AIBU to think housework has nothing to do with money?

[EuclidianGeometryFan]

Not a TAAT, but I have seen the opinion expressed that if a couple are paying 50% each into the house, that the housework should be split 50/50.

To my mind, that is crazy. The housework split and financial split have nothing to do with each other.
Financial contributions depend on income.
Housework contributions depend on time available.
So if one person has a long commute and the other works part time, they split the housework so that they have equal 'time off' or leisure time, to either go out or to sit and do whatever they want.

Obviously the two are related in that if you are working part time or not working, you have less money to contribute, but you have more time (though if you are ill you may not achieve much housework in that time).
If you can't trust your part-time partner to put a reasonable amount of effort into housework (including childcare) when you are out at work, it is a doomed relationship.

Couples should decide together about who works what hours and what the financial arrangements will be, without regard to housework.

And, more importantly, they should look at who gets what leisure time and relaxation time without regard to who is paying what.
Otherwise the person earning less just becomes the domestic servant of the one who earns more.

That’s awful! When DH and I started living together, I told him that I don’t iron and if he wanted anything ironed he would need to do it himself!

I think this is far more nuanced than just having the same leisure time, and ultimately comes down to the right individual family dynamic. However, I think money is a good metric for helping to decide that dynamic.

Example: a person takes a dream job on a 2 hour commute. Should the person with 'more time' take on the burden of that choice? I'd argue that if the person with a commute isn't contributing more money then they have to suck up the commute. But if they are putting a much larger amount into the pot then that makes up (a bit) for the time suck that impacts the entire family. It's a useful yard stick.

Or, a personal example: I work 3 days a week. I happen to take home the same in that 3 days as my husband in 5 days. My husband has made the choice to 'do good', I have made the choice to work in fintech. I don't feel fulfilled like he does but it makes economic sense.

So where does the balance lie? We contribute the same, but my husband could move into a project role in another sector and make more - we know he could. Does he pay for fulfilment with his time, as he isn't contributing monetarily? Do I get time as my compensation for sacrificing the warm fuzzy feeling he gets in his work? Or, do we say that I chose not to work for a charity (for example), and that in simple terms I have more time off so I have to do more chores even though I already pay in 50 / 50 to the finance pot? That money doesn't come into it.

As it happens, we've found our own balance (which probably wouldn't look very balanced to others) and live comfortably enough that the money issue isn't actually an issue. We've found this balance by using money as a counterweight to the weight of domestic labour. Given that income and time left after working can often be down to individual choices, money definitely has to be taken into consideration.