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 agree with you.

They're not married, and OP is supporting a child, too, by the sound of it.

The only way OP should pay more is if they are married ... or they agree to change the ownership of the house to be based on the percentages each is contributing monthly.

He needs to try harder, to retrain in something, people in minimum wage jobs cannot afford a mortgage. If he wants to be a homeowner then he has to improve his income, you cannot sub him indefinitely.

Given your higher property down payment is ring fenced and the rest 50/50, I would say he should pay 50% of the mortgage and then salary percentage on bills. The mortgage payment is an investment in an asset that's his, you shouldn't be subsidizing that, but the rest is joint living expenses for a life together and I do think it's most reasonable to share that in an equitable rather than equal manner.

It sounds like you're (both?) struggling with a downgrade in lifestyle from lower paying jobs. It's hard to go in that direction without feeling bitter, it's well documented how difficult people find it to have their life style go down even if they had previously lived at that standard of living and enjoyed it. But try not to focus the "blame" for that on your partner. If he's who you want to be with, make the most of the life you have together now. Not looking for how you can maximise what you do or have while he gets left behind daily.

If you are not married, and both gaining 50:50 ownership of the house once deposit contributions have come out then you should both be paying 50:50 towards the house. Alternatively you could agree to pay more but get a share proportionate to your contribution (put this in writing), or if he has skills you could agree that he contributes in other ways e.g. he does the maintenance/upkeep

My only question/concern is if he really is your partner for life, what is going to happen at pension age. The inequality will be compounded.

As he is currently paying a larger proportion of his income, he will have a lower portion of a smaller salary to save for the long term. So he will be perpetually poorer.

I am not aaying you are wrong - my perspective is massively swayed by being married in a shared finances family that ensures we have equal spending money. But I would hate to go through my whole life with someone I adore and know they were always stressed about not having money.

How far along are you in the move? If it isn't confirmed and it has to be 50:50 then you should buy somewhere where the lower earner isn't stressing themselves into an early grave.

@DeedlessIndeed I do not have a pension as I am self-employed. One reason I am a bit stressed about this. So ironically he will probably be better off than me at pension age (unless we stick to 50/50 and then I can use some of the money to put into a private pension).

@TheSnappyHelper

If he's agreed to 50/50 then that's what it should be, don't question it right now. Let the extra costs you've had die down and see how things are financially for each of you when costs get more 'regular'.

I think a lot will have to do with how much 'extra' he'll have left after his half of the regular household costs is paid for. Will it be enough for extras like holidays, dining out, etc and will he be able to save a bit to have an emergency fund for unexpected expenditures? If not, then you'll end up 'subbing' him because you'll be paying for those things yourself or at least a larger share of them.

At that point you'll have Hobson's Choice. Either continue 50/50 with you having to pay more than half for other joint expenses OR you'll be paying more than 50% of the monthly running costs in exchange for him being able to pay more for other joint expenses and hopefully building a rainy day fund.

I understand that you love him and that he's a great guy as far as you're concerned. But I don't think buying a home with him was the best thing for you to do. But it is what it is. The best thing you can do now is encourage him to earn more. Whether that's working longer hours or retraining in a different field is up to him, I suppose.

But for me an 'artistic' aversion to regular/office jobs butters no parsnips. My DS1 is very talented musically. But after he and his mates tried for 7 years to find fame, he packed it in and got a 'regular' job in the entertainment industry. He's worked his way up and now makes 6 figures.

@ClayPotaLot this is a really helpful way to think about things and makes a lot of sense. I think you're right - I'm stressed that I'm not earning what I used to, but actually putting that onto him when he's always earned not-much is probably not that fair or helpful. Thankyou for this perspective.

If you’re not married I think it’s best to get legal/ financial advice to draw up paperwork as to what you both agree would happen to your home / proceeds of sale, if you should split up firstly.

Everyone is different with money in a relationship. Personally, after 10 years and buying a home together - I’d be pooling what I earn, what they earn and just using the cash as one pot. So if btw you say after tax you earn £6000 a month, deduct bills, mortgage, food, travel etc costs from that. Take out your joint savings / pension costs. And what’s left over - decide how together you spend that.

If you don’t want to work in the job you have as it’s knackering you out, that’s something different and that’s a chat to sit down and have with your other half about how you together plan for that.

When i was with my ex we split rent/mortgage/bills 50/50 even tho hecslways earned loads more than me. After I had our kids that changed to as the dispardisparity grew bigger and COL increased.

He usually paid for meals out and hols. Worked well for us at that time.

Without kids, well if he's got a good deal on half the mortgage as opposed to rent then I would think 50/50 and you pay for a few treats or 60/40 is fair? Especially now he's upped his game with work?

I think if I was on min wage or thereabouts and partner insisted on 50/50 if they earned significantly more I'd feel a bit disappointed.

The main thing though is that the two of you need to communicate and agree!

Its a tricky situation, often the other way around with the male earning more and the female taking a hit when they start a family, but sometimes expecting an equal contribution even during maternity. When kids are involved, and they are married, I do think all in one pot, with potentially a budgeted amount for individual higher cost purchases or experiences is best. So most of the discussions around money would suggest that you share more based on contributing proportionately, and therefore 50/50 isn't fair.

But you don't have kids, I don't think you're married, and his lower earnings seem to be at least partly related to a lack of effort at times. If he isn't contributing more in other ways, ie part time income but picks up more household tasks, I can really see why you don't want to be subsidising him and missing out on things you would otherwise be able to afford. It seems for now your suggestion is best, keep to 50/50 but accept you maybe buy the odd extra bit of furniture, repair, or day out.

Now he seems to be more motivated, can you help him with getting better paid employment? To help you both feel more comfortable?

You absolutely must pay into a private pension OP.

If you allow for pension deductions, would you then be taking home roughly the same wages as him?

Is he trying to improve his salary OP?
do you plan on having any children?

if he is working hard now and making the right noises to improve his income then I think there is hope.
If he slips back into his old patterns I would worry. I think for now keep things at 50/50 while the novelty wears off. I’d possibly pay a bit more for one offs like moving vans etc but I wouldn’t reduce the 50/50 bills element. Start as you mean to go on.

think carefully if you do want kids as this type of set up will force you back to work asap given he can’t support you. You may resent that, especially if you are recovering from a difficult birth.

Why on earth don't you have a pension? 😩

@Overwhelmedandtired thanks for this. Yes - he actually is currently doing a course that hopefully would result in him earning more money... It will give him a qualification and more skills. But he'll need to set up also self-employed and build a business because he just can't function in an office/boss environment, so that will take time and be precarious.

But I think I just need to be patient. Maybe stick to 50/50 for now (as someone pointed out we've only just arrived in this situation) but be ready to absorb some big one-off costs, and keep encouraging him.

Was it your split as tenants in common .Do you "own" more?

This will consume you if you stay together long-term and he continues to be a financial drag on you. Because that's what he'll be. Seen it so many times. If, on the other hand, you are in it for richer or poorer, then just accept that he'll always earn less and love him regardless of his attitude.

@WallaceinAnderland I would still earn more but we would be closer in take-home yes. Re: why I don't have one - it's a good question...... stupidity of being younger?

It never seemed to be the priority with emergency plumbers, car going wrong, etc. I think also because I was always paying more for us as a couple, I felt the burden of having cash available for life (and if I paid into the pension too I would have had NOTHING spare for anything nice).

However, I am definitely going to change that - starting right now. I am going to set one up and start paying into it, however small.

@TheSnappyHelper, you are his sugar mummy, now that you've invested your money with his he will earn less and less and you will pay for more & more.

I was about to say YABU but within the context given, YANBU at all.

We’d all love to piss around and work only on our passions, but life doesn’t always permit that. It’s his issue, not yours.

I think this is something you decide before. You either buy based on lower earners circs and 50:50 or you buy at a higher end of their budget and each put in a proportionate amount of your income

I believe partners should contribute equally to the relationship. Often and particularly where children are involved that likely means one partner contributes more time and activities and another more finances, fair enough. In your circumstances assuming all else is equal I would absolutely stick to 50/50 and use the excess income to contribute to a pension. You owe it to your future self. There are no children involved, there is no impediment to his earning potential, he made no sacrifices to enable you to earn more - why should you subsidise a grown adult to your own detriment? He is lucky you were willing to help him get on the property ladder which something done against your own interests. What particularly stood out for me was not doing a weekend with friends essentially because you are subsidising another adult. The downside to this is that you must be prepared to live within his means rather than yours but that doesn’t sound like an issue.

You deliberately chose to join finances and buy property with him. Punishing him for having a crap work ethic previously by making him pay a disproportionate amount of the bills to what you both bring home is not a good start to sharing a home. If you felt this resentful already then surely you’d have been looking to end the relationship, not complicate it further by buying a house?

Isn’t it important that what he’s doing now is working hard and trying to increase his earning potential so he can contribute more evenly?

You do both need a fair opportunity to save monthly, at least.

Sorry I don't get your rationale. Lets say the house price was £100,000 to make the maths simple. She paid a deposit of £45,000 (45%) and he paid £7,000 (7%) of the deposit. Hers came from her previous house sale, his from his parents. So that leaves £48,000 on which they have to pay a mortgage. They own their house as tenants in common, which get their original percentage of the sale price back incl interest (if there is any after expenses so 45% for her and 7% for him). Then the other 48% which is what they are now paying a mortgage on belongs to them equally should the house sell, so they are both currently paying half of what the mortgage is and what each will get half of if the house sells. Both have the same risk, both the same potential to earn as the value increases.

So lets say the house sold for £200,000 (we wish), she will get her 45% share being £90,000, he will get his 7% share being £14,000 and then the remaining £96,000 will be split equally between them. Why is that not fair?

I think I would work things like this; say he earns 15k per year, any monies that I earned over & above that I'd lock away into long term investments.