How to fairly contribute to bills in a relationship?

Red-Squirrel_2

svain wrote: »

Being such early days and a one bedroom flat there is no reason it shouldnt be affordable. Once the relationship cements itself and should they move onto something less affordable for one or other its a conversation they can have then

Where does it say its a one bed flat? There's a child staying regularly so I wouldn't have thought it was.

svain

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Where does it say its a one bed flat? There's a child staying regularly so I wouldn't have thought it was.

apologies ... my mistake (god knows where i got that from!)

Gloomendoom

maman wrote: »

That's fine for you as you seem perfectly happy to subsidise your wife's earnings. That's your choice and she obviously accepts this arrangement.

Subsidise? Please explain.

We are a family unit. All money coming into the relationship is family money. It doesn’t matter who pays the bills.

Hence no need for complicated algorithms.

maman

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Subsidise? Please explain.

We are a family unit. All money coming into the relationship is family money. It doesn’t matter who pays the bills.

Hence no need for complicated algorithms.

OK. I'll explain if you need me to.;)

Gloomendoom wrote: »

I'm married so in a slightly different situation to an unmarried cohabiting couple. However, the complicated algorithms some people use to try and achieve a fair split never ceases to amaze and amuse me.

My wife and I have never discussed expenses. When she moved in, with the exception of the grocery shopping which she took over, I carried on paying all the bills that I did before we were married.

It's worked for nearly ten years now without any issues.

Maybe I'm making a wrong assumption here and you get through an awful lot of groceries but I'd have thought that the food shopping came to far less than 'all the [other] bills' such as mortgage, council tax, utilities, insurance, transport........ But that may be completely wrong and maybe your wife buys groceries and pays a great deal into the shared pot.


If my original assumption is correct though and you pay far more into your shared family pot than your wife then, however willingly and unquestioningly you took it on, that's a subsidy.

Tabbytabitha

maman wrote: »

OK. I'll explain if you need me to.;)





Maybe I'm making a wrong assumption here and you get through an awful lot of groceries but I'd have thought that the food shopping came to far less than 'all the [other] bills' such as mortgage, council tax, utilities, insurance, transport........ But that may be completely wrong and maybe your wife buys groceries and pays a great deal into the shared pot.


If my original assumption is correct though and you pay far more into your shared family pot than your wife then, however willingly and unquestioningly you took it on, that's a subsidy.

Sorry, I can't agree that the question of subsidising anybody comes into marriage finance. Although some people choose not to see it that way, all money coming in is "our money" because you're one unit, all the rest is just a question of convenience of what money goes where.

maman

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

Sorry, I can't agree that the question of subsidising anybody comes into marriage finance. Although some people choose not to see it that way, all money coming in is "our money" because you're one unit, all the rest is just a question of convenience of what money goes where.

Of course I understand that many people don't choose to think of it In that way but in mathematical terms it is a subsidy none the less.

I've never needed to be in that position as I have a very similar earning power to my DH and pleasingly it's not an issue for you or gloomendoom.

Sadly however it doesn't work for everyone whether it's used as a form of control on one end of the spectrum or by 'gold diggers' at the other.

Only this week I read about a poster on here that's not done any Christmas shopping yet because she chooses not to work and her DH hasn't given her any money.

Gloomendoom

maman wrote: »

Of course I understand that many people don't choose to think of it In that way but in mathematical terms it is a subsidy none the less.

maman wrote: »

OK. I'll explain if you need me to.;)

If my original assumption is correct though and you pay far more into your shared family pot than your wife then, however willingly and unquestioningly you took it on, that's a subsidy.

Beware of assumptions. My wife earns the same or possibly even slightly more than I do.

However, even if your assumption had been correct, I still don’t see why I would be subsidising her. Mathematics, if you really feel the need to use it (them?), would simply show that I would be contributing more than her to the entity which is our shared family resource, and nothing directly to her.

My mother didn’t work at all in the first 18 years of her marriage. I suspect that she would be most indignant at the suggestion that she was “subsidised” by my father during that period, as would my father.

maman

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Beware of assumptions. My wife earns the same or possibly even slightly more than I do.

However, even if your assumption had been correct, I still don’t see why I would be subsidising her. Mathematics, if you really feel the need to use it (them?), would simply show that I would be contributing more than her to the entity which is our shared family resource, and nothing directly to her.

My mother didn’t work at all in the first 18 years of her marriage. I suspect that she would be most indignant at the suggestion that she was “subsidised” by my father during that period, as would my father.

Regardless of whether it's mathematics or semantics, it still comes down to financial assistance in many households where income is unequal . Although I'd think in the case of your mother's generation 18 years of childcare and housekeeping would likely be seen as fair exchange so I can see why she'd perhaps feel indignant.

AubreyMac

maman wrote: »

OP's boyfriend asked her to pay 50:50 but she wants to just pay 40% with no logical reason (I'm assuming) other than that because he earns more she should benefit???

Because the boyfriend has a kid that'll be staying over a few times a week? She shouldn't be financially responsible for that.


Doesn't whoever earn more usually end up paying more in the relationship anyway? even if rent/mortgage and utilities were split 50/50 the one who pays more probably end up paying more for leisure/recreational stuff.


I've never properly lived with a partner before (and as I own my own home I'm not keen to either) but what my parents and siblings did was 'everything in one pot' regardless who earns more. Whoever earns more now that could change in years to come. I would hate to feel I 'owed' my partner financially if I were to take mat leave or be ill or anything. Contribution in a relationship is more than just money.


One of my friends insisted that her husband pays in 75% not only because he earns more but due to the fact that he works very long hours it means she does 100% of the household chores and the majority of childcare (she works full time too). Plus he is also from a large close knit family so they are over a lot and when it comes to birthdays/Christmas there's more to buy for on his side. She would be so resentful if she paid in 50/50.

AubreyMac

Gloomendoom wrote: »

My wife and I have never discussed expenses. When she moved in, with the exception of the grocery shopping which she took over, I carried on paying all the bills that I did before we were married.

It's worked for nearly ten years now without any issues.

That's exactly what my sister did when she married.


She and her husband owned their own homes & lived in different cities. He eventually got a job where she lives and moved in with her. She carried on paying bills as they were already set up on direct debit. When he sold his flat he used the money to pay off her mortgage. So it's swings and roundabouts.