MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Paul & Heather go 50/50?

airchie

trundlecat wrote: »

If they love each other this should be a no brainer. Since the begining of our relationship my husband & I have had frequent changes in who earned the most. When we bought the house (unmarried) I was the higher earner & put in most of the deposit & paid the mortgage. 7 years, 3 children & several promotions (for him) later he earns the most & so pays the bills (I could go on here about loss of promotion prospects for women with kids but I won't). If a couple have to sit & insist on what is theirs is theirs & the 50/50 split instead of working & living as a team from the very start then I don't really think they should be moving in together. That's not the mindset of 2 people who are in love & going to stand solid through the tougher challenges that lay ahead. Sometimes you have to take risks & a 100% committment from day 1 is important for a serious relationship.

TC

Sounds great in an ideal world but not very practical if the relationship breaks down.

I think all it needs is a pragmatic approach.
If one person earns way more than the other, it makes sense to write up an agreement (I guess it would be a pre-nupt agreement) saying that although both names are on the mortgage, one person get's x% of any profit as they paid x% of all costs til that point.

Romantic notions of marriage being for life and love conquers all etc don't mix well with money tbh.
Just ask cc99's friend...

freebird65

..............

Jada

Hmmm, this is tricky. Considering Paul is referred to as Heather's partner, not fiance, may suggest that they haven't definately committed to the idea of marriage but think they should live together to see if they're 'compatible' before going down the road of getting engaged.

Plus, two years for some may be enough to know your partner inside-out, but for others, there may still be areas of the relationship left to explore, which living together will allow.

Thus, just because they're moving in with each other, I can't agree that they should put all their money in one 'pot'. Especially as it's already been suggested above that we don't know if Heather earns significantly less due to working part time. So many relationships fail and although it's a said fact, I think it's very responsible to have a contingency plan and put your own money aside; maybe that's what Paul wants to do, and it's not his fault that Heather can't do the same.

I'm also against joint accounts for the very reason that you'll end up with a linked credit file which is disasterous if either get in debt, especially if you break up too.

In all fairness it should be 50/50 as there's quite likely a good reason Paul earns more, although I must add I probably wouldn't be with a man that insisted and seemed inflexible on such a thing (I'd take care of him if he took care of me )

:staradmin Jada :staradmin

Dead_Eye_Jones

we agreed to pay equal amounts into a joint account and use that joint account for all joint purchases (bills, mortgage, groceries, insurance, car). The rest is then ours to do with what we like. Thankfully we are both natural savers and with marriage on the way our saving only end up helping both of us.

I have always been the bigger earner, and when we first got together I had a large disposable income and the missus had little. Not fair? Probably not, but it just meant that I paid for dinner, tickets, drinks more often.

It works fine and we never once had an argument (yet) over money and I never once resented that I spent more (more equal now anyway).

When we came to buy the house I contributed 75% of the deposit. If things went wrong (hope not!) then id prob want that deposit back and then after that id be happy with 50/50 splits, or tbh she could keep or sell the joint larger purchases (car, sofa) etc. Anyways, lets hope that never happens!

anntics

We have a 'one-pot' system since getting married 30 years ago. As I am very organised and better with money than hubby, I have always looked after the finances and he has been quite happy to let me.

In this situation I think they should split all living costs 50/50 as Heather would have to pay half if she shared with a friend, regardless of their income. They should also split everything ELSE 50/50 too! So each must also do an equal share of housework, maintenance, decorating, etc. or pay half the cost of getting someone in to do it. If Heather earns less because she works part-time maybe she could be paid by Paul for doing some of his household duties.

I agree with some of the other posters, though, that if they are partners (to me that suggests more commitment than boy/girlfriend - or am I just an old fogey?) and they are already troubled by money issues, I would be worried.

afterthought - What happens in a 50/50 agreement when one of you for whatever reason cannot contribute any more? For several years when my husband was ill we had to manage just on my wage, we got no benefits at all. I went full-time to compensate and he got a low-paid job that he could manage. After 8 years of being the main earner I had to give up work through serious ill-health and we are about £20,000 a year worse off.

Under such an agreement neither of us could have made our share of the payments during these times, (joint) savings kept us afloat. No problem for us - we always have and always will- pool all money from whatever source.

Marg

Paul will be limiting his own living standards if he isn't prepared to give more to the expenses & maybe he'll be happy with that. After 2 years perhaps he knows something about Heathers ability to manage her finances that he hasn't shared with us...........even in love you know deep down their attitude to such things.
I'm speaking as someone who has been happily married for over 30 years who had a major disagreement about finances on the way home from honeymoon!!!!! Things were so different then.....

cdbrown

A sensible approach would be to work out how much she could comfortably afford for rent/bills, he matches it and they look around. If he wants to live a better lifestyle then he should pay the difference for this lifestyle. If they both want it then they both need to put their hands in their pockets to pay.

Just because one earns more than the other doesn't mean that person pay more.

harryhound

As a pensioner, I think I've seen problems with money, or the lack of it, as a root cause of break-up, more than problems in the bedroom department or even playing away from home.

Money becomes really significant when income is 20 GBP and expenditure is £20/-/6d, as a famous author once said.

Martin is right, teachers and parents can find discussing money more difficult than sex as a topic of intergeneration conversation. It can be second only to death as one of the three interesting but taboo conversations.

Money and marriage are both both really a matter of trust and consideration and need to be worked at.

The stage of the relationship decides the implicit deal over the money:

Perhaps you meet up sharing a house? Perhaps one of you is the sub tenant? If you decide to strike out and rent together it is 50:50 on the rent and probably the other compulsory expenses such as food, power council tax etc.
If you decide to buy it gets more interesting: Still 50:50 on expenses BUT you need an agreement, you hope you will never use, defining apportionment of capital ("equity" ?!) and interest. It is going to get very interesting if and when the current credit crunch leads to falling house prices:rolleyes:.

Once you are married it is 50:50 on everything BUT you are still entitled to your space and some money, and allowed your own stupidities, though try and talk through your decisions (What is the balance between 5 pints of beer and 2 hours spent on a pay-as-you-go mobile ) .

I am 100% in favour of stable families BUT the real pressure starts with children; so don't rush into parenthood. Be aware that children cost a fortune and are each a 20 year commitment - they deserve a mum and a dad, working together, still young enough to launch them into the world.
Remember, they get to choose your nursing home, when you loose your marbles.

Harry.

moominlaura

I think it should be split by %. Both my patner and I have our own seperate bank accounts. But we put enough money into the joint account to cover all bills and more and we put the same amount into our savings. Worked out by % we are left with the same amount in our own accounts.

As I have a larger family i spend more of my own cash on birthdays and christmas's but at least with our own accounts we dont know what is being spent on each other!

lottery_dreams

The fair thing to do would be contribute an equal percentage of their wage into a joint pot for all the bills. Although sharing all sounds romantic (and is the legal situation really) I doubt that it would be wise - what if they pooled resources only to find Paul loved buying electronic gadgets from the joint pot or she wanted to buy lovely jewellery for herself?

However, if lifestyle changed later e.g. child came along, the agreement would have to be changed to take into account the fact that one would be doing more around the house etc. and contributing in a non-financial way.