Relationships and who picks up the tab

[reinventmyself]

 

I cut this out of a response to a poster out of consideration that I didn't high jack her thread.  It's a worthy question to post on my own:

Would it be fair to pay based on your income?  Meaning if one party's income was 3 times that of their partners, would it be fair if the expenses were paid on a scale.  Maybe 60/40?

This question has come up in my life.  My son's girlfriend moving in with him and her agreeing to pay half the rent despite the fact he makes a considerable amount more than she does.  He lives in an expensive area, and I was pretty surprised they didn't think twice about this decision.  I actually (gently) questioned this privately with him and he got a little defensive.

Almost simultaneously my bfs son gets engaged only to have it go sideways when the bride-to-be found out he expected her to pay half of his mortgage despite the differences in earnings. Add in a request for a prenup in the mix and the wedding is called off.  (I can go on and on about how it's unfair to contribute to a mortgage but at the same time being "asked" to sign off on even a percentage of it)

It led to a conversation that I ended up squashing with my bf of 6 years on how we would be doing the same if we lived together.  It got me thinking and if I did the math, it would cost me to keep him.  

Just curious. I have an open mind. I am wondering what exactly is fair?!  Maybe I am wrong.  But should one person struggle while the other benefits from the arrangement?  As you can see, I am 0 for 3 on this within my own inner circle.  It has me second guessing myself.

[spinstermanquee]

8 minutes ago, reinventmyself said:

My son's girlfriend moving in with him and her agreeing to pay half the rent despite the fact he makes a considerable amount more than she does.

When I was single and a boyfriend wanted me to move in and pay half the mortgage, I looked at our salaries.  He made 3x what I did at the time and I insisted we adjust my contribution accordingly. So I agreed to contribute 1/3.  To me that was fair.

[itsallgrand]

Personally I'd never feel comfortable if I was not contributing equally to the standard of living I am enjoying. That's me. 

[reinventmyself]

4 minutes ago, itsallgrand said:

Personally I'd never feel comfortable if I was not contributing equally to the standard of living I am enjoying. That's me. 

Thought provoking for sure.  But is it an 'equal standard of living' if it's financially beneficial for one and a financial challenge for the other?

[itsallgrand]

13 minutes ago, reinventmyself said:

Thought provoking for sure.  But is it an 'equal standard of living' if it's financially beneficial for one and a financial challenge for the other?

Hmm well I wouldn't think of it as one benefitting financially from it. They already have earned that standard of living for themselves, they do not need me to afford it (I assume , and not a situation where they couldn't). I would see it as coming together and so you come to an arrangement that both can afford without one carrying more. 

I'm not saying it's black and white and this is the only way. It's just the only way I would agree to. 

I don't really get why that bride that didn't make it to the altar was so appalled she'd pay half on a home she'd own half of in the marriage? Maybe I'm missing something?

 

[boltnrun]

12 minutes ago, reinventmyself said:

Thought provoking for sure.  But is it an 'equal standard of living' if it's financially beneficial for one and a financial challenge for the other?

I guess you could look at it as, both are enjoying the same standard of living, but one of them is paying much less to live that lifestyle.

I haven't lived with a love interest since I moved out of my ex's place, but my question would be how much can I afford on my own? And I would feel comfortable staying within that limit. 

Now, if my SO insisted he wanted a nicer place and was willing to pay more than half to get it I wouldn't have a problem with it unless he used it against me. My ex husband didn't want me to work, for example, but then he would bring it up every so often ("You don't contribute so you don't get a say", even though I was caring for our son and cooking and cleaning and grocery shopping).

[reinventmyself]

9 minutes ago, boltnrun said:

My ex husband didn't want me to work, for example, but then he would bring it up every so often ("You don't contribute so you don't get a say", even though I was caring for our son and cooking and cleaning and grocery shopping).

We were married to the same man?! 

My past experiences with men and money make me kinda itchy.  Hence the questions. 

It was said in therapy 'the one that holds the money holds the power'

[boltnrun]

8 minutes ago, reinventmyself said:

'the one that holds the money holds the power'

My ex husband definitely believed that. He wanted me not working so he had a built in excuse to dictate everything. 

My ex who I lived with didn't require me to pay rent but I bought DirecTV and paid for groceries. 

I know people whose SO supported them or they supported their SO. In every situation there was a definite inequality. I don't like inequality in relationships. 

[bluecastle]

What a fascinating topic. 

I've never really had to deal with this, in terms of big life moves, in that my gf and I make about the same amount. Though when I moved in with her—her and her child—I remember a friend asking how we were going to split the rent, given the circumstances. Never occurred to me not to just go down the middle, though if I was of a different constitution I suppose an argument could be made that split some hairs, which is just yet another scenario to illustrate the quagmire money can be, and so often becomes.  

General personal thoughts? I lean toward it being fair to split costs based on earnings. Whenever I've been in relationships where I know I make more, which has been most, I pay for more. More dinners, airplane tickets, that stuff. I'd grab the $80 tab for the fancy cocktails, say, and she'd grab the one for the beers and burgers—a kind of unspoken thing, all in all. If the situation was reversed, I'd probably expect the same, though that's easy to say as someone who has not known the feeling of imbalance that might come in that situation. 

Me, I think this is just basic fairness, which is to say I'd agree that a situation where one person makes 3x more than another should be one where shared expenses are split 60/40 or thereabouts. Or, really, that the two people at least have a conversation about all this, since going down the line 50/50, with drastically different salaries, is just pretending to be equals. Reality is it weighs more on one set of shoulders than another, and if two people pretend that's not the case there'll come a time when the stress shows.

1 hour ago, itsallgrand said:

I don't really get why that bride that didn't make it to the altar was so appalled she'd pay half on a home she'd own half of in the marriage? Maybe I'm missing something?

The way I read it—and correct me if I'm wrong, reinvent—is that the mortgage was in his name, a house he already owned, so her paying the mortgage would in essence mean helping him pay down an asset that she did not legally benefit from. Stir in a prenup, and the writing is on the wall that said asset is untouchable in the event of a divorce, even though at that point she would have paid for a percentage of it. 

Anyhow, all in all I think there's no real rules here, save for that it's very important that a couple can talk about this openly. Salaries and careers, after all, are not static. The person making 3x more might get laid off, or decide to change paths, and is suddenly making 70 percent of what the other makes. What then? Being as confident as one can that you share an attitude about money and finances, or as close as two people can, is super critical. 

 

[Kwothe28]

3 hours ago, reinventmyself said:

But should one person struggle while the other benefits from the arrangement? 

Interesting. In the event of the divorce would you be wondering the same? Or would you laugh all the way to the bank asking % of everything? Including his own income?

If we are talking strictly financially, men usually dont benefit from marriage and divorce. You, your sons gf, your best friend son ex fiance, you all live(or would live) way above your weight. You even admit it would cost you if expenses are paid in half. In the event of the divorce court would usually favor your side. That is why most of the divorces are filed by women. Because financially speaking, men dont benefit from it. Women do. And yet you think the other side benefits from you. Because it asks you to pay your fair share?

In the circumstances like that, do you really blame them? Your best friend son work hard to buy a home and to have a high income. Do you really blame him that he wanted to "protect" himself from somebody that would tomorrow have a chance to take half of it? Admittedly, I wouldnt ask for mortgage half if the prenup existed and would rather ask her to pay half of the utilities. But if they separated over prenup, maybe he dodged quite a bullet there.

Its kind of a bleak thing to talk about. I was never fond of the finances. I like to earn and to spend but was never "greedy". Nore looked at things through financial aspect. After all, marriage is not about that, at least for me. But in the situations like this, I can see why some men opt to protect themselves financially and ask for fair share. 

[poorlittlefish]

When I was married, my husband earned about a third more than me. We had a joint account for bills, to which we paid into proportionally in line with our incomes. That way we both had the same percentage of our salaries left to do as we wished with, in separate accounts. Any excess in the joint account went towards holidays or home improvements.

We both felt this was a very fair arrangement and meant we never argued about money. 

[Batya33]

Back the first time we were dating we lived together for a few months before we called off the wedding.  At the time we made roughly the same $ but he'd always paid for more in our relationship -he insisted. We found a place to rent. To me it was a given we'd split the rent/utilities - it was a gorgeous luxury apartment and splitting meant I actually was paying less than I had been -same for him.  I don't remember how we split expenses - I didn't drive - but I think it was sort of turn taking.  I paid to move my stuff for sure.

We didn't live together before marriage this time around.  We had a sort of commuter marriage the first couple of months.  He and our son lived in my tiny apartment temporarily. Never occurred to me to ask him for rent $ - he also was paying rent on the place we'd be relocating too months down the line and I didn't offer to pay any of that (I'd only been there for a week or so total but it never came up).  By the time my son and I relocated, maternity leave was over and I was a SAHM.

Here's what I did at that point. I had amassed a nest egg for the 11 years prior. My financial people told me I actually didn't "have to" work given the income off my investments. I was 42.  I told my husband -I want to pay half the rent (utilities were separate but I was home full time- nothing coming in).

He said -no -let me pay it's totally fine.  But I felt -not because of him personally -he's so generous and loving -but for me as an independent woman -that I wanted very badly to pay half the rent.  So I did - from my $.  He also told me he wanted me to hire a weekly housecleaner so I could have more time with our baby.  I hired one twice a month which was fine with me -he paid for that.  

I went back to work -part time -when our son was 7.  My husband and I were always on the same page about all of this - he wanted me to be a full time mom for as long as I desired, he supported me in wanting to go back to work (took me over a year to find the right opportunity given childcare needs). 

Once I went back to work - I wasn't making much but more than 0 other than my investments - I had my paycheck deposited in our joint account.  I stopped paying half the rent given this change in our arrangement. Since he never expected/wanted me to pay half this new arrangement also was totally fine.  

I also think it's important for each couple to have a rough idea of how much $ they can spend on like a luxury item or something big like a car or appliance -without checking with the spouse - we have that rough estimate.  I think I told him which new laptop I was thinking of getting and he and I discussed when we needed a new car plus we discussed whether it was worth it to put more $$ into our old car. 

I think that amount will vary a lot depending on the couple.  For example my friend's now ex came home with a new Porsche one day many years ago (basically for himself) and hadn't checked with her.  She was really mad and I totally understood why!  That's what I mean.

I don't need to feel as a married mom that I am paying half the $ because I now make less/my savings is ample but it's for both of us for whatever expenses come our way plus I still do more of the child care/house cleaning (no more cleaning person, thanks pandemic and now need to find someone else down the line) - and we don't believe in "splitting" everything.  Maybe it's different for live together couple and/or couples who have no kids??

One thing I agree with -it's often complex and complicated and brings up lots of emotions! I was surprised how strongly I felt about paying half the rent way back.  

[Seraphim]

I would never contribute to a mortgage on a house I don’t own and could be asked to exit at any time . If that was the case I would live separately. 

[Batya33]

1 minute ago, Seraphim said:

I would never contribute to a mortgage on a house I don’t own and could be asked to exit at any time . If that was the case I would live separately. 

I agree.  Also it depends on the couple but if one wants to live in a nicer home and makes more that's fine and that person should pay a larger %.

[Tinydance]

Well my opinion is that both partners should contribute as much as they possibly can. I'm not sure that I can comment from experience because I make a middle of the range salary and basically so did everyone I dated. So I wouldn't really say that either me or any of my partners earnt more than each other. I guess usually I earnt less than them but I've only actually lived with two of my partners. 

I think if partners live together but they don't have children, they should try to pay 50/50. If one partner stays home with the kids (any gender) then inevitably the other partner will probably pay more. This is probably because the stay at home partner either isn't actually working or is only working part-time or casually.

I'm not sure that I really agree with prenups... Unless I suppose someone is extremely rich and worried that someone is only with them for their money. I think if you're making your partner sign a prenup, aren't you already implying you'll split up later on and also that you don't trust them? 

I must admit though, I don't really have experience where I was worried that my partner would take half of what I own. This is because I don't really own anything of value lol I own a car but it's not an expensive car and it's 15 years old. Other than that I don't even own a computer or iPad lol

My best friend actually just bought an apartment. She did say she was worried that she'd let a guy live with her and if they broke up, he'd be entitled to half of her apartment. So I guess when you actually own something you may start to worry about those things.

[Sindy_0311]

26 minutes ago, Tinydance said:

I think if partners live together but they don't have children, they should try to pay 50/50. If one partner stays home with the kids (any gender) then inevitably the other partner will probably pay more. This is probably because the stay at home partner either isn't actually working or is only working part-time or casually.

I totally agree. I would always pay 50/50 having the same income. And when I got the baby, I had part time job during two years so I couldn’t afford paying 50%

But at the end of our marriage, we had same income, we usually took all my salary to pay the bills and I had a card to take from his account whenever I wanted, it was like a shared account. 
i didn’t like it at all because he used to ask me where the money was spent… 

Another issue when I came back to my full time job after having the kid is that my ex husband didn’t realize I wasn’t supposed to be in charge of the household task alone anymore. It should be 50/50 for the money, but also for the tasks, men sometimes forget about that. 

So now I’m divorced, i pay the same all alone, it’s not easy but at least I don’t have to make my husbands laundry, diner, cleaning etc… alleluia 

[smackie9]

Me and my husband do 50/50. Yes he makes more but in my eyes I don't think it's fair to hold my hand out. It's my responsibility on how much money I bring home. Since I choose to stay at the job/career I have, why should he pay more because of my choice? 

[reinventmyself]

11 hours ago, Kwothe28 said:

You even admit it would cost you if expenses are paid in half. In the event of the divorce court would usually favor your side. That is why most of the divorces are filed by women. Because financially speaking, men dont benefit from it. Women do. And yet you think the other side benefits from you. Because it asks you to pay your fair share?

Just tread carefully because you don't know my financial situation.  I have more assets, he has a pension I can't touch.  My home is paid off and he rents. . .I can go on because there are additional aspects to my comment 'cost me to keep him', including not marrying to begin with . . .but I don't need to defend myself.  At least not in this way.

It was only a fair question to ask and I am interested to see that it's pretty much divided down the middle.  It isn't black and white.  And I also knew I opened myself up to a rebuttal such as this, so I expected it.

[boltnrun]

I most definitely did not "benefit" financially from my divorce. He made substantially more money than I did. He remained in the two bedroom home and I moved into a tiny, old studio apartment. I had very little furniture and only made $14k the first year after the divorce. My son and I shared the tiny studio apartment and had to both sleep in the living room/bedroom, me on a futon and him on a twin bed. It was a struggle. Now, his dad paid for everything he needed regarding food, clothing, medical care and education. But providing a home for him and for myself was up to me. Big time struggle. 

But we made it and as time went on I was able to improve my financial situation and get us into better housing. But this was me, not my ex husband, who accomplished this. He didn't struggle financially at all. 

Anyway, back on topic. I wouldn't feel comfortable unless I was either paying 50% or was contributing in kind with groceries, cooking, cleaning, yard maintenance, etc. 

[Sindy_0311]

24 minutes ago, boltnrun said:

 

I most definitely did not "benefit" financially from my divorce.

 

Me neither maybe because it was my wish to divorce. he stayed in the apartment, i searched for one. it was conveyed that we had to share half all our furniture and its basically the only thing we cut half. no kitchen ware, no household tools, no bed linen, nothing. but for me it was ok as i wanted to start a minimal lifestyle. i came in my apartment with only minimal stuff. and now i enjoy this lifestyle so much that i struggle buying anything new. (except for my wardrobe) 

still, during our marriage he was the one buying new cars (3 in 10 years) buying an expensive barista coffee machine or any other expensive stuff. I remember, once he bought me a 380$ tiny coat, i told him that was to expensive and asked him to bring it back to the store. 

[tattoobunnie]

I use my hub's money any which way I want. If it's over $500 for something non-essential like the mortgage or something, like that, we okay with eachother.  But it's because, I have been the breadwinner for half the marriage.  Now he's making substantially more than me, but still the same set-up. I have full acess to everything. He does not have ready access to my stuff though, but since he's not a money waster, just not on time with paying bills, what's mine is his and vice versa.

I was thinking by my mom asking me to get it done, before we got married to have him sign a prenup which he has no problem doing.  Then, we got prego, and I honestly didn't care for a prenup anymore.

I also put his name on the deed with mine, even though I bought our house.  He helped with closing fees.  I couldn't make it in a ti* for tat relationship.  Just not the way I was raised.  You both just give.

[Kwothe28]

58 minutes ago, reinventmyself said:

It was only a fair question to ask and I am interested to see that it's pretty much divided down the middle. 

It was not my intention to dissect your life, just asked a fair question in the interest of discussion myself. You think its unfair because not equal ammount of money stays after you divide things like rent, utilities etc. Completely overlooking that we are not entitled to equal share of money after that. Especially when one person earns more. And overlooking that, for example, your sons girlfriend would live considerably worst if she would have to rent on her own(in terms of ammount of space as well as maybe money because sometimes singles places are more expensive) or would have to share some appartment with more people that she would maybe not go along etc. They both use the same place, probably the same ammount of time. So, fair share is 50/50. Her earning less is pretty much irrelevant as far as "fair" goes. Again, she is not entilted to to the same ammount of money after they share expanses. "Fair" is 50%. What stays after is another thing. 

Anyway, my point is, you are 0/3 regarding men in your life because you fundamentally dont understand the other side. And because you dont want "equality". You are asking for "special priviledges" for one side. Which again somebody may or may not get depending on circumstances. For example if one side cant work its fair that the other side picks up a slack. We have maternity leave here where you are paid 80% income for at least 2 years(think if its the 3rd kid its more then 3 years). But some countries like USA dont have that so its different. So for example, you cant ask a woman to pay when she doesnt really has an income and is taking care of your baby. But in terms of both sides working, fair is 50/50. Not 60/40. That is special priviledge one side may or may not agree to.

[Batya33]

Small example.  Around 2005 I flew to California to meet my dear friend for a girls trip.  I made a lot more than she did.  I found a lovely B and B in the town we wanted to drive to. It was more than she could afford. So I simply asked her to contribute the amount she would have paid half of --- at a less expensive place.  I really wanted to stay there and she did too but it was out of her budget.  Seemed totally fair to me for me to pay more.  I feel the same about what I wrote above if one partner wants a bigger/more expensive place - why settle for a less expensive place just so both can pay 50/50?

[Sindy_0311]

2 minutes ago, Kwothe28 said:

k. We have maternity leave here where you are paid 80% income for at least 2 years(think if its the 3rd kid its more then 3 years)

OMG In Switzerland you only have 3month paid 80%. 

Also, I always found it was unfair that the father couldn’t have the same opportunity to stay with the kid. Meaning, why should I as a woman stay with the kid if I’m not even breastfeeding him? It’s a nonsense and there is no equality in there. 

[Batya33]

We had none of that in USA.  6 weeks unpaid.  I had 12 weeks paid through my employer and then 2 weeks vacation time I'd banked.  Husband started traveling 2-3 days every other week once our son was 2 weeks old.  No sitter/baby nurse/nanny or family help.  We managed.