Money Moral Dilemma: How do I convince my fiancé to pay a greater share of our bills?

GBee123

Get married to him and then all his hoarding of money, pension, house & other investments will be yours as well.  You can start dipping into his savings for your child and ask him to contribute to the child’s savings account as well. Tight !!!!!!!

grassmarket

This dilemma is the least of your problems! Why have you never married? Do you really think your ‘fiancé’ of 20 years will ever marry? Your very unequal finances mean that - without marriage or a civil partnership - you have no financial security. I’m surprised you even get to know how much he earns & saves, but if so then he will also know how little you have. Why do you stay: love, fear, your child or all 3? While your child is still of an age to be his legal financial dependent, you should give him an ultimatum: financial security or asset split. Otherwise you & your child risk destitution if he decides to split in future.

MattMattMattUK

I get the feeling that there is probably far more to this than in the simple paragraph posted in the intro. The OP says their partner earns "ten times", which seems like a random made up "there is a difference" ratio, rather than an objective and factual one. Is the difference because they work one day a week and earn a few thousand a year, or they earn £50k pa and their partner earns £500k pa. They say that they split all household costs 50/50, but then that they have to pay for their son, is he not a household cost, so are they split 50/50, or not? 

I expect we have a situation where the OP's earnings are less than their partner's, but likely not anywhere close to a 10-1 difference between the two. Either that or the OP is working part time whilst their partner works full time, which would always build resentment when they have a child who is basically an adult (16). They also say that they "barely have anything" to save a month, where as their partner has "£100s", if the partner was earning such a huge amount they would have thousands to save a month, not hundreds.

This appears to be so vague and likely factually inaccurate that no proper commentary is possible and many other posters appear to be filling in the gaps with their own emotions based rather than trying to look at things rationally. 

Mark_d

MSE_Kelvin said:

This week's MoneySaver who wants advice asks...

My fiancé of 20 years and I constantly argue about money. We've a child aged 16 together and I have two grown-up children from a previous relationship. We split our bills half and half, yet his income is 10 times higher than mine, and I buy almost everything for our son. I've not much money left over to save, whereas my fiancé saves £100s a month. I understand a good way for couples to pay shared bills is pro rata to their income. How do I convince my fiancé that this is how we should do it?

"I understand a good way for couples to pay shared bills is pro rata to their income. How do I convince my fiancé that this is how we should do it?"

Sharing bills pro rata is only "good" for the lower earner.  I'm not convinced it is in the best interest of the couple.

My partner and I have been together over 20 years now.  I currently earn 20% more than my partner but in the past I was earning 50% more.

We are equal in our relationship and split all bills/agreed expenses half and half.  So we basically live the lifestyle of the lower earner.

As I earn more I can save more.  I can also use my extra wealth to treat my partner buy paying for upgrades - so for example we split the cost equally for a room at the hotel and then I pay the difference to upgrade us to a suite.

squirrel59

I have a friend who is in much the same position as you, apart from the being affianced for already 20 (!!) years.
His salary is over triple that of hers and in all their years together he has saved well over 200.000, whereas she just keeps her head above water. They each put a monthly sum into a joint account and go 50-50 on everything. However, she, too, puts more in the pot than he does, because she'll get a bottle of wine for dinner with her own money, stuff like that. She says he's simply a miser and has always refused to discuss it. He would never contemplate marrying her because he wants his money to stay completely separate from her, and undoubtedly wouldn't want the expense anyway.
Why is she still with him? Because even though they don't have children together, for her it still beats being on her own.

All you can do is have a conversation with him during which you both put your cards on the table, without fear or prejudice. And if, in the end, nothing changes, you will have to answer two questions:
1. Are you happy being a fiancée for another 20 years without a wedding in sight?
2. And will you still be happier with him than without him even though he is a Scrooge?

Rocketdogroya

I feel that most replies are assuming the status quo of this relationship is unhappy? There has been nothing to support that other than arguments about money. 

Having said that, referring to someone as your finance after 20 years (unless it was a recent engagement) does make it seem as though you are holding out for that but he isnt going down that route yet, maybe it was a youthful engagement at 17 or something.

I feel the 10x is a turn of phrase not an accurate representation.

Think about how you spend your money on you and your son? Is it lavish and does he maybe see 'the latest phone, a gucci belt and all that jazz as wasting your money so maybe he doesnt want to 'enable' that lifestyle.
I know my partner refuses to buy a gift for his grandson (He may be happy with the lump sum he gets when he is 18 though) as that kid is exceptionally spoilt and doesn't need or notice it, yet his daughter regularly borrows money as she cant help wanting the best for him.

You say you go 50/50 on household bills but we all have expensive moments, holiays, new car, phone, fridge. who pays for those? 
My partner earns almost double what I do and we go 50/50 on bills but he pays for all the adhoc spending.

Two very important question to ask yourself is:
 If you were actually struggling financially (food-banks etc) would he help you out without thinking or would he then hold it over you afterwards? 
If your child goes to uni, learns to drive etc. (big late teen costs) will he be contributing to that?

PBoroGuy

On face value it sounds like he should be contributing more, but without hearing both sides it's difficult to get a better feel of the whole situation and to suggest a pro-rata arrangement with such a large income difference seems a little one sided.

I suspect there could be reasons why the fiancé is reluctant to contribute more.  For example if the OP is only working part-time or has a small home business does the fiancé take issue with this if he has a demanding full time job, or if they own their property outright or if he cleared the mortgage with say an inheritance does he feel he's already contributed?  Equally the fiancé might just be a bit of a scrouge.

It's needs a open and transparent conversation and not an argument, and these conversations aren't always easy but if you open with 'I want you to pay 90% of the bills' I doubt you'll get a great reception.  I feel comments suggesting the fiancé is this, that and the other are making too many assumptions.

ShinyStarlight1

My husband and I have had varying incomes in our 25 years together.

We started off earning the same.

I became ill so earned far less.

I received an inheritance so had far more.

Throughout the whole time, we have had a joint account for joint spends (mortgage, bills etc), and our own accounts for independent buying.

Whoever has had the most money has paid more for big things like roof replacement, new car, or holiday costs. 

We both respect each other, and want each other’s lives to be worry-free as possible.

I have no idea how the OPs partner can continue his lifestyle knowing how precarious his fiancée’s situation is should he die.

sheramber

If you do not know how to convince your fiance , after 20 years together, I doubt strangers on a forum , who have never met him, will know how to. 

Shell1989

You should get married, it will provide you with more legal rights over your home and joint finances. Likely your finance knows this, and that’s why he’s kept you engaged for 20 years instead of tying the knot. He sounds like a horrible and greedy man to be honest, you’d be smart to force a quick registry office marriage and then ask for a divorce shortly after - taking with you half his pension! Any reasonable man on 10 times their long term partners income would either be taking care of ALL expenses, or at least doing it proportionally so it’s fair. Good luck.