AIBU to expect 50 50 house costs with lower earning partner?

[TheSnappyHelper]

Been with partner 10 years. No kids, not married, no plans to be. But we are long-term partners and are both planning that this is hopefully the partner for life.

I am higher earner and self employed. Used to be on significantly more, now on a pretty average salary due to industry changes.

He has always been on a lower amount. He was pursuing art things (and doing quite well) and freelancing in odd jobs. For various reasons, he is not suited to an office career job (he tried).

I got on the property ladder (all my own hard work, no help from parents). I recently sold, and made a reasonable amount of money. He paid me a token amount while we lived there. (Lower than market rent). Me and my partner have now bought a house together.

Now we are both on the deeds. He is working a minimum wage job again. (He works bloody hard. He is a grafter.) He does have plans to improve his income (but it doesn't always work out).

How much should we each pay? We agreed 50/50 towards all house bills and house improvements. (Because otherwise, I would feel resentful given I have reduced my own investment to help him get on the property ladder and I want to protect myself in case we break up one day).

But, I feel guilty every time I bring up money stuff, and conscious that he's on less as I can see the stress in his face about paying. And I read a lot about how it's normal for higher earners to pay more... But I've paid more for 10 years.

YABU - you should pay more, he earns less
YANBU - your setup is fair and 50/50 is reasonable

I'll get flamed for this, I know. But this is exactly why I have an issue with the proportional split approach - often the higher earner (if the discrepancy is significant) has worked a lot hard for a lot longer. So they shouldn't have to then 'carry' the other person who maybe pursued their dream job, or fancied working fewer days/hours. Yes, many people who don't earn much work hard. But then they still shouldn't expect their OH to pay the difference.

I'm glad I never had to support anyone - and, by the same token, I'd never expect my OH to support me. He'd be happy to if I need him to but I could never let anyone support me financially. I'd feel like a loser. Of course this doesn't always apply if children are involved.

If being 50/50 is important to you then you should have bought a house with equal deposits because the current arrangement has him benefitting from your considerably large amount. I know that you protected you deposit but without it he would have bought a cheaper house and seen a smaller percentage return than the house he bought with you. The only other way to prevent him from benefitting from you would have been for you to buy a BTL and keep the rental income and rent elsewhere with him. Or you agree to live separately so Finances are simpler.

Did you buy based on his mortgage plus bills payment being affordable for him so he still has money left over? Eg he’s paying say 50% of his monthly income so has the other 50% to do other stuff? If you bought based on what’s affordable for you and expect him to keep up then that’s unreasonable and won’t last long term.

I would add that given you are in a long term relationship you may need to take a view on or temporarily cover some of these temporary costs if you are the higher earner and have some savings. There is little point in him getting in to debt to cover 50% which will hamstring you both longer term if he is getting caught by interest payments. But keep a record of it and make it a loan that he repays in the form of the new garden furniture or a holiday or whatever in due course as his financial situation improves. You may never "call in the loan" but nor should you in my opinion be the default bank and should he suddenly have plenty of cash to spend on personal items and sees no reason to square that circle that is the sort of thing that can cause resentment.

I actually think it probably IS still affordable for him once we are just paying for those things, it's just that at the moment there are extra costs to do with moving and house (repairs, fridge, van hire, storage etc).

They probably wouldn't have been able to get a mortgage by just putting in 14% deposit of the property value, it doesn't sound like he earns that much, I think you get 5x joint income so depends on property value..
Plus they might've not been able to even pay the monthly payments on a mortgage that size
Was replying to another post saying she should've matched his 7% contrubution

My ex husband insisted on 50/50, even though he earned a lot more than me. By the time I'd paid my half, I had hardly anything left, which meant I couldn't do a lot of things that he did - days out, meals etc. He could have afforded to help me out, but didn't. There were times when I had to borrow petrol money off my Dad. It's no way to live.

My new husband also earns a lot more than me, but its all pooled. We're in this together.

It's more complicated than that as OP is self employed. She has to fund her pension, holiday leave, sick leave etc. from her salary. If he is employed he will have all of those costs already deducted from his salary.

I think in this case they should either do 50-50 as he is also the mortgage is presumably quite low since OP paid a huge chunk as a deposit. Or they should not own equal percentages and pay unequal proportions of the mortgage but not other bills.

Seems unfair for him to pay 50/50 on a mortgage when his share of the property is always going to be lower.

No, you've got that the wrong way round.

Look at it this way. A and B buy a house together. The house is 400k.

A puts down 65k which A will get back when the house is sold.

B puts down 35k which B will get back when the house is sold.

That leaves 300k equity on the house once the mortgage is paid off. This will be split 50/50. Ignoring any capital growth for now, that would mean that

A receives 150k

B receives 150k

Any capital growth would also be split 50/50

This illustrates why B should pay 50% of the mortgage, because B will receive 50% of the equity and 50% of any capital gain.

Life partner means just that. So, it’s a shared pool of resources where what’s his is yours and vice versa. I earn a lot more than my wife but she gets the exact same left to play with as me each month. Even if I get a bonus, windfall, she gets half and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

It’s often like this with most couples where one earns more so not an unusual situation. But it sounds like you are not happy putting in more so you’ve got a major problem. Financial disagreements are a major reason for couples splitting.

Well if you're actually partners for life, building a life, home and potentially a family should mean you're a team on this and you each contribute according to your earnings. If you love him and you're fully sharing your lives, why would you see him with less than you?

Yes I agree with this too. You sound as though you don't even like him much. If people only ever partnered with others on the same income there wouldn't be that many couples at all. You mentioned being very frugal,I if you're committed long term then you have to let go of your resentment at sharing.
My DS earns roughly double his partner. While they rented they paid the rent and bills in proportion to income. They bought 50/50 because she got an inheritance to cover the deposit. He continues to pay more towards bills because if she had to pay half she would be left penniless. He also pays for big items and holidays.

If he wants to appreciate an asset then he needs to pay for it. I don't get this whole mentality on here of people subsidising other people, especially when they are unmarried. Whichever sex that applies to.

In my view you are not at all unreasonable. However you will not get support on here for reasons I probably don't need to point out!

Don’t forget the pink tax though. Women generally spend much more than men on everyday items (makeup, clothes, skincare etc). When I go to the hairdressers it costs 10 times the amount that it costs DP. You can argue that these things are not ‘essential’, but generally, men like their partners to look good.

Not a chance in hell would I be subsidising a man. If he wants more fun money he needs to get off his arse and earn it.

Do you mean to say that he signed a legal agreement that states that you will get 45% of the sale price plus 24%? Paying 45% of the deposit of something does not mean that you own 45% of the thing when it is paid off when the remainder has been paid 50/50. Surely you mean you have protected the value of the deposit not the percentage.

I guess perhaps it depends a bit on how you own your house. But even as joint owners, not tenants in common, Dh and I pay proportionate according to our incomes. Dh makes probably 3x what I make, so he pays 3x what I pay into our joint account, from which we pay our mortgage and other expenses.

If we paid 50/50, my portion would be more than I even earn every month! And dh would have thousands in play money monthly. That wouldn’t be fair. I don’t work less than Dh normally. At the moment, I’m off sick with cancer, so now I do, but I can’t help that. But in normal times, Dh works fewer hours than me across the week. He just earns a lot of money doing it. When we got married, he made less than me and I was more educated with the more prestigious career, but he started a business that has been very successful.

You’ve chosen your dp as a life partner. You’ve chosen the whole package. You don’t get to pick and choose if you want to go all in with home ownership then financial you look after each other. Times can change very quickly. I had a big career and then I got ill and I haven’t been able to work for 2 years. There may come a time when your partner needs to step up and carry you both because you are too unwell to work. That’s what you do when you’re a team. If you aren’t, then you picked the wrong person to buy a house with.

If 50/50 is already agreed I'm not sure why you have posted - is he trying to change things now you've actually bought the house?

Before we had joint account we puc everything in proportion to our income.

I paid 60% I think and my husband (partner then) paid 40%. My view was that we were both working full time and working just as hard as eachother I was just fortunate I was in a higher paying profession.

I wouldn’t be with a man who was earning lower than me.

Did it once, got stitched up in the divorce and paid the lot. Now he is much more financially stable than me.

You need to think about when you have kids.

I don’t really understand why you live together tbh.

Surely you’d be better off living alone and less resentful.

IMO it should be spilt percentage wise so 50% of both your salaries go into the joint account for all bills eg £20k from you and £10l from him.

I would understand paying 50/50 if you were roommates or very early on in the relationship but this is a serious relationship that you hope is forever.

I'd hate him too.
I hope you get away soon 💐.

To those saying I don't like him - slightly absurd, I have voluntarily supported him for 10+ years! I adore him and in every (other) way we are a partnership.

One reason this has come up is that I've found myself not doing things that I ought to be able to on my income (not extravagant things, but joining a weekend away with my friends for example) because I've spent more money paying for our (fairly frugal, fairly low-cost) life, by being the higher earner.

Previously I was in the pattern of always paying for me + partner to have a drink, or on accommodation etc. We got into that pattern - which was fine, because back then I was earning actually good money, so could afford it. Nowadays my income is more precarious and I don't feel like I can do that so easily (it can drastically change).

And yes, appreciate that it was insane to buy a house without doing sums. But we will not be breaking up because of this issue - so probably in the back of my mind I knew I would end up paying more if he couldn't afford it so would be going ahead either way.

@Selfishman I'm sorry to hear about your situation. You have a child with this man and how he's treating you is not okay. I hope you can find some help to leave.

Exactly this

My husband is in the same situation - as are plenty of others. Obviously different as we are married and have two kids, but it was true before that too. He'd be better off on his own financially, but we are a team and we each bring what we have to the relationship.

I think you need a serious chat about what he can actually afford if nothing change for him. If splitting up isn't on the table then you'll need to make sure you can make your life work as a partnership.

Don’t forget the pink tax though. Women generally spend much more than men on everyday items (makeup, clothes, skincare etc). When I go to the hairdressers it costs 10 times the amount that it costs DP. You can argue that these things are not ‘essential’, but generally, men like their partners to look good.

That's nonsense, none of those things are essential, that's just regressive stereotyping.

My dad and stepmum, and my brother and SIL are like this where they have their 'own money' - it causes so many arguments between them. My DH and I have always had both salaries go into a joint account - it's both our money, none of this 50/50 shit... and I earn double what he earns!

@jdb9803 yes 50/50 is agreed but I've posted because I'm questioning whether I'm being unfair. He's not trying to change anything, he's insistent that 50/50 will be possible.

Going forward I think I will stick to 50/50 for mortgage but will absorb more of the big one-off costs. And do things like randomly pay for a tank of petrol etc.