning a smaller salary so probably need to manage your own expectations regarding what you can afford lifestyle wise now. Less extravagant holiday/gifts for others etc. Your disposable income should be enough but if you’re still living the life of someone on your old salary, then it won’t be and I’m not sure why your fiancé should pick up the slack financially if I’m honest. If you were struggling, yes, but if you’re spending £900 a month and savings on rubbish? No.

Also, your mum is paying for your wedding! That’s another reason why I don’t think you’re as financially sound as you should be if I’m honest.

To be honest, he's tight, Id worry about having kids with him.

My husband puts £1,500 in our joint and I put £500 because he earns more. He would never ask me to go 50/50 when he out earns me by about 40k!

I voted YABU because you made the choice to cut your income, and presumably your partner didn’t agree beforehand that he would pick up the slack/contribute more? Your partner was not happy about you changing jobs. Why could you not have just moved law firms, there are literally hundreds in London. You could even have come out of central London and not taken such a huge cut.

Now you need to cut your cloth - if that means you can’t go out as much etc then that’s the consequence of your choice. I would suggest that when you go shopping, you let your DP pay the bill.

She discussed with him. He wasn't supportive and she went ahead anyway. He never signed up to pick up her shortfall. She imposed that on him without his agreement.

I can never understand my money, your money notion. Maybe I am old fashioned but if you are a partnership and in love surely you do your best for your partner and work as a team. My DH earns more than me, but we just put our wages together and pay everything out of that pot. Money is the root of all evil as the saying goes. I guess because my parents always said that they would never argue about money I hold the same values.

He doesn't get to decide what you spend your money on. He doesn't get to tell you what type of food/holiday/luxuries you have to pay for.

Long-term, your options are

a) pool your money as a household, have equal say how it's spent

b) split essentials unequally (even though you presumably both use the house and the utilities pretty much equally) leaving you both the same spending money for luxuries

c) split essentials equally, and he has more money for luxuries

Why was he not supportive? This is his future life-partner.

You say you're getting married next year. Has he mentioned anything about a pre-nup ....?

I do not think you should marry this man. Or have kids with him.
You would be much better and happier opting for the single life.

So you took a financial decision that required him to subsidise you, which he wasn't very happy with, and you did it anyway?

I earn well.DH are happy together based on knowing we trust each other to contribute financially. We would support each other to take a slightly lower paid/lower stress role but thats not the same as dropping from 90 to 35k! It places a huge pressure on the other earner that wasn't expected.

Like normal people? What’s that supposed to mean?

We keep separate accounts so we keep our own autonomy. It’s important for us both to have absolute freedom. If I want to spend £500 on a chair, I can. If he wants to spend the same on a piece of tech, that’s fine.

Each to their own, it’s nothing about “normal”, it’s about fairness, respect and kindness.

It was not a unilateral decision. They discussed it. From the OP's account he was not enthusiastic. Not being enthusiastic is not the same as outright opposition and saying he was totally opposed to her wishes.
To me it now seems as if he is punishing her by deliberately throwing luxury items into the shopping, claiming that as he now earns 90K 'his penny pinching days are over' and he can afford these expensive choices. But she is having to subsidise HIS choices. If he wants lobster, caviar and fillet steak, HE SHOULD PAY FOR THEM. He is a fucking hypocrite, needlessly pushing the food bill up and happy for her to 'penny-pinch'. I would have left an unsympathetic, selfish and solipsistic pig already. There is something unpleasantly punitive about his actions and him boasting about his wealth. I beg you, do not marry this c**t

I don't think I could stay with a man who is so penny-pinching and mean with money sorry @AnyPomegranate He won't change when you're married, and if you have children you will be living in penury compared to him with his big important job and his big fat salary. Making your wife-to-be pay half towards everything when she earns a third of what you do is not the makings of a good husband. He won't look after you when you need it. I couldn't move on from this. I'd be looking to end it, and move further north where it's cheaper.

If you were married I would expect your finances to be pooled, but as you're not, he is right. I would however be saying no to all the nights out etc as you can't afford it.
Have a discussion about whether he would support you if married, before you get married!

Apologies if I've missed this but is there a reason you couldn't split based on the base version of things then he top up to fancy if needed for now?

I would be hesitant about marrying this man and having children with him

I was earning more than him at one point and we continued to split the bills 50/50. Honestly, it wasn't a conscious decision and if he'd wanted me to pay more I happily would've done so. It's more that we were earning the same when we first took out the mortgage so it made sense to split it 50/50 and we never really revised it from there. It's only come up now because I'm struggling to afford it for the first time Honestly, if you didn't offer to pay more than him when you earned more, I think it's pretty unfair to expect him to subsidise you now !

Putting that to one side, you have very different attitudes to money / lifestyle and I don't see that improving. I'd think long and hard about whether marrying this man is the right choice for you. Beware of sunk costs fallacy

I genuinely cannot conflate not being supportive with outright refusal to countenance the proposal. I do not know the OP so it is possible that she is soft-pedaling his reaction but I do not think she is. In all her posts, she comes across as honest, truthful and fair. If he expressed doubts then surely that was the time when they could have discussed it and all the various ramifications in detail. It does not sound as if they did, but of course we do not know.
I should also add that if the fiancé had objections, it is on him to bring his counter-arguments, objections, financial projections and possible solutions to his fiancée. Did he do this? NO probably like most men because he could not be arsed and now the OP is being bullied into financial arrangements that have required her to stop paying into her pension and even to consider borrowing FROM HER MOTHER to subsidise his truffles, Wagyu steak and champagne lifestyle.

Yep, me too!