best thing to do?

LegacyUser

I would welcome some advice here. I earn about three times the amount my boyfriend does and I own my own house. He lives at home with one of his parents and I don't think would be in a position financially to get a place together. Members of my family have told me that I am going to end up supporting him. Basically, I don't know what the best thing to do is if we decide to live together, we haven't actually spoken about this ourselves yet but I want to have it clear in my head if/when it comes up. Also we're in our mid 30s. It is something that plays on my mind so I would be grateful for any opinions

how much is 3 times as much? if he still earns a good wage, you can go for a house he can afford or pay the extra yourself to live somewhere nicer.

LegacyUser

In all relationships there is pretty much one person that earns more that the other so whats the big deal.. Traditionally I suppose it was always the male but so what if it's the female in this instance.

If you are committed to each other and love each other the money shouldn't really come in to it. So what if he doesn't earn as much as you, at least he has a job and isn't some waster who refuses to work.

If ye were to go down the road of having a family you might even decided that one of you will give up work altogether.

Are you worried that he is only with you for the money or something? Thats the only problem I can see.

OS119

Hi OP,

as you've probably noticed, significant differences in income can throw problems into a relationship, it can cause resentment on both sides, as well as embarrassment, and needs constant 'management' to avoid bent feelings.

put simply, its embarrassing having your partner always pay for things - particularly if you couldn't do those things if he/she wasn't paying - and if the other person isn't embarrassed, the one who does always pay for things can get pretty resentful. it works the other way around as well, its actually easy to get resentful at wealth you get to partake in, but have no control over, and are 'at the mercy' of.

now, two intelligent people who are aware of the issue and work hard to ensure that the other person isn't put in difficult or embarrassing positions can happily succeed, but, and here's the but, if it all goes wrong then it can get very bitter indeed.

as an example - this is from English Divorce law, but its, imho, instructive.

a friend, 'Sarah', while at uni training to be a civil engineer, met and fell in love with 'Bob'. Bob was a self-employed carpet fitter and doing well in the world. eventually they bought a house together, but as Sarah was the 'saving up' type, Bob was the 'spend it while you're alive' type, only Sarah had any money saved up and she provided the deposit, though the mortgage was based on their combined incomes. they soon married and all went well for a year until Bob's business collapsed and he couldn't find work. then the jealousies, insecurities and resentments started. because now all their income rested on Sarah, and almost all of it went on mortgage, bills and food, they couldn't do the 'extra' things that make life fun, and while Sarah had work and friends, Bob had nothing but daytime tv.

four years of this, no kids and Sarah decides she's had enough. Bob is now a bitter, resentful, jealous, demanding layabout who couldn't get work in a Gulag, and isn't fun to live with. Sarah discovers that even though demonstratably she's been the only one paying any bills, and that all the deposit came from her accounts - the bulk of which had been filled before they first moved in together - if she divorced Bob she would not only have to 'give' him half the house, but that she would also have to pay him maintainance. fortunately (financially), nature intervened, so she didn't have to give him a penny.

now i'm not suggesting that this exactly paralells your situation or that this is the way of all 'unequal' relationships, but if you do live together, and at some stage move home, his name is going to go on the deeds - particularly if you want to have children - and you need to be aware that as soon as the ink is dry he'll 'own' half the house and the equity that you provided.

my advice is that if you need to think hard about that, then you'll not be comfortable living with it, and that could cause resentment on your side and fearsome resentment on his if you decide not to put the new house in joint names.

good luck, but it takes the wisdom of Solomon to keep it on a even keel.

Otis Driftwood

Well OP,what you need to decide is whats most important to you.

What he earns or who he is.

Im sure if you asked him about it he wouldnt want to be with someone that resented him for not being good enough financially.

Money and status is something that is obviously important to you.

Its just a matter of deciding what is more important to you.

Good luck to you.

OS119

nedtheshed wrote: »

Well OP,what you need to decide is whats most important to you.

What he earns or who he is.

Im sure if you asked him about it he wouldnt want to be with someone that resented him for not being good enough financially.

Money and status is something that is obviously important to you.

Its just a matter of deciding what is more important to you.

Good luck to you.

you miss the point, its not about money and status per se, its about the gap - and three times is a biiiiig gap - between what she brings to the pot, and what he brings to the pot, and then how comfortable each party is about how much they then take out of the pot.

if he can only afford an unreliable old banger, should she put her hand in her pocket for a 2 year old Ford Focus?

how about if he can't afford a mobile phone - should she buy him one and pay for the contract?

what about Christmas, how will he feel if she buys him a €300 watch and he gives her a €40 neckless? how uncomfortable will he feel if they have a conversation about a spending limit so that situation doesn't arise?

if he's not comfortable about being 'subsidised', should she settle for a weeks' holiday in Donegal when she could easily afford (and would like) two weeks in Egypt?

should he buy his clothes in Primark and she in Hobbs?

if the monthly bills are €2000, and he puts €600 in the pot, how happy will she be about him spending €200 on a pair of jeans - or spending €500 going to a friends stag weekend?

the big difference in spending power - and spending habbits - is going to be the problem, not how much they have in total.

Stheno

Unregistered wrote: »

If you are committed to each other and love each other the money shouldn't really come in to it. So what if he doesn't earn as much as you, at least he has a job and isn't some waster who refuses to work.

Money shouldn't but it can and does, if he earns 30k, then she earns 90k, and in a given year will pay more in total tax than he earns in gross pay, that's a big big difference in incomes.

OS119 wrote: »

Hi OP,

as you've probably noticed, significant differences in income can throw problems into a relationship, it can cause resentment on both sides, as well as embarrassment, and needs constant 'management' to avoid bent feelings.

put simply, its embarrassing having your partner always pay for things - particularly if you couldn't do those things if he/she wasn't paying - and if the other person isn't embarrassed, the one who does always pay for things can get pretty resentful. it works the other way around as well, its actually easy to get resentful at wealth you get to partake in, but have no control over, and are 'at the mercy' of.

now, two intelligent people who are aware of the issue and work hard to ensure that the other person isn't put in difficult or embarrassing positions can happily succeed, but, and here's the but, if it all goes wrong then it can get very bitter indeed.

well said, I'd agree with the above.

as an example - this is from English Divorce law, but its, imho, instructive.

a friend, 'Sarah', while at uni training to be a civil engineer, met and fell in love with 'Bob'. Bob was a self-employed carpet fitter and doing well in the world. eventually they bought a house together, but as Sarah was the 'saving up' type, Bob was the 'spend it while you're alive' type, only Sarah had any money saved up and she provided the deposit, though the mortgage was based on their combined incomes. they soon married and all went well for a year until Bob's business collapsed and he couldn't find work. then the jealousies, insecurities and resentments started. because now all their income rested on Sarah, and almost all of it went on mortgage, bills and food, they couldn't do the 'extra' things that make life fun, and while Sarah had work and friends, Bob had nothing but daytime tv.

four years of this, no kids and Sarah decides she's had enough. Bob is now a bitter, resentful, jealous, demanding layabout who couldn't get work in a Gulag, and isn't fun to live with. Sarah discovers that even though demonstratably she's been the only one paying any bills, and that all the deposit came from her accounts - the bulk of which had been filled before they first moved in together - if she divorced Bob she would not only have to 'give' him half the house, but that she would also have to pay him maintainance. fortunately (financially), nature intervened, so she didn't have to give him a penny.

now i'm not suggesting that this exactly paralells your situation or that this is the way of all 'unequal' relationships, but if you do live together, and at some stage move home, his name is going to go on the deeds - particularly if you want to have children - and you need to be aware that as soon as the ink is dry he'll 'own' half the house and the equity that you provided.

my advice is that if you need to think hard about that, then you'll not be comfortable living with it, and that could cause resentment on your side and fearsome resentment on his if you decide not to put the new house in joint names.

The OP doesn't have to choose to have her bf's name on the deeds, a potential solution here is for her to possibly rent out her house and hope to cover the mortgage that way and move into a house/apt with her bf.

If they end up getting married that house is still hers, it's her name on the deeds and in the event of a divorce that would carry weight in terms of weighing up who got what.

OS119 wrote: »

you miss the point, its not about money and status per se, its about the gap - and three times is a biiiiig gap - between what she brings to the pot, and what he brings to the pot, and then how comfortable each party is about how much they then take out of the pot.

if he can only afford an unreliable old banger, should she put her hand in her pocket for a 2 year old Ford Focus?

how about if he can't afford a mobile phone - should she buy him one and pay for the contract?

what about Christmas, how will he feel if she buys him a €300 watch and he gives her a €40 neckless? how uncomfortable will he feel if they have a conversation about a spending limit so that situation doesn't arise?

if he's not comfortable about being 'subsidised', should she settle for a weeks' holiday in Donegal when she could easily afford (and would like) two weeks in Egypt?

should he buy his clothes in Primark and she in Hobbs?

if the monthly bills are €2000, and he puts €600 in the pot, how happy will she be about him spending €200 on a pair of jeans - or spending €500 going to a friends stag weekend?

the big difference in spending power - and spending habbits - is going to be the problem, not how much they have in total.

I know several couples in this situation, two seperated, two happily married. One of the married couples treat their total joint income as one unit of income and cover everything out of joint income regardless of who brings it in, and discuss any expenditure they plan for themselves. Another married couple split their income/bills proportionately so that the lower earner contributes on a par with their income, and has more disposable income as a result, but is contributing "equally"

The two seperated couples were similiar to the married couples and when it came to hammering out agreements, one ended up in a very very nasty and bitter case which is still being resolved,whilst the other managed to agree a financial settlement which benefitted the lower earner significantly but didn't hugely impact on the higher earner.

It's nice to think that love/commitment can work through these things but it takes serious effort and time on both parties parts.

Best of luck OP, one key thing I'd have to point out to you is that if you are asking for advice here on a discussion board prior to talking about it with your bf/oh, it would suggest there is a reluctance by one or both of you to tackle the issue, which really is the first thing you need to do if you are to make any progress.

Splendour

I don't get it? Why should it play on your mind? It's not a business arrangement. If you were with a guy who was earning 3 times as much as you, would you be posting here saying it's a problem?! Is it because you are female and he (obviously) is male?

Coffee Addict

Do you love him?
Do you want to live with him, be with him & share your life with him?
If so then you have answered your question.

If this was the other way around, would we be having this discussion?

Fluorescence

Coffee Addict wrote: »

Do you love him?
Do you want to live with him, be with him & share your life with him?
If so then you have answered your question.

If this was the other way around, would we be having this discussion?

I don't think that's a necessarily fair question. If he earned 3 times HER income then she could be accused of gold-digging. Money is a delicate subject in either case.

OP, do what you feel is right. Talk to him and see how he sees the situation

Otis Driftwood

Splendour wrote: »

I don't get it? Why should it play on your mind? It's not a business arrangement. If you were with a guy who was earning 3 times as much as you, would you be posting here saying it's a problem?! Is it because you are female and he (obviously) is male?

+1,000,000

If a guy posted here saying "I earn 70k per annum and she earns 25k per annum,because of this Im not sure if we have a future",he would be torn a new one,and rightly so.You can dress it up any way you want folks,but thats what the OP is saying,albeit in a roundabout way.

But because the "traditional" roles are reversed,the brigade that scream equality appear.

Its laughable.

The fact of the matter is,snobbery exists,and will always exist.

Some people are just more honest about it than others.

Otis Driftwood

fluorescence wrote: »

I don't think that's a necessarily fair question. If he earned 3 times HER income then she could be accused of gold-digging.

So when you go on a date with someone for the first time,a reference check is a pre-requisite,ya?

When people meet,as these 2 appear to have met,pretty much randomly(she hasnt said otherwise),could one (male/female) be accused of being a gold digger because the other happens to be earning an above average salary?

Maybe if one is widely known to be a wealthy person,the suspicion could be there,but other wise,thats a flawed logic.

castle

When I first met my future wife I earned 5 times more than she did,owned my own house etc,
she moved in and we just got on with it,I did not say well you must pay half ESB,Gas,Shopping etc,I knew she could not afford to so I treated it as though we where married.
Bills got paid and that was it,I could of said well you need to pay 1/5 as you earn 5 times less so that would be fair.
I did not think for one second that she was with me for my big salary or that I had a house,I think you are letting family,friends have an opinion on your relationship.
Even if this guy was on the dole like so many are now do you suggest dump them because they have little money.
You are worried about what other people think the famous Irish trait.
If this guy loves you like no other and you love him money should not come into.
Please don't ever in a row turn to him and say this is my house and I buy this,that etc.
Don't think you are better because you earn more.
If you are having doubt's to why he is with you then let him go as you don't deserve him.
Put the shoe on the other foot would he behave like you(I don't think so).
This is your business as a couple don't involve other's(except Boards of course).
I think you might be in your 30s but you sure act as though you are either spoiled or just turned 18.Time to grow up and smell the coffee and relize how lucky you are to have a guy that loves you.
It is not a crime to be poor or to live at home in case you don't know.
I wonder if Bill Gates had though like you,remember he was riches man in world and guess what married someone who was not less than 50K a year,
That is about 10,000000000 time's more than she earned, guess what they loved each other and are still together,
Please put you priority's right,
Best of luck

MJOR

Ultimately I think If i were you I'd be looking at it like this:

Do you love him?
Does he make you happy?
Does he have a good work ethic?
Do you share similar attitudes to spending?


Just to let you know I have my own place and have had for five years this month. I am marrying my Bf in Dec and he still lives at home. Admittedly there is no huge gap in our earnings but I suppose answer the questions above and answer them honestly. Be honest with yourself and what you want from this relationship. I understand where you are coming from but don't allow other peoples opinions affect what might just be a great relationships. Of course their worries are real, but perhaps not necesssery

LegacyUser

Very good advice, Castle and MJOR

Jo King

The best thing to do is live at the level of the lower income and the higher earner can invest the surplus. That way the lower earner does not feel inadequate. The higher earner should use their discretion about how much to reveal of their financial position.

OS119

Jo King wrote: »

The best thing to do is live at the level of the lower income and the higher earner can invest the surplus. That way the lower earner does not feel inadequate. The higher earner should use their discretion about how much to reveal of their financial position.

sorry, that's ridiculous.

firstly the OP can't hide the fact that, on her own, she's bought a house. she lives in it. she probably drives a much nicer car, has much more expensive holidays, eats at more expensive resturaunts and wears more expensive clothes than her BF. so, unless she can convince him she bought all that with monopoly money, its a non-starter.

secondly, are you serious? really?

you go to university, work at your studies and take a part-time job so you don't leave with a debt that would shame Zimbabwe, get a decent job comensurate with your talents and education, and then live on a third of your annual salary, drive an old banger, take a weeks summer holiday in a shabby caravan in Tralee, live in a smaller house in a cheaper area, go without all the newest gadgets, and wear Primark instead of Hobbs for 40 years?

really, just so he doesn't feel uncomfortable?

Jo King

OS119 wrote: »

sorry, that's ridiculous.

firstly the OP can't hide the fact that, on her own, she's bought a house. she lives in it. she probably drives a much nicer car, has much more expensive holidays, eats at more expensive resturaunts and wears more expensive clothes than her BF. so, unless she can convince him she bought all that with monopoly money, its a non-starter.

The o/p's existing assets are not going to be the problem. she can rent out the house and move in elsewhere with the BF. The big issue is going to be ongoing expenses. Clothes are unlikely to be a problem either. He is unlikely to care how much she spends on clothes. The problem is going to be restaurants and holidays and other activities. He will feel inadequate if he is being pressed into going to places he cannot afford or alternatively he becomes a parasite who bleeds the o/p white before dumping her.

OS119 wrote: »

secondly, are you serious? really?

you go to university, work at your studies and take a part-time job so you don't leave with a debt that would shame Zimbabwe, get a decent job comensurate with your talents and education, and then live on a third of your annual salary, drive an old banger, take a weeks summer holiday in a shabby caravan in Tralee, live in a smaller house in a cheaper area, go without all the newest gadgets, and wear Primark instead of Hobbs for 40 years?

really, just so he doesn't feel uncomfortable?

I know a lot of people who earn or have a lot of money and do not show it in their lifestyles. Just because someone went to university does not mean they have to be ostentatious about it.
A decent job commensurate withe your talents and education? A job pays what the market level for the post is. Many highly educated and talented people earn very little, e.g scientests, historians etc. Many people with little enough in the way of education and talent earn quite a lot.
No one needs to drive an expensive car. Many quite old cars do the job perfectly well. The surplus money can be invested to pay for an early retirement or one off big ticket items.

LegacyUser

Is he happy doing what he does?
Would he be unhappy doing a different better paying job?
If he was doing a diffrent job, would that change him as a person?

I work for myself and earn enough but not loads. I like what I do. The hours suit me and commuting to work and doing a 9 to 5 would kill me; i did it for years and it wasn't for me. If I had to give up what I do I wouldn't be me and it would change me and our relationship.