How do you split expenses?

indiepanda

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

I actually think that if you don't have children and are not married or have come to another arrangement the fair thing is that just bills are split in half and you are each responsible for your own personal and travel expenditure. Your partner is not obliged to make up the difference between your salary and his and presumably it was a joint decision where you lived so this should have been considered then if it costs you more to get to work. If at the time he wanted to live there and you had reservations about it due to the cost of travel then you could quite rightly have pointed this out and he could have then offered to cover some of this and in that case that could be considered along with the bills as a joint expense.

I agree with this. Once you are married and especially once you have children, I think it's reasonable to treat all expenses as joint and not quibble about who pays for what, especially if one of you has cut back on work to look after children.

But if you are just cohabiting and haven't even bought somewhere together, I think it's fair to go 50/50, so if your partner is offering a better deal, you're lucky and shouldn't push it further.

If you don't like having less money, get a better job! Might sound tough, but better paying jobs often come with more responsibility and pressure and demand higher skills, and I don't think it's unreasonable for your partner to benefit from the extra money they have earned.

Not uniformly the case I grant you (teachers seem to have it especially tough for what they get paid, nurses and junior doctors too) but no one is forced to stay in a particular field if they think they aren't paid fairly for what they do, there is the option of retraining.

duchy

queryy wrote: »

They thought that they were already being generous splitting everything 50-50 when I spend more money on travel. But they then offered to split bills and travel proportional to income. But isn't that still unfair since they will be left with more spending money than me?

Why shouldn't they have more spending money if they earn more than you?

Before you moved in together did you expect them to give you spending money ?

If you want more disposible income then get a better job (or one closer to home with lower travelling costs)

Whilst a fair distribution of rent, food and utilities to reflect the difference in earnings is fine...... personal spending isn't.

VfM4meplse

Petra_70 wrote: »

Well smacking of entitlement and jealousy is not how I read the OP's original post.

queryy wrote: »

My partner and I live in a rental house. I earn less money than them, and I pay more to get to work in rail fares. How should we split our bills and travel expenses? Should I pay more because I spend more? Should we split 50/50? Or should they pay more because they earn more? Even if they pay more, they will have more to save at the end of the month! If we pay proportional to our income, should this be for all spending or only for bills and travel? Thanks for your advice!

queryy wrote: »

They thought that they were already being generous splitting everything 50-50 when I spend more money on travel. But they then offered to split bills and travel proportional to income. But isn't that still unfair since they will be left with more spending money than me?

Entitlement. No mention of any other inequality, eg home or child raising commitments. But a clear sense that the OP somehow has a claim to their partner's disposable income. This is neither true legally, nor morally. To me it sounds like naked greed: presumably the OP is benefiting from an economy of scale - eg council tax - by living with their partner rather than alone?

FBaby

Reading all posts, it seems to come down to what moving together means to the relationship and whether it means the start of a committed partnership, or two people considering themselves seeing themselves boyfriend/girlfriend being housemates. It will also come down to how independent they are from each other, ie. what is the point of one having much more disposable income if the other can't afford to do the things they want to do jointly, ie. if it is an understanding they want to go on holiday together, but one can afford it and the other not, it seems silly. If however the level of relationship means that it is acceptable that one travels with friends/family whilst the other stays home, or go on a cheaper holiday with their own friends, then that would be ok.

The OP refers to the other person as their partner, so would indicate that it is more likely to be the first. From my perspective, it was the act of moving in together that meant that we were becoming an unit, despite not being married or having children together.

Nick_C

"With this ring, I thee wed. With my body, I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow"

I'm not religious or married, and I didn't make these vows, but it's how I feel about our relationship.

Rain_Shadow

Person_one wrote: »

Very careful not to reveal genders, wonder why?

JIL wrote: »

Why would it matter? Would the answer be any different if they were a same sex couple?

Might be that the OP is male and their partner female. I was guilty of assuming the opposite when I read the OP and I'm not the only one judging other posts.

PasturesNew

Nick_C wrote: »

"With this ring, I thee wed. With my body, I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow"

I'm not religious or married, and I didn't make these vows, but it's how I feel about our relationship.

That's marriage though, commitment. The OP's just shacked up, over the brush, providing a bit of convenient hanky panky without any actual promises.

Grenage

PasturesNew wrote: »

That's marriage though, commitment. The OP's just shacked up, over the brush, providing a bit of convenient hanky panky without any actual promises.

/chuckle.

As originally suggested, it's entirely down to what suits you both. I earn more (but not much above average if at all), and I pay the mortgage and all the utility bills etc. My girlfriend isn't cheap, and happily pays for everything she can when we are out - be that food shopping or a restaurant. If I asked her to pay in x amount per month, she'd happily do such.

We don't count who pays how much, and when. If it works for you both, it works.

duchy

Grenage wrote: »

/chuckle.

As originally suggested, it's entirely down to what suits you both. I earn more (but not much above average if at all), and I pay the mortgage and all the utility bills etc. My girlfriend isn't cheap, and happily pays for everything she can when we are out - be that food shopping or a restaurant. If I asked her to pay in x amount per month, she'd happily do such.

We don't count who pays how much, and when. If it works for you both, it works.

Which simply means that if you split up as you haven't allowed your girlfriend to contribute to mortgage payments or utilities that she has no claim on any of the property you both live in if her name isn't on the deeds.

It may suit you -or indeed both of you - but it may not be fair in the long run.

burlington6

OP, you could always get a second job. Evenings, a few nights a week.

Or is that not the easy option you wanted to hear?

Regardless of your sex, if you carry on the way you are your partner will get sick of it and leave you for someone else.