Financing holidays when living apart

[dontbeabsurd]

Another one about finances. Together for 4 years, adult children, living apart atm for many reasons. Partner earns 4 x as much as I do, however, disposable monthly income is only 20% higher than mine as he’s saving/investing as much as he can towards early retirement. I am able to save a little bit, nowhere near as much as he does, no chance of early retirement on the salary I’m on but I’m self sufficient.
I travel abroad more than he does and it’s unavoidable (family matters). I obviously pay for these travels in full. When it comes to our holidays together, his preference is 50/50, and the argument is that I can afford other travels so why would he have to pay more on our trips. That’s what we’ve been doing but it just doesn’t sit well with me. It may partly be a cultural thing. It makes my budget stretch even more, kills the romance and I feel like I’m going away with a mate, not a (romantic) partner.

I’m aware that there are no definite rights or wrongs in this scenario but I’m curious to hear ppl’s views.

You dont live together nor have kids together - why would you expect anything other than 50/50?

I agree with him that it should be 50/50.

You're not really partners in the way the term is usually used (unless you share other finances?). 50/50 is fair. If you can't afford it, you (both) will need to come up with a sensible alternative.

I assume by "cultural" you mean that you expect the man to pay for the woman?
Would you be paying more for him if you were the higher earner?

Agree with PP - you’re not living together and don’t share kids so you both pay for yourself

I agree with him, 50/50 if you're going away as a couple and anything you do yourself you pay for yourself. What are you expecting him to pay??

I agree with PPs 50/50 sounds fair as you don't live together nor have kids together.

No idea why it would be anything other than 50/50 and not sure why you think otherwise.

Is it you think he should be paying more? I think 50/50 is fair and he just accepts a lower budget overall.

I think will be opinions on both sides. Kind of the the "who pays for the first date".

50/50 makes sense for me, unless it's a gift or he is insisting on somewhere that is way above your budget.

When you're there, will he pay for more meals out, taxis etc? Again, this isn't a must because everyone/relationship is different, but you might find he does this.

Is he used to paying more in general, and does he buy you things often or do you do 50/50 for everything else? (E.g. dates, days out). What has happened on previous holidays together? Some people literally split every coffee and every meal, running a mental tally in their head.

I would be more worried if: (1) you generally don't like how finances are split; or (2) this is a massive change from what you normally do.

Basically, there is no right answer. But I understand why he doesn't want to pay extra for you when you're more than capable of paying for yourself, and he has to pay for himself. Why should he sacrifice his long term goals and go over his budget?

50/50 seems reasonable unless he has proposed the holiday as a gift or 'his treat'

Assuming you jointly choose destination and accommodation then I can't see why he would be expected to pay more unless he is pushing to go places which are out of your budget

His “preference” is that you don’t freeload op

Before we lived together so didn't share any finances we did 50-50 for holidays. If one of us was particularly flush at the time for whatever reason we'd treat the other to a posh meal or something but the flights/ accommodation was always shared.

And romance is generally defined by physical intimacy of varying levels, not access to someone’s wallet

50/50 sounds right to me.

Live within your means, either do a cheaper holiday that you can afford better with him or go away less. That you are having trouble keeping up with his ability to spend, is not his problem. Being jealous of what he has and expecting him to share it with you, is not on when you don't live together.

Thank you for all your views - I’m not jealous of his money and I’m not a freeloader (both interesting assumptions!). The cultural element is that whoever earns is expected to contribute more pro rata to joint holidays. On a logical level I get 50/50 though.
If we lived together, would the split of the costs be any different? And if yes, why?

Well we live together, married and keep separate finances. We older so no joint children to consider. We split everything 50/50 even though my DW income more than mine. However she does occasionally book and pay for holidays and weekends away, and lots of the treat stuff like takeaways. Does he never take you away for a trip and pay for it? What about meals out ect?

If you lived together it might be different. It would depend on how you arranged your finances. As you don’t I think he’s right.

In a cohabitating relationship finances are more likely to be pooled so everything comes out the joint pot. Thats my experience anyway others may differ.

So it would depend on how you had agreed to split finances. If you didn’t pool then 50/50 for holidays would still bs the norm

Expecting someone you don’t live with and aren’t married to, to pay for your holidays is absolutely free loading.

If you live together I would expect holiday funding to be split according to your generally agreed financial arrangements: that might be 50/50, it might be proportional to income, it might be one of you pays for everything: for example, if the paying person wants to gift/treat or because the other person has paid for something else big.

One of the reasons people don't live together is because they don't want to pool finances in any way. So it might be a strategic choice on his side to avoid things like this, especially if he is a higher earner with more assets and has had failed relationships (e.g. divorce) in the past, which can be expensive.

Also, I wonder whether you have had an open discussion about finances and financing joint things as your relationship progresses? Maybe you have different beliefs but just haven't had that chat yet? Maybe this is the opportunity to have that discussion. Does this holiday funding feel like a big deal to you, or is it just a non-issue?

@BrickHam thank you for your view.
@SnowBeagle we are in the middle of having these discussions. What’s good is that we can have calm conversations rather than arguments about whose beliefs are right. He is very protective about his finances because of the losses he’d experienced through divorce. In his ideal world if we moved together he’d want a 50/50 split of all costs. That’s something I need to carefully consider as there are things I can go without that I’d potentially have to contribute to. It may well be that we are not compatible regarding our beliefs on finances, and practicalities of our situation.

This makes sense.

I can see the point of view on both sides. I think when living together then proportional or pooling money works best, especially when there are big gaps in income, otherwise you can't afford to do things together in a meaningful way.

At the same time, the idea of pooling or going proportional can be hard for higher earners because it just means they are paying more than normal for everything (e.g. going out, eating out, going on holiday, clothes, food etc). Because - for example - the high earner is paying 100% of their own costs plus 50% of someone else's costs.

I think when you have no children together, and when you have had past breakups (I.e. divorce, or from cohabiting for a long time) then the idea of subsidising a low earner is even more difficult to swallow - they did it before and that didn't work. This is on top of feelings of "if [lower earner] is struggling, they could get a better job. What would [lower earner] do if I wasn't here".

Obviously, you can have your own personal costs that complicate things, for example for your own adult children. If your partner pays £500 extra for the holiday and then you gift your child £500, does that mean he has effectively given your child £500? Does he want to do this, especially when to pay extra for the holiday he had to deduct £500 from his regular savings, which would be his children's inheritance.

It also sounds like your partner likes the idea of saving, and generally being frugal. So the idea of someone else to pay for (after paying for a divorce) is likely to be even more annoying.

I don't think any one is "right", I just think it's wildly different perspectives and is a element of compatability. At the same time, I don't know how relationships with large income disparity can work long term if the higher earner isn't willing to pay more eventually. At the same time, paying for someone else means being financially irresponsible, especially if you break up next [week, month, year].

I also don't think this is talked about much because most people assume a nuclear and traditional family of no divorce, shared children, man earns more, woman has sacrificed career for him - of course he should pay more. And then a bunch of norms have been created around these things (pooling finances, proportional income). Along with descriptions like men should be generous and providers for women. So if a man doesn't pay more, it just makes him look bad, when in reality he probably has a bunch of valid concerns.

Its about values. You value family. Would you give up a family trip for a holiday with him? Or do you love the holidays and would you be able to earn more to afford the kind of travel you want to do?

I wouldn't do it if it means you are extending your retirement date.

Not if you were splitting everything 50/50

@BlueDotsRain i think it really is about different set of values. I recognise now that these discussions should have taken place much earlier in the relationship. Now we both are emotionally invested and want to make it work; at the same time, the differences are quite significant and we are both struggling.