Getting confused re: splitting finances!!

Europa_2

Please help, I'm going round in circles and my head now hurts!!

If me and my partner want to split our finances equally between us (household bills, mortgage, etc) how do I work it out. Don't want to pay 50/50 but want to pay an "equal" amount according to our earnings.

So, if he earns say £1500 a month and I earn £900 a month, what percentage of the bills should we each be contributing? Is it 60/40?


Thanks!

tasha-debt

What is the total of your monthly bills?

My BF and I are planning on both paying 35% of our salary into a joint account for bills ect, that will go up with payrises but will aslo build a little savings.


xxx

balletshoes

You're just about right there Europa - your partner earns 62.5% of the total household income, you earn the other 37.5%.
Do these figures include any child benefits etc? If not, depending on who gets those and what you do with them, your percentage might alter.

RAS

1500/2400 is 62.5% sot he other bit is 37.5%

Add the two incomes together = total income

my income divided by total income = my share
his income divided by totla income = his share

His share + my share = 1, or 100% if you do it as percentage.

Europa_2

Brilliant thanks for explaining. This makes it much clearer! My figures were rough guides as an exmaple. CB and tax credits not included yet, need to work it out properly but wanted an idea how to work out the % when I'm at that stage.

Thanks for your help!!

property.advert

I don't agree. If the household bills are £1000 per month then you both put £500 into a joint account. That way you retain equality. The one earning more will most probably pay for a greater percentage of things such as when you go out, holidays, etc. I find it rather communistic to pay in equal percentages or have it determined by how little the other party earns.

ViolaLass

property.advert wrote: »

I don't agree. If the household bills are £1000 per month then you both put £500 into a joint account. That way you retain equality. The one earning more will most probably pay for a greater percentage of things such as when you go out, holidays, etc. I find it rather communistic to pay in equal percentages or have it determined by how little the other party earns.

That's not really the point, though, is it? If the arrangement suits the couple then what does it have to do with anyone else? The OP wanted her maths checked, that's all.

Mutter_2

ViolaLass wrote: »

That's not really the point, though, is it? If the arrangement suits the couple then what does it have to do with anyone else? The OP wanted her maths checked, that's all.

Because one of the parties doesn't use 37.5% of everything. 50% makes sense.

It's a new take that OP may not have considered. No more no less.

Sharra

Just another suggestion- how about just having a joint account with all money going in and all money coming out? That way you just share everything. This is how I've always handled finances with my partner - especially if there are kids involved it means its a partnership.

PasturesNew

The problem, as I see it, with splitting bills 50% when two people earn significantly different things, is that the one who earns less might get a bit angry at the 'waste' of the higher earner, while the higher earner sees two incomes as the opportunity to splash out a bit more as they find themselves with more disposable income.

To split bills to income percentages can, in many cases, make things more equal.

e.g. If you earn £800 and other person £1600 and the bills are £1000, then the £800 earner will be having to watch their £300 carefully, while the £1600 earner will be wanting to run riot with their £1100.

On the other hand, with those same figures, the £800 earner, paying 1/3rd won't be quite so 'tight' as they will have £467/month, but the £1600 earner will still be better off than living alone and will still have £934 for themselves.

The lower earner, living alone, would have chosen a much more frugal lifestyle for themselves than the higher earner. The higher earner benefits from the shared costs,, while the lower earner might find themselves not much better off because the higher earner demands a higher standard of basic living and lifestyle to split.

Fang_3

If you're going to do it like that then you need to include all income, benefits for example.