Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Money matters

Find financial and money-saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum. If you're looking for ways to make your money to go further, sign up to our Moneysaver emails here.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

How would you balance this salary difference?

98 replies

Elbels · 23/12/2020 21:22

Interested in views because I wouldn't have thought twice before reading threads on Mumsnet, but...

Two people in a relationship. Not married but own a mortgaged house together.

Due to covid impact on one and the other getting a promotion, what had been pretty equal salaries will now have a pre-tax £20,000 difference per year.

Currently both pay the same amount into a joint account to cover mortgage, bills and food. Both generous in treating each other and split things like holidays equally.

Both have their own savings accounts and ISAs.

No children but will start trying in the next year.

Would you
A. Carry on paying equally into the joint account meaning that higher earner has more spare money now to add into their savings or to spend

B. Lower earner pays the same as currently into joint account, higher earner now pays more so together they have more money to spend (but how much more?)

C. Lower earner reduces the amount they pay into the joint account, higher earner covers the difference.

No interest in going fully all shared finances at this stage.

OP posts:

Londonmummy66 · 23/12/2020 21:22

I suggest paying in pro-rata to net income

Firstimer703 · 23/12/2020 21:24

Proportionate. It doesn't work any other way in the long term.

Onekidnoclue · 23/12/2020 21:25

I agree with @Londonmummy66

Pay in the same % of your post tax income into the joint account. The lower earner will still have less disposable income but the higher earner will still be subbing them a bit.

DonkeyMcFluff · 23/12/2020 21:26

A if you’re not married. Your partner shouldn’t be subsidising you, you’re financially independent.

LindaEllen · 23/12/2020 21:28

@DonkeyMcFluff

A if you’re not married. Your partner shouldn’t be subsidising you, you’re financially independent.

That's quite a shitty attitude though. I earn significantly more than my DP and would never expect him to put all his wages into the houses and leave myself with £2k a month spending money (which is what would be the case if we covered bills equally).

CMOTDibbler · 23/12/2020 21:29

We've always done pro rata, which I guess equates to C. However there does need to be a floor to this so that the lower earner still has a reasonable amount of their own money to cover personal bills, hair cuts, clothes etc, esp if the salary difference is really big, and joint bills not stretching the higher earner so much that there is still room

KeyboardWorriers · 23/12/2020 21:32

We do it pro rata. There have been times when DH has been the higher earner and times when I have been.

RooMama · 23/12/2020 21:39

Depends on your relationship really. I make 40k more than my DH (close to double) and we pay equal into our joint account each month. However I tend to pay more for holidays and other big expenses related to house. I use my savings to pay max overpay on mortgage each year as a lump sum. I bought our car. And if money is low at end of month I'll top up more. I asked him recently if he wanted to look at handling finances differently to reflect my higher wage and potentially put him in better position to put more into pension but he said no!

Figgyboa · 23/12/2020 21:39

It's 50/50 with my OH. For the last few years I've earned more so have paid more for dinners/holidays. Now he is earning more so he'll do the same. It's swings and roundabouts when you're living together and planning a family

AliceMcK · 23/12/2020 21:44

There is no hard and fast rule. Everyone is different depending on their personal experiences and expectations.

I suppose for me I would keep the status quo if I was the high earner and would put some to the side for when I decided to start having kids. If I was the low earner and we were planning on having kids I’d ask sooner rather than later how money was going to work once I took time off work to have babies. Could some of the extra salary be put to one side now or did he have other ideas how it would work.

In my situation, I earned double DH when we met, it was all put in one pot as soon as we moved in and baby was on the way. I stopped work after baby #2 and been a sahm ever since, DHs salary has covered everything since then, it’s all in one account, there is no his and mine. I do have a small savings account in my name, but it’s paid from his salary and is more so I feel I have something as security. I don’t ever want to be in a situation were I had nothing if we separated and I wasn’t working.

Crabwoman · 23/12/2020 21:45

One of us earns now earns 10K more than the other. We both pay the same into the joint account but that extra 10k is put into savings.

BuggersMuddle · 23/12/2020 21:45

If you're at a stage of commitment where you're willing to TTC on top of buying a property together, I think the fairest split would leave both parties with the same spending money (assuming both work full time & are pulling their weight). This is broadly the arrangement I've had with my DH since we bought a place together when we were pretty young.

Pro-rata is often touted as a solution on here, but it doesn't work for huge income disparities nor situation like maternity leave. TBH if I was the lower earner and was the one who would have the baby, I'd be wanting to be married before TTC unless time really wasn't on my side.

yellowm00n · 23/12/2020 21:54

I earn c.9k pre tax more than my partner, and we pay into the joint account 55-45 split based on our monthly take home pay.

Day to day meals out and coffee etc, we take turns in who pays.

SimplyRadishing · 23/12/2020 21:55

Completely honestly...

A. If I was the higher earning women who is about to make themselves incredibly financially vulnerable by having a child out of wedlock.

C. If I was the lower earning women who is about to make themselves incredibly financially vulnerable by having a child out of wedlock.

I would NEVER recommend having a baby out of wedlock unless you are independently wealthy and if you need to quibble about £20k pre tax per annum you are not independently wealthy.

TableFlowerss · 23/12/2020 21:55

Ours is just the house pot. DH earns about 8 times what I earn but it’s all joint savings etc it’s not that’s my money that’s yours.... but then we are married

ivfbeenbusy · 23/12/2020 21:56

Option A - relationships aren't about making spending money more equitable. I earn 3x DH and I have more spending money. That's life. I studied for a long time and worked hard for my career in a challenging professional industry. He didn't

Blackdog19 · 23/12/2020 21:59

Really @ivfbeenbusy? You’re married, doesnt sound like much of a partnership

User0ne · 23/12/2020 21:59

Pro rata.

If you're planning on trying for DC you need to organise some.proper financial protection for the person who takes parental leave/whose career is impacted. That means fully shared finances as a minimum; marriage would be best.

Lazypuppy · 23/12/2020 22:00

That is our split in income, we do percentage. I earn 60% of the total household income so pay 60% in to bills

Lazypuppy · 23/12/2020 22:01

I agree @ivfbeenbusy!! However i'm always in the minority on these posts.

Stinkerbells · 23/12/2020 22:03

Before we were married we were maybe £20k difference in earning, he’s always been the higher earner. He paid the mortgage and bills, I did the weekly shop.

FollowThatStarTonight · 23/12/2020 22:05

Rather glad my DH has never taken this approach given he earns 10x what I do...! Mercifully he values me and my career/input as much as his own even if our salaries are different.

FollowThatStarTonight · 23/12/2020 22:07

In your situation OP maybe pro-rata but I don't know how that would work for maternity leave, part time working etc if you're thinking of having children.

TellerTuesday4EVA · 23/12/2020 22:10

We've always just had one pot since we bought a home together. At the beginning I was the higher earner, we had DD 6 years after buying our house then I stayed home for 3 years and now work v part time with DH earning 10x my salary. It's worked for us for 14 years, we've only been married the last 3 of those.

SleepingStandingUp · 23/12/2020 22:10

@DonkeyMcFluff

A if you’re not married. Your partner shouldn’t be subsidising you, you’re financially independent.

If you're living together, planning babies, have a mortgage etc it's not like you're "subsidising" some causal hook up. I never get this notion that you treat a partner, even with kids, like a flat mate until one day you sign a piece of paper and you start respecting and caring for them more.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Swipe left for the next trending thread