MMD: Should I pay more than my partner?

WibblyGirly wrote: »

.. however he is adamant about staying 50/50.

Completely agree with your OH, you got into it together 50/50 so why should that change if you're now doing better for yourself? You'll be able to pay for holidays, have a nicer car or save more money for the future but you shouldn't be expected to pay more, or less, for the same roof over your head as your partner.

I'd personally say you need to consider a bunch of other factors, with income coming perhaps third or fourth:
- What are your financial goals? What are his? How well do they align?
- Which one of you (if any) is driving any lifestyle inflation?
- Are there extenuating circumstances that result in the lower wage? (e.g. maternity, sickness, caring for a family member).
- And finally, yes, the wage disparity.

For example, if you, the higher wage earner, are fine with working to state retirement age, and want all the trappings of modern life (new cars, detached 5 bedroom house, etc.), but he is naturally more frugal and would like to work towards retiring at 55, is it really fair for him to have to pay half towards running a household that he may deem excessive? The amount he can save for retirement is already less than you, and by keeping up with the Jones's you would make his goal unachievable in order to sustain a lifestyle only you want.

On the other hand, if you are aspiring to retire early and are frugal by nature, and he were driving the lifestyle inflation, I'd argue that he should put his money where his aspirations are and pay for the nice things he wants - perhaps even more than 50%.

If your goals are aligned and you want similar lifestyles things get a lot easier. It doesn't matter who pays what, because you're aspiring to retire together, and both of you are equally bought into the cost of your life. Whether you combine finances or not (we haven't) is irrelevant, because you're a team working together towards a common goal. If you don't combine finances, then perhaps a proportional contribution to the running expenses would be helpful, as he would have the same proportion of his earnings as you have of yours to spend as he wishes or direct into his investments. I'd only bother with this is the wage disparity were high though, for example if my wife goes on maternity leave.

As a matter of principle I don't think the simple fact that you earn more means you're obliged to pay in more. A 50/50 split is a perfectly fair way to go about things when both of you are earning a full time wage. You do then need to budget to what the lower earner can afford - so higher earner doesn't get to insist on more expensive packages etc unless they are willing to pay in more - but it's a pretty clean way to run things.

But then so long as both of you are happy and agreed on it, then any split is fair. There's no single way to handle finances in a relationship and people should do whatever best suits them and their partner. (And life can always throw up circumstances like illness etc where one of you has to pay in more). it's far more important that both of you communicate about and are agreed on your approach than that you subscribe to some set idea about what should or shouldn't be done.

When we got married, in 1974, we agreed we would have a joint bank account and our money. For the first 20 years of our married life, he earned more than I did. For the next 20 years, I earned more than he did. And so what - it is our money.

If you have been together for 8 years, commit to each other and get married. If you don't want to marry just agree that you will share everything and whatever you have is shared jointly.

If you don't feel confident enough to do this, then split as you clearly don't have any confidence in your partner.

If no children involved and to the larger extent finances are being kept separate, then IMO it should be 50/50 for bills and joint activities such as days out or holidays. You're both choosing to live that lifestyle and should contribute equally.

More of a moral dilemma if you're jointly saving up for something which will further the relationship (house deposit, wedding etc), because that's a step towards the merging of finances, and there are in my opinion good arguments for either proportionate or equal contributions in those cases.