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

moanymoany

Heather needs to say three words - 'Bye bye Paul!'

If this is a problem at this stage it is unlikely to improve. I was a family law solicitor for many years and I'm here to tell you, given that this is happening at the beginning, the areas of discord that are uncovered as they live together - will only increase.

itsamee

A partnership is just that, in my opinion. I am of the older generation and I realise that my standards, based on my upbringing and moral values from a bygone age, are, sadly in my humble opinion, entirely out of date. It requires immense trust nowadays, when relationships, not cemented by commitment, i.e. marriage, appear to be volatile to say the least. To cut to the chase, with complete trust, my experience is that a joint bank account (for example) between two entirely mature people with complete transparency, i.e. major purchases discussed and agreed upon and full accountability undertaken etc. etc; this is the way to happiness and longevity. Idealistic? I was married for 36 years and up until the latter years when things broke down, this worked satisfactorily up to 90% of the time. Hiccoughs will occur...............humans, huh?..........but c’est la vie as the Germans say (!) So many factors in a relationship are occurring, that my comments are only a generalisation, of necessity. Nobody wants to be taken to the cleaners, do they??
What do you think?
David F.

walkswithmagic

It doesn't matter who pays what, if you contribute and everything is in his/her name make sure you keep a record of everything you buy and pay for or like me you could end up with nothing.
I lived with a man for 5 years,i put my life savings and i contributed to the bills and payed for home improvements equally to what he put in but because we were not married and the house was in his name i wasn't entitled to a bean....The law should be there to protect people like us, no such thing as "common law wife" it is all rumour! Get this if i was gay and living with another woman i would be entitled to Half...Where is the justice???
So protect yourself and be sensible dont go in blind, get advice...as much as you love your partner love does not protect you!!! All solicitors offer free advice for the initial first appointment...so for free you could protect yourself for life.
Two years on i am still sleeping on a mattress on the floor, i still take my washing to my mums as i don't have a washing machine and i don't have a hob to cook i use a microwave cooker.
Well you can guess what he is doing...laughing all the way to the bank!
DON'T GET CAUGHT OUT!!!!

princess1983

In the past, this would have been simple because they probably would have been married before moving in together anyway. The man probably worked and paid the bills while the woman stayed at home, did all the housework and looked after the kids. Because the divorce rate was significantly lower, men didn't have to be wary of women money-grabbing and taking them for all they're worth, because they were together 'till death do us part'.

I think that nowadays men and women alike have got to look out for themselves and consider what would happen if they were to break up. Because there are a lot more breakups and lots more court cases where people argue over money, then the easiest way is to split everything 50/50 so if anything does happen, then it's easily resolved. Although personally I feel sad that the world has come to this, because in a way it feels that you are not truly trusting in your partner. Although I agree with some earlier posts; because Paul will probably have more disposable income he will hopefully be a gentleman and pay when they go out, and even perhaps treat her to a shopping trip every now and again. I suppose, he could be debted up to the eyeballs and they could have the same disposable income. Depends on their individual finances.

Recently me and my partner have started saving for a house deposit and we are saving equal amounts. Mainly because, if we were to split up, then we know it is just 50/50, very simple. He has got a high interest savings account and offered for us to save our money in there, but unfortunately the skeptic in me said no, because if we were to fall out, the money would be in his name and I wouldn't be entitled to any of it. Is that just telling my partner that I don't trust him or am I just being sensible? Both I think.

SueMJ_2

Paul might have a point. Obviously once they're married, they'll own everything 50/50 so there's not much point in keeping their money seperate, but until then, they don't. If they never got married or split before they do, and he's the sort of person who'd be bitter that he paid for more groceries etc, then they should divide things 50/50. Splitting up with someone is bad enough, but them also being bitter about money (and when you split up people tend to be bitter) is terrible. If they were buying a home rather than renting, they'd also have to work out who would be entitled to what and that can be a nightmare unless you discussed it art the outset. www.advicenow.org.uk/livingtogether gives good advice on things like this. Just because they're planning to get married doesn't mean they will. My partner and i got engaged nearly 5 years ago, but we've not walked up the aisle yet.

lollyb84

My fiancee and I are in a similar situation. I earn roughly twice what he does, so we split the rent and some bills 2/3 to 1/3. However, the food bill is split equally, as are major purchases. We choose to pay like this as my partner is a student, and if we went 50/50 on everything, we wouldn't be able to live in a place as nice as we do. However, when we get married, we will put everything into 1 pot and each take a certain amount of 'spending money' out of it. Once we have children, then I intend to give up work, so my partner will pay 100% of everything. So although I pay more now, I see it that I am investing in our future together.:j

13katrina

My husband and I bought our first house when we were 20. We weren't married then and we hadn't lived together prior to buying the house. My mum paid a 3% deposit as a gift to both of us (but told us not to expect a wedding present if we ever got married!) He was a student working part-time and I worked full-time and had a huge salary compared to his part-time earnings. We set up a joint account from day one and have always shared money equally.

That was five years ago. We're married now and have one child. Over the last five years our salaries have changed with our circumstances. He's got a great job now with an excellent salary and I now work part-time to fit in with our daughter and our needs as a family (e.g. we want to sit down to a family meal together every day but my three year old daughter needs to go to bed by 7 pm - If I worked full time we probably wouldn't be able to put a meal on the table much before 6/6.30 pm - it just wouldn't work).

So, I think all the money should go in one pot - as long as your both singing from the same hyme sheet and discuss any major purchases etc, it should be fine. (Mind you the joint account was the only bit about finances we got right - we still digging ourselves out of the black hole of debt - lol).

Katie-Kat-Kins

I think a 50/50 on the mortgage and bills, this means that the remainder is your own to do with as you wish and there is no resentment between the couple.

My partner and I have a joint account into which we contribute equal amounts for the bills, and separate accounts for the remainder which is our own (including our respective cars). I earn more than my partner although not a huge amount and we have different priorities and lifestyles. I would not like to feel accountable over the choice of my next car or whether I buy a new pair of shoes. Equally I should not have to fund his CD habit.

The only exception should be if there is a joint reason for one salary being higher than the other such as working part time to look after the children, in which case the higher earner should contribute more.

That said if my partner is struggling I am always willing to stick a bit extra in the pot.

The other thing to remember is that the one earning more should realise that their partner may not always be able to afford the same things, they might have to compromise on things like holidays and meals out or agree to pay more.......

anneleyskiing

I don't agree with some of the posts here regarding putting all income into a joint bank account. My husband earns more than me. I am married and do have a joint bank account into which both myself and my husband put in enough to cover life's essentials, mortgage, utility bills, tv licence, home insurance and some food. But the rest of our money is ours to spend as we wish. Whilst I sometimes wish H would spend a little less on ale I feel he's earned his disposable income and can spend it as he wishes. Likewise I can spend mine without having to discuss taking money out of the joint bank account just because I want to have a nice hairdo.

I believe we should each take financial responsibility for ones self. That does not mean it should be at the expense our our partners. There should also be transparancy in financial dealings.

I do know of people who have put all their income into one pot and lived to regaret it when things went wrong. You can be left pennyless and in debt to boot. It is easy for one party to take all the money from a joint account and even run up the overdraft. You are jointly and severally liable for joint account debts.

It is also for that reason I don't believe in having second card holders on credit and store cards.

My husband is pretty generous and does tend to pay for most meals out, so I'm not complaining. But them I'm more financially clued up and make sure we get the best deals (thanks to this site) so he's not complaining either.

If I were co-habiting and was buying a property with a partner who earned more than me, I would want it to be in joint names, or as tenants in common in equal shares. That way, if the relationship ended we would each walk away with half, end of story. If a partner who earned considerably more than me did not agree with this stance, I would probably end the relationship. Harsh maybe, but the richer party would always be able to get back on their feet after a break up. If the poorer one ended up with only say 30% of the equity they would struggle to get back on their feet, which I don't thinks is fair.

Paul and Heather could consider entering into a co-habitation agreement, or even a pre-nuptual agreement if they are planning to marry.

trejoy

Call me old fashioned, but if a bloke wants you to cook his tea and wash his smalls, he pays the bills - all of them, oh, he puts a ring on your finger too. It works for my hubby:rotfl::rotfl: