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

Probably for the best not to get married or have kids certainly

With no kids and not married yanbu to expect 50:50 so long as you are managing expectations to set your lifestyle and comfort level to what would be reasonably affordable if you both had the income level that he has. If you want the nicer things that aren't affordable at his income level then those have to be 100% funded by you and it's your choice whether you buy them just for you or share them with him but it wouldn't be fair or reasonable to expect him to live beyond his means and commit to spending that he can't afford.

Who decided for you to sell your other house and buy I assume a bigger house and him to go onto the mortgage

No she said she was aiming for business profits of £45K a year not her income and that is a totally different matter.

His £25K gross, after deductions will be circa £21,000pa or £1750pm take home but included in that will be:

@PrettyPickle I see... got it.

Given that the difference isn't that great then, I don't think OP should be subsidising her partner to the extent that she does then.

Sorry, I ran out of time to amend my earlier reponse.

No , she said she was aiming for business profits of £45,000 a year, not her personal income. Those are two very different things.

Her partner’s £25,000 PAYE salary gives him around £21,000 take‑home, or about £1,750 per month, and that includes:

• employer pension contributions
• sick pay
• holiday pay
• maternity/paternity rights
• redundancy protection
• employer NI paid on his behalf

A self‑employed person must self‑fund all of this, so their real disposable income is naturally lower.

Profit is not take‑home pay - She is aiming for £45,000 profit, but profit is not income. If she were employed on £45k, she would take home about £34k.
But as a self‑employed person she gets none of the PAYE protections and must pay for:

• personal pension contributions
• income protection
• life insurance
• critical illness cover (optional)

And crucially: Self‑employed NI does NOT qualify her for contribution‑based benefits. It only counts toward the State Pension. If her partner loses his job through redundancy and becomes ill, his PAYE contributions mean he can access contribution‑based benefits. She cannot. He also gets tax relief at source on pension contributions through PAYE. She does not, she must claim it manually. So her real numbers using her £45,000 profit target:

Item Amount Deductions
Profit £45,000
Income tax −£6,486
NI (Class 2 + 4) −£2,125
Pension (£200/month) −£2,400
Personal insurances −£1,500
_
Estimated balance £32,489

But this assumes:

• she hits the £45k profit target
• she has no bad debts
• clients pay on time
• she doesn’t need to reinvest in the business
• she doesn’t need to retain cash for next year’s expenses

In reality, a self‑employed person must keep money in the business to survive quiet periods and growth phases. So the realistic disposable income is:
£25-29,000pa. And unlike her partner’s income, none of this is guaranteed.
She also likely works longer hours, including unpaid admin, marketing, and downtime. Neither of them are rich.

If they have a tenants in common mortgage and each contributed different deposits, then:

• each should retain their original deposit share
• the remaining equity should be split 50/50
• therefore each should pay 50% of the monthly mortgage

If she pays more than 50%, she is effectively increasing his equity share, which is not fair unless legally agreed.

Any other arrangement should have been discussed and recorded when the mortgage was taken out. If they marry later, they can revise the agreement.

Indeed. But if you're going to call someone 'life partner' and view them that way then surely you're happy to just share everything 50/50.

Calling someone a life partner and then worrying about financial split is a bit hypocritical in the same way as people who say they are 'not trying but just seeing what happens' with babies 😅

There's not really a grey area.

You're a life partner, all in, or not a life partner. You're trying or not trying 😅

OP, Im in the exact same situation, down to the self-employed angle and the same figures as you and not paying into a pension. PM if you'd like :)

Loads of people, married or not, don't pool everything. There's no blueprint for a relationship that says you have to. It's your opinion. With the legal contract of marriage, assets are split on divorce but there's nothing to say you have to do this while married. Works for many people.

I am purely talking about the definition of 'life partner' which OP is using.

If you're calling yourself 'life partners' it's a bit weird not to share equally with that person because you are worried what might happen when you split.

Obviously there are other reasons people might split things differently - whatever works - but if it's because you're worried about what happens if you split up then that's not a 'life partner'.

Maybe she's just realistic. However much you consider someone to be a life partner, it's sensible to always have a plan of what wpuld happen in the event of splitting. No partnership is immune to an abrupt ending.

Do you have a private pension? You can still pay into a pension pot as a self-employed person.

From reading your op, the issue may not be that he earns less per se, but you feel he’s not pulling his weight. For much of the ten years, he’s been ‘playing’ at his job ( hobby,), and you’ve been supporting him, and although he’s done quite well at times, it’s not turned into a long term career.

No doubt there were lots of promises that it would be good, and the next big project was around the corner, but for whatever reason (you describe him facing a ‘quiet’ time),lack of planning, marketing himself etc, it never happened and now he’s on a NMW job, so back to square one, probably not what you anticipated when you got together.

… and this frustrates you, as from a monetary point of view, you’re not equal partners.

I just wouldn't consider that to be a life partner then tbh. Just call it a partner and be realistic about it.

Oh okay, that is madness. You have been subsidising your partner for a decade by stealing from your future self.

In that case I would put my money in pension, which I can see that you are considering. A good rule of thumb is the total contributions should be roughly half your age when you start, the downside of self employment is that when working for someone else that 10% is usually made up of tax relief, employer contributions and your contributions.

But honestly, put in what you can - time is what you need for a good pension, not high contributions. That would probably take you down to equal amount of pay anyway, in which case equal split of bills is definitely fair.

Remember compound interest! If you save £200 for 50 years, you will have more than double the amount than saving £400 for 25 years! Start your pension today!

You have been subsidising your partner for a decade by stealing from your future self.

I hope my husband doesn't think this way about me ...... (although I suspect he doesn't).

This is a tricky one. My friend bought a house with someone on the basis of 50/50 but once they moved in he suddenly announced he couldnt afford it. She was the higher earner but had only committed to the bigger mortgage on that basis. She then lost her job and had to take one with a slightly lower salary and then he decided to leave his job and take a lower paid job because he didnt like his boss and then announced he couldn't contribute at all. They are now in a financial mess. So if he could earn more but chooses not to and if he is going back on what you previously agreed yanbu but on the flip side if he is working hard and genuinely cant afford it are you happy tonsee your partner struggle? Does he contribute in other ways or does he have expensive hobbies? There are many factors at play here

I would say it is highly unlikely he views you this way. OPs situation is pretty unique.

My comment is not about one partner earning more, or supporting the other. I am a SAHM to a 1 year old so as a family we rely on my husband's wage.

But the fact is OP hasn't felt that she has been able to pay a single thing into her pension, for a decade. Because she simply could not afford it.

And she couldn't afford it as she was subsidising her partner (not husband, so not legally & financially tied). So that he could work very part time hours in a low paid job.

He wasn't at home looking after their children. He wasn't studying to improve his career. It doesn't even sound like he was doing important but poorly paid vocational work that really benefits society. And the fact he has chosen to work now he has to shows that he was always capable.

I would split in proportion to salary.

Or lower expenditure to what he can afford easily.

Maybe. I am not sure actually. I would find it easier to split proportionally if kids were involved.

Thankyou for all the pension advice. I'm hearing it loud and clear - especially given that story in the news yesterday!! I've opened one this morning, and will be paying in as much as I can. It won't be masses because of the slight fear of locking money away, and needing cash flow for business etc, but it will be as much as I can! And I'll top it up in chunks throughout the year when I get new work contracts etc.

I think 50 50 is fair given you are not married and don't have children. I don't really get the people saying that if should be proportional of that all money should be "family money" . If you feel that you would get married. I probably would just pay for extras given you earn more.

I’d worry that he’ll drop working again leaving me with all the bills plus only half the equity. I don’t think I’d have bought with him unless he could prove a commitment to getting, and keeping, a higher paid job or at least one he could see salary progress in. Is he an equal in other ways ie: cooking,chores, shopping?

Can you work it so that, after putting away savings and pension contributions, your monthly take home pay is the same as his?

If you expect him to contribute 50/50 despite being a lower earner, there will be compromises in other areas, because the gap between what you can afford to do (holidays, leisure etc) will widen. If you're OK with that and happy to do things he can't afford by yourself and he doesn't think that's mean of you, then it could work I suppose.
Tbh though, if I was prepared to let my partner be financially stressed to make sure I got an equal contribution, I'd probably be considering if it was the right relationship for me. Because if financial equality is more important than a partners well being I'd be looking for someone who earned the same as me.

I understand where you are coming from, its a fine balance and its very naive for posters to say all money is shared.
If I'm chosing to work a stressful job because I deem the financial trade off to be worth it, why should I subsidise someone who's chosen a vocation that is low stress and low pay.. (excluding kids from this)

That's a super simplistic take on it, and I honestly dont think there's a right or wrong answer. It has to be what you are both happy with.
Personally I started 50 50, initially we bought/had the lifestyle that worked with the smaller budget. 20yrs later it's a bit more hazy, I wanted a house with land so I was prepared to pay more to achieve it, that kind of thing.