DP not happy about financial setup

[fluffycuddlez]

We were coming back from a lovely day out last night and he made a remark about how it's too bad he's broke and it'll be a while till we can do this again. After talking about it a bit more it emerged he thinks that since I earn more than him I could also contribute more to days out, vacations etc.

He lives in my house (bought years before we met) and pays no rent or mortgage, we split the bills. Not married and no children. We're both self-employed in the same field but I make several times more than him, depending on the month. We've been together for almost 6 years (living together for 5ish) and we've always gone 50-50 on everything (although I do go over 50% often, unlike him). Not married and no children.

Am I being unkind here? Should I be spending accordingly to what I make instead of just half? He's never said anything before and I always thought our setup was more than fair but now I don't know...

If you are unmarried and its your house then asking him to contribute to your mortgage is ridiculous.

50 50 on bills fine. But if you earn significantly more then why arent you paying for significantly more? So that you and he both have similar amounts of fritter money?

If you want to go to florida for a fortnight would you expect him to scrimp and save for 18m to save for his half or would you just ask him to pay a proportionate amount.

annandale that's it proportional financial commitment or find a dp that earns mores.

At least in terms of what's spent then and there. Always protect your longer term assets incase of a split down the line and for safety don't get married.

It surely depends whether you are friends that share a house or true partners. A long term partnership is akin to marriage in most people’s eyes and so all money should be pooled with equal access. There is a point it stops becoming your money and his money and that is around the time you actually commit for the long haul.
Doesn’t sound like you’re at that point yet but your partner sounds like he is.
If a woman described the situation you have on this site, there might well be cries of financial abuse and controlling.

Depends - difficult one. But you say he pays no rent and you split bills. He's not earning much then is he? I had a similar situation with my exP - my house , but I paid all mortgage and bills. He was self employed but earned nothing apart from petrol money really. He enjoyed his hobby job, but it didn't pay the bills, he didn't earn enough to live, and I was enabling him. I asked him to get a paying job at least a couple of days a week so he could contribute something regularly but no he was an artisan . He is now an Ex. He was a cocklodger.
In your case your DP is earning something, and contributing to the bills. However maybe he should consider a salaried job instead. He is already living rent free.

Some of the comments on this thread are outrageous. Calling him a cocklodger is foul and sexist. He is contributing what he can, and as a percentage of his income, more than OP.

OP - if he's a casual shag and you aren't really attached to him, tell him so that he can choose to leave if he wants.

If he's much more than that take a long hard look at yourself. If you can then see how unfair you're being you should for his sake end the relationship.

Why wouldn’t you want to take your oh out when you can easily afford it?

If this were reverse, at least half the responses here would be different.

If he is living rent free but is broke and can't afford to go out, maybe his business isn't viable. If he is in the same field as you, why is there such a discrepancy in your incomes?

You mentioned vacations and restaurants that he can’t afford. Does that mean you go on holiday and to restaurants without him?

I hope you don’t as that’s no partnership.

Could he retrain?

I really think the joint social pot is the way to go here - you sound like you're planning to keep a sense of separation rather than go all in, and this is a good half-way house.

It's what DP and I did before we decided we were together permanently and to share everything - there was literally a little pot on the side in the kitchen we'd both put cash in to pay the cleaner/meals out/whatever. - these days you can use a bank account though!

I'm married to a man like this. I earn around 3-4 times what he does, but it wasn't always this way. When we earned the same we weren't married and it was roughly equal as to who spent what. However, the more I earned, the less he wanted to spend. He has never contributed to the mortgage (in my name) despite us being married. He used to go on about how I should pay more as I earned more, I saw his point and did so. Fast forward many years and now he contribites nothing at all, despite working full time. All his money goes on paying back debts he has run up due to his own irresponsible spending. Meanwhile I pay the mortgage, all the bills, for everything for DC and for any treats, holidays etc.

Not everyone is like this OP but if he has been seemingly happy with your arrangement until now, I'd be wary of his agenda. Do what you feel comfortable with. If you're happy
paying more than him for treats do so, but perhaps suggest he pays you rent (at a reduced rate maybe) as you don't think it's fair that you cover his housing costs. This works both ways. It's not your fault he earns less and you're under no obligation to subsidise his lifestyle

Could you split bills according to income? We have a joint bills account (that includes mortgage in our case but you could carve that out) and pay into it in proportion to income?

Imagine he wins the lottery this weekend. Now how do you feel?

Unmarried with no shared costs of children then 50/50 is fine. Upto him if he earns less to change that and I would say the same if roles were reversed. Expecting to be kept by another shows a selfish side.

MN though usually follows a set patten for these kind of threads, where the woman is the lower or none earner everything should be shared. Where it's the man he's called all sorts and should stop being lazy and work more.

meh I reckon this is a reverse of the other made to prove a point.

Personally I think you should each pay % of your income in to cover house bills and food. After that moneys your own.

Presumably you paying the mortgage alone is because you wanted a house, bought one and don't want him to have a claim on it.

I don't think you are a partnership

Why don't you pool your money?

Why aren't you married (I am not saying that everyone should be married, but why aren't you?

You don't seem to trust each other so what's the point?

I'm a feminist, and it quite important to me to put my money where my mouth is. I was proud to support him when I earned more.

I agree with this sentiment. Also, I know you haven't really talked about the mortgage, but I don't think it's fair for him to pay half as others have suggested. After all, when the mortgage is paid off, you will own a house. He, however, will own nothing. In spite of having paid for half of it.

Bit on the fence on this one. One the one hand letting him live with you rent free is very generous, but on the flip side you are the sole owner of the house and will therefore be the sole beneficiary once the mortgage is paid off etc, whereas he has no assets or (I'm presuming) even a tenancy agreement as security if you guys break up. If I'm honest I'd probably treat him more to meals out etc if you knew he was struggling to afford it and you could comfortably afford it.

The real issue here is that your finances are currently that essentially of two single people (no shared assets, splitting all costs 50/50). Either you need as a couple to decide that this works for you, or alternatively that you want to arrange your assets in more of a 'married' way (e.g, he contributes to the mortgage but in return he is allocated a % share in the property, and you 'share' money more and treat each other more often).

yellow I think the same regardless of which partner earns more. The only variable is if one partner, due to DC, has taken a career break, works part time or is a SAHP, in which case it would be unreasonable for the higher earner to refuse to contribute more.
In the OPs case both are working and there are no changes to earning potential due to DC, so I think her partner is unreasonable to expect to live rent/mortgage free and have her pay for most of their fun times together.

Imagine he wins the lottery this weekend. Now how do you feel?

#plottwist . I would love to read a thread where this had actually happened. We don't get nearly enough Lotto AIBU's.

My DP earns shitloads more than me. He also came into the relationship with more. I contribute very little, some months nothing. He therefore pays for almost everything.

Does that make me a Vaglodger?

"I think her partner is unreasonable to expect to live rent/mortgage free and have her pay for most of their fun times together."

I agree.

It's hard to think that he earns so little that he has nothing left after a few bills.

If you had children and he was earning less because he was taking care of them, or doing schools, I'd have no hesitation in saying that you should be paying more (perhaps by percentage of income). But his lower income is a result of the choices he's made, not resulting from your partnership or family life.

I don't know -- if it was my partner and I could afford it while still paying enough into my pension and savings to ensure a decent retirement, then yes, I would probably pay more and enjoy more treat days with them. And if they were earning less because of family responsibilities, again it would be a no-brainer. But you're not doing anything wrong, either, and it sounds quite fair.