How should couples split household costs when one earns twice as much?

[ourSusie]

How do people arrange their finances once they move in together, to a rented house, one earning exactly twice the other, both with good well paid jobs.
To have a joint pot for standing orders for paying utilities, to buy food, pay for repairs, household stuff, we put in half each. Is this fair. Is one subsidising the other.
Your thoughts please.

I think a lot of people stick to an agreed percentage of their wage.

When we were relatively newly married which was 40 years ago, we did it by percentage.

The one who earns twice as much pays twice as much

percentages, as pp has said. Once married and sharing a mortgage then it may matter less.

@ourSusie many options here

A newly co-habiting couple is different to a married or long term living together, I think, with a lower level of commitment. As the lower earning partner in this situation, I would expect to pay 50%. The higher earning partner might choose to subsidise treats.

We initially did percentages - 40% worked well. During this period of pre-children, I generally earnt a bit more than DH.

When I went onto statutory mat pay, then returned to work part time (much easier in my field than DH’s) we gave our selves the same amount of spending money, a pooled the rest.

When youngest DC to secondary school (the year we paid off our mortgage), I increased my hours and my grade, and we now pay percentages again. Ish.

thank you for your replies - Ive found a percentage arrangement has fostered
a power play but that is probably a different thread

At this stage, and especially given you’re in a rented property, I think 50/50 is fair.

If I were the higher earner I’d pay for ‘treats’ like takeaways, eating out, and I’d pay more than 50% for weekends away, holidays, etc.

DH and I have a joint account where all family costs come out (mortgage, bills, DD costs, food etc) and this amount is split proportionately to our net take home pay. I earn more, so I pay more.

Rest is ours to do as we please. I buy silly tech things, he buys beer. Any separate savings are technically our own, but we will of course use them for the family if we need to.

At the end of the day everything is joint, however, our own separate accounts just helps with the psychological aspect of having something of our own to spend as we want. Does mean I end up with more personal spends, but DH is happy with the arrangement as he knows he could earn more but purposefully stays in a lower paid role as it’s easy, whereas I haven’t gone that route.

Until you’re married, split costs evenly (as if you are flatmates) and when further commitment is confirmed (engagement/ marriage) then marital income and expenses are commingled - one pot.

if your OH wants to contribute more beforehand so be it, my view is equals at the start are equals going into marriage. No one feels unfairly taken advantage of. You are only cohabiting.

The secondary issue is pension pots- these remain individual unless become part of marital asset.

We do one pot for our salaries and then take out our personal spends (an equal amount) We’re married, there’s no his and hers money any more. No quibbles and ‘owing’ each other money. We’re a married couple, not housemates.

Edited to say, DH earns around 20% more than I do.

We are married with kids. All wages go into one account. Everything comes out of it. I earn twice as much as him but don't see it as 'my' money, its all family money. Weve had this set up since we got married although i think we were on similar wages then.
If it was earlier on I think proportionate contributions are fair so the higher earner pays 66%

We opened a joint account the day we came back from our honeymoon and that that is our main account for everything in and out everyday. Big disparity in earnings.
Some savings are held in individual names for tax purposes, but we both know it's "our" money.
Now married 25 years and we have never once argued about money.

You pay 50/50. Especially if not married, no kids. Why should one partner subsidise the other?

I earned more than my dh... approx double.
He was making gpod money though about 50k as a single man in 2018 so more than capable of paying 50 /50.

I wasnt interested in subbing him. Je wasnt interested on being subbed.

We are married with 2 kids now so its a bit different now.
But generally we kept our own savings

I don’t think there is a “should” in this situation but I do think the person earning more should pay more. How that is done will depend on expenses. In my marriage, my DH earns more than double my salary. Our approach is that we have a joint account and pay similar amounts into that from which all bills etc come out of. However we have a DC at private school and my DH pays all the fees. We don’t keep a particularly close eye on spending on other things so there will always be things that I spend more on than he does and vice versa but I think it probably does end up being around the percentages which reflect our salaries. The caveat to this is that we both earn reasonably well. If things were tight, then this rather casual arrangement might not work.

I guess to some extent, the decision is up to the higher earner.

If, for example, the higher earner wants to live in particularly expensive property, which the lower earner will struggle to pay 50% of, then they should be prepared to pay more.

However, I think it’s problematic when the lower earner wants to live in an expensive property and then pushes the higher earner to subsidise them. They should always expect that they will be paying 50/50.

Split costs to start with 5050, but it has to be a cost of lifestyle that the lower earner can afford. Any extra expensive stuff that the higher earner wants they should pay for.

If the higher earner wants to live in a pricier place, they should pay a larger percentage.

As in, he thinks he's in charge? You wanna nip that in the bud or else no further commitment.

sounds like that’s a whole other issue isn’t it? When we were living together we both kept the same set amount and put the rest into the joint account (he earned a little more than me). Post marriage and kids, everything is joint. Husband earns about ten times my salary and we both view it as our money and we have been careful to supplement my pension from joint income. Having a child with a man who uses money as power is incredibly tricky scenario - I’d be very mindful before making a next step that you don’t end up in a very uncomfortable situation with limited power to leave .

I think a problem can be if the one who's richer wants to live in a more expensive home than the other can afford and causes more monthly expenses, eg food, heating, streaming etc than the other one would normally pay for.

It sounds as though your relationship is in difficulties OP if there's a power imbalance going on.

From the moment DH moved in with me, we put everything into one bank account, transferred an equal amount out to both of us, paid the bills and anything leftover into a joint savings account. We were engaged though, so knew we intended to be together forever.

Over the years it's been give and take (more give on DH's part up till now) - DH has always earned a lot more than me, and in later years worked a lot more hours. However, I had equity in my flat, he was in negative equity. He received inheritance, which he paid the mortgage off with and the balance has gone in joint savings. I could possibly receive a large inheritance in the next five years, the money will go into our joint account. It's always worked for us, we've never had a disagreement in 32 years.

We do it 50:50

Not my fault I earn more than him.

Pre kids? I’d say 50/50 at that stage.