How Dutch couples share living costs!

Spinelli

Hi, I moved in with my dutch gf recently and she says they usually split the rent and costs on a propotional basis of salaries! I told her in Ireland it's usually 50/50, unless of course one is making a lot more than the other e.g. one is a student. I earn 20% more than her.

Any advice??

deman

If you are living in Ireland, pay 50:50.
If you are living in Holland, pay 20% more.
If you are living elsewhere, split it to 10%.

Simple.

LegacyUser

What did your girlfriend say when you said it's 50:50 in Ireland? If she point blank refused to compromise, well then you're in a relationship with a girl who believes everything should go her way. Same goes for you if you don't want to compromise either.

If that's the case, both of you need to grow up before the relationship goes down the drain!

flower tattoo

We used to split it 50% of our respective wages.
Seems fairest.

I am a friend

We used to pay pro rata to our wages. seemed fair to me.

Squiggler

I think it is only fair that whoever is earning more pays more. Too often people end up in financial distress trying to keep up with a higher earning partner. 20% is a pretty significant difference, might mean you having lots of disposable income while she's barely able to make her share of the bills... and when it comes to holidays etc. she might end up in debt trying to pay for them.

As a side note, I don't think it is ever a good sign when couples are starting out living together with financial disputes. What will you do if either of you loses your job? Would the unemployed person still be expected to pay their 50%?

King of Kings

50/50 unless you share money like a joint account.
If you don't pool your money as in 1 money pot then why should you pay for more of the rent.

If she earned 20% more would she insist you paid less?

LegacyUser

OP, if you earn 20% more, well then you studied/worked damn hard to earn that 20% extra. Not saying your gf worked less as such, just that she made her career choice& you can't be accountable for subsidising her day-to-day living expenses.
After all, this divide you're talking about is for FIXED things like rent/electricity/heating/food, not holidays or socialising (which, fair enough, you might consider treating her to the odd time, as the higher earner).
Equally, if she's in debt, though you may love her, that is her responsibility, not yours; you're not married to her, and breakups happen; you're her boyfriend, not her piggybank.

Setun

I've been living in the Netherlands with my dutch girlfriend for about 18 months now, and we don't have any explicit income-dependent agreement about splitting bills or rent. If she has had a particuarly expensive month and is a bit short, I would cover a bit more of the rent, and vice versa. Works well for us

LegacyUser

If she can't afford the rent then move to a cheaper apartment that she can afford

Chinafoot

King of Kings wrote: »

50/50 unless you share money like a joint account.
If you don't pool your money as in 1 money pot then why should you pay for more of the rent.

Agree with this.

OP, unless your girlfriend makes very little money meaning bills and rent would be a struggle for her and once you are actually happy to cover her costs so you can live together, then I would go with 50/50 myself.

I don't understand this "you make more so you pay more" attitude. I know all the arguments about how the one with more money will want expensive holidays and material things so the one making less will get themselves in debt if they are made to pay half. To me this would only be acceptable if the person making more money is the one driving a more expensive standard of living. We can't make that assumption here when we have no idea how much either of these people make.

Making more money doesn't mean you use more electricity, hot water, food etc.

DamagedTrax

i would agree on a proportional basis. you enter into the next phase of a relationship if you move in with someone, not a business partnership. surely the idea is to move forward as a couple, this means putting salary differences aside and working to a happy future together. if it causes resentment to the higher earner then they should probably consider not being at that stage of the relationship.

Daisy M

We have always put everything into the one "pot". There have been times over the years when my husband has been the higher earner and times when I have been. Since we have had children and I remained at home to mind them recently returning to work part time, my monetary contribution has been considerably less than my husbands this has never been an issue as any money we ever had has been ours. I do think in a serious committed relationship this is the way to go. We are together over 20 years and have only ever had a couple of disagreements about money and I think that this is because we set a precedent of how money would be handled from the beginning.

PhoenixParker

Spinelli wrote: »

Hi, I moved in with my dutch gf recently and she says they usually split the rent and costs on a propotional basis of salaries! I told her in Ireland it's usually 50/50, unless of course one is making a lot more than the other e.g. one is a student. I earn 20% more than her.

Any advice??

Her suggestion isn't unreasonable and it's not uncommon in Ireland to do it that way.

I think you're naive to assume a 50:50 split is the fairest way to go, or even that it's workable. A couple in a relationship tend to have most of the same costs, whether it be dinners out, holidays or the monthly bills. If you're spending to your salary, she's going to end up in a heap of debt unless you compromise. If you're willing to compromise and limit your own spending to her salary, you'll end up with a whole heap of savings which may be fairer but may also end up as a source of resentment.

_ariadne

50:50 might work for housemates or if both partners happen to be earning roughly the same amount, but i don't see how it could ever work for a long term committed relationship.

50:50 puts all kinds of limitations on you, firstly you end up living somewhere inferior to where you as a couple might want, so that the lower earner can afford to pay their half. you cant socialize/go on holidays as much as you might want for the same reason. and the higher earner is left with their extra earnings, but to do what with? cant save for a joint car/holiday/home because the other partner would never be able to afford their half. Obviously you could spend it on nice things just for you like a new wardrobe or something, but is that really what you want to spend your hard earned money on?

personally I have a one pot of money system with my partner, so we don't split anything. whats mine is his and vice versa.

Chinafoot

_ariadne wrote: »

50:50 puts all kinds of limitations on you, firstly you end up living somewhere inferior to where you as a couple might want, so that the lower earner can afford to pay their half. you cant socialize/go on holidays as much as you might want for the same reason. and the higher earner is left with their extra earnings, but to do what with? cant save for a joint car/holiday/home because the other partner would never be able to afford their half.

All of that is based purely on the assumption that there is a huge difference between what each person is making. We have no idea what the OP or his girlfriend makes.

If the OP isn't comfortable paying more than half the costs of living together then he is entitled to feel that way. It doesn't sound as if this is a relationship where they have been going out for years so I don't think its fair to expect him to start pooling all of his finances with his girlfriend.

neuro-praxis

Chinafoot wrote: »

If the OP isn't comfortable paying more than half the costs of living together then he is entitled to feel that way. It doesn't sound as if this is a relationship where they have been going out for years so I don't think its fair to expect him to start pooling all of his finances with his girlfriend.

Why live with someone if you don't want to share your lives? Money is not a big deal (unless you've got none). If both are generous then there are no worries.

Me and my husband pool everything (and always have done, since we were dating as teenagers). What's mine is his etc. etc.

strandroad

I don't think it's based on nationality in any way, it just depends on how a couple sorts it out.

If both are on similar salaries their contributions won't be much different anyway, but if one is a successful senior employee and the other is on a college grant or on welfare it would be mad to base their lifestyle on what the student can afford; you can take every last cent off him/her and the more well off person still won't be living the life they are used to.

murpho999

Have a Dutch wife and we moved in together first she wanted each of us to have a separate account and then a joint account to cover household bills that we each contribute too.

I found it very cold and also a hassle as you then needed two bank cards and also two pins to remember (in Holland you couldn't pick your own pin!).

Eventually, we just went with one account and shared our money. My attitude is that we were a 'we' so no need for separating of funds.

Been like that for about 13 years now and it's never been a problem.

Don't understand why a loving couple in long term committed relationship would be insisting on separate funds etc....all sounds very cold to me, but that's just me!

Chinafoot

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Why live with someone if you don't want to share your lives? Money is not a big deal (unless you've got none). If both are generous then there are no worries.

Me and my husband pool everything (and always have done, since we were dating as teenagers). What's mine is his etc. etc.

Hah, I do love this. So basically unless you are willing to pool all of your finances with someone you have just moved in with (and may have only been with a reasonably short period of time) there's no point in living together because you obviously don't want to "share your lives".And those who choose to keep separate finances aren't generous. Wow.

I'm not even going to get into how insulting a statement that is because I know there is feck all point when it comes to you.

All I will say is that the OP is asking about his living situation, not what you did as a teenager. He wants to go 50/50 and his girlfriend wants him to pay 20% more of their living costs because he makes more money. He most certainly doesn't need to be told that by not handing over all of his finances to his girlfriend he's not sharing his life with her. Wanting to split household bills like rent and utilities equally does not make you cold, it doesn't make you mean with money and it most certianly doesn't make your relationship less loving or committed.

OP, do whatever you feel comfortable doing.

LegacyUser

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Why live with someone if you don't want to share your lives? Money is not a big deal (unless you've got none). If both are generous then there are no worries.

Me and my husband pool everything (and always have done, since we were dating as teenagers). What's mine is his etc. etc.

My parents have been married 35 years and have never had one pot of money. They've both kept their own accounts and have a joint account set up for joint bills. They each have their own hobbies and interests that they spend their money on without the others input and of course help each other out if they run short but this notion of whats mine is yours doesn't work for every relationship. It doesn't mean a couple don't love each other or the relationship isn't working [my parents have no plans to divorce].

Myself and my OH have recently moved in together and we don't share our money but also don't split the bills 50/50 - rent is split 50/50, utilities are decided upon as they come in as I can work some days from home and would use more and I pay a little bit more of the Internet/TV bill as we wanted the bigger package but it would have left my OH struggling to cover 50% of it. We discussed it and were both happy to get that package and for me to cover more of the bill for now.

The OP needs to sit down and talk with his girlfriend and figure out what works for them. As they've just moved into together I would be slow to start doing joint accounts for everything but I'm not the OP or his GF, they need to figure out how their relationship is or isn't going to work.

neuro-praxis

Hey, if you've a problem with any of my posts feel free to report them.






-
Edited to say: that was directed at Chinafoot, not at the anon poster above, whose post just appeared.

I agree. Everyone needs to do what works for them. I just shared my perspective - there's enormous freedom in pooling the resources. Even if you split everything, as I said if everyone's generous, then there's nothing to worry about. I consider money, if there's enough to survive, pretty unimportant. Not exactly controversial.

DamagedTrax

Chinafoot wrote: »

Hah, I do love this. So basically unless you are willing to pool all of your finances with someone you have just moved in with (and may have only been with a reasonably short period of time) .

i think a lot of people are assuming that moving in together is a first step to spending your lives together and not something to be done flipantly after a reasonably short period of time, i know thats how i'd think... but each to their own.

Neyite

It really depends on the couple. I have operated a one-pot system with my partner since we began sharing a household. During that time we have both had periods of unemployment where it put pressure on the other. He pays certain bills, I pay others and everyday expenses are paid by whoever has the cash at the time.

My sister and her partner split everything 50:50 - even when one of them was unemployed.

My concern is that it may be proportional now with you paying more, what happens if she gets sick or loses her job? do you then pay 100% because she has no income? If you got a pay cut, does it get readjusted in your favour?

Daisy M

I am not saying our "one pot" system is the way everyone should go, it works for us and always has. It meant when we both decided it was best if I became a stay at home mum while the children were samll, I never looked at the money coming in as my husbands it was ours and went into our joint account.
I think the one pot system works if you both have similar personal expenditure but I doubt the anyone would want this if their other half spent money like it was going out of fashion. I know many couples who keep separate bank accounts and a joint one for joint bills but still consider the money coming in as theirs.

yellowcrayon

I think splitting things more or less evenly works the best in my opinion.

My parents had 'one pot'; my dad was working and my mother wasnt and it caused a lot of money problems because unfortunately one person can throw it at the other that they pay the bills and you dont.. etc....

Ive only been living with my partner for just over a year (although been together longer then that) and we split things evenly... He earns over 3 times as much as me, but we still split the rent evenly, and the food bills, electric etc.
Im on the verge of unemployment as my hours at work have been cut to 10hrs a week, and my hourly rate cut, but I know if I lose my job or give it up Il have to do something to bring in my half of the rent, I wouldnt expect him to cough up my half too.

I think the 'one pot' scenario can work great for couples with children where one parent stays at home, but for newly cohabiting couples I dont think it would work at all.

Its true that the lesser earner cant afford holidays and nights out, but it also prevents arguments I think, as no one can say, 'No you cant watch that programme, Im watching this, and because I pay the Sky bill I get to choose.'.. as childish as it sounds Ive heard it all before listening to my parents when I lived at home.

This is all just my opinion now OP, but I think things should be 50:50. If you both agreed on a place to live, then she should have been prepared to pay exactly half of the rent. And if you signed up to Sky, Eircom etc together, then she should also be prepared to pay half.

DamagedTrax

i can see your points yellowcrayon but what happens if the lesser earning partner decided they dont want sky+ because of the extra cost? does the higher earner go without or still go ahead and get it? if they go ahead then surely that will still lead to the same arguements, unless the lesser earner is expected to avert their eyes every time its on.
if they paid a proportional amount then at least both are making a contribution.

just my way of looking at it.

yellowcrayon

I know what you mean

Thats actually the situation I have for example. We had sky in the house since we moved in, and himself wanted the sports and movies and the whole lot, so i continued paying my normal amount whilst he payed extra for the movies and sports. Thats fair I think.. And ur right, thats the way it should be, instead of the lesser earner having to pay for someone elses want.

Whats your opinion tho, DamagedTrax? Should everything be 50:50, or should bills, rent etc be based on earnings. Because I do believe if my partner earns more money that he deserves it, as he's worked hard to earn it and its not his fault he has a better job than me ... Although he does treat me :cool:, i think if he has a lot of excess money after paying bills then thats his to spend, instead of him using it to pay more of the rent or eircom or sky bill.

P. Breathnach

If this is a real conflict point, I'd worry about the relationship. I'd like to think you are engaged in a constructive discussion, not a row.

Bear in mind that if one member of a couple earns a good deal more than the other, they might jointly live a bit more expensively than if they were both on the lower income level. If that were the case, it might be fair that the person on the higher income contribute more.

In OP's case, he proposes paying 50% of the joint expenses; his partner proposes paying (give or take a fraction) 45%. So apply both proposals: his 50% and her 45%. That covers 95%. Now apply the same formula to the 5% deficit. That brings you up to a shortfall of 0.25%; do more calculations, or toss a coin.

squonk

I think the OP's gf is pulling a fast one. We seem to have established from anecdotal evidence here anyway that not all couples in Holland operate proportionally. I agree that we don't know the specifics but general household costs are going to be about the same for 2 as for 1. From what i see it enables her to pay less but benefit from your stronger earning power. If you go out and the meal comes to 50, is she proposing that you pay 30, while she pays 20? That's hardly fair! I'd prefer a 50:50 split. 20% isn't that much of a difference. Infact, I cant speak for holland, but if the OP's salary here bring him just over the 40% tax barrier and the gf is still on the 20% rate, then the calculation isn't that simple.

I think she's playing things in her favour OP.

kraggy

Chinafoot wrote: »

All of that is based purely on the assumption that there is a huge difference between what each person is making. We have no idea what the OP or his girlfriend makes.

If the OP isn't comfortable paying more than half the costs of living together then he is entitled to feel that way. It doesn't sound as if this is a relationship where they have been going out for years so I don't think its fair to expect him to start pooling all of his finances with his girlfriend.

This.

A lot of people who are saying that they pool money into one pot each month are probably together for years or married. This is a first time living arrangment for the OP and his girlfriend.

They could break up next month if they are only going with each other that long. Why should he pay more than her?

If they were married then yes, one pot is fine, but why should his hard earned cash go towards subsidising her lifestyle right now?

P. Breathnach

kraggy wrote: »

... Why should he pay more than her?

If they were married then yes, one pot is fine, but why should his hard earned cash go towards subsidising her lifestyle right now?

There is a difference between an accommodation share between friends and two people living together as a couple.

kraggy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is a difference between an accommodation share between friends and two people living together as a couple.

Not if they've been going with each other for say, 6 months. If they're both young and have other future expenses to pay for such as a Masters or some other project, then break up after a year, he could feasibly have delayed his opportunity because he subsidised her rent etc.

Like I said, if they were going out with each other for a few years and had lived together for a while already to the extent that they were both confident that they were going to last, then fair enough, one pot.

But most people have lived with many partners. If this is the OP's first, What happens if he ends up subsiding all of them in the future?

I think people who support the one pot idea may be older and in longer relationships. I am myself, but was once young and lived with other partners. If I had paid more than 50% in all those relationships, which i thought were going to last, but didn't, I'd be a little miffed.

LegacyUser

Finances are one of the main causes of break-ups in relationships and not something to take lightly, OP.

I have always made less than all my exes and make about 25-30% less than my husband. For me, I'd never expect or want any of them to "subsidise" me nor would I ever want to be in a relationship with someone that's counting dollars and cents neither. For me it was not an issue of financial autonomy but more of trust, respect and compromise.

Anyone in a relationship needs to discuss finances and their "style" of living before proceeding further. For some it may be living in a larger flat, driving a luxury car and taking exotic vacations for others it can be living somewhere small, using public transport and vacationing closer to home. I will be honest I had my share of bfs that were very generous and some pr!cks who were counting their pennies and ridiculing my choice of profession because of lack of pay as these guys were more infatuated with money instead of true happiness in one's career choice.

However, your situation really depends on what quality of life you want and what your gf wants. And you need to determine if you are both financially compatible (talking practicalities not actual figures). Your gf that makes less than you, what is her standard of living now? Is she somebody that lives within her means? Or is she somebody that wants the nice vacations, expensive dinners, living in some exclusive neighbourhood? You do not want to subsidise someone that does not live within her means and wants what she can’t afford and expects you to foot the costs. But if she is financially responsible modest and lives within her means, she may get annoyed if you are someone that is counting pennies and who splits things down the middle all the time.

My suggestion is to find something that suits her budget fairly that won't put her in financial duress. You need to ask her what she can afford multiply that by two and research what flats and locations you can let based on that budget. If it's in a neighbourhood that is not safe and you will be living with cockroaches than you have to make the decision if you want to proceed and be willing to contribute more. If you do not, than this may answer the question that you are both not financially compatible. Personally, I would not be very happy to be with someone that may eventually "resent" me later because he contributes more. But keep in mind that in all relationships there needs to be a reasonable compromise.

fungun

you are suggesting paying rent 50:50.
she is suggesting paying rent 60:40 based on salaries (or 120:100 maybe)

Seriously, if you cannot work this out so both of you are happy, I fear for your future. Either compromise to a point in the middle or one of you decide its more important to the other than it is to you, and are happy to let it go.

But if neither of you are happy to let it go and neither willing to compromise, then Id think again about living together. This type of issue will come up again and again and if you cant deal with it yourselves you will end up being angry a lot

Jenneke87

As a Dutchwoman I can say that what your girlfriend said is not all that uncommon here. I've lived a while in Ireland and found that Irish people in general are more easy going when it comes to money than Dutch people are, who tend to be very precise about who pays what. If she can afford 50/50 it of course be fairer to do it that way, but if she can't, would it be that bad to consider her idea?

Emme

Spinelli wrote: »

Hi, I moved in with my dutch gf recently and she says they usually split the rent and costs on a propotional basis of salaries! I told her in Ireland it's usually 50/50, unless of course one is making a lot more than the other e.g. one is a student. I earn 20% more than her.

Any advice??

I can see her point. I had a boyfriend who wanted me to move in with him and go 50:50 on everything including his mortgage. He earned almost twice as much as me. He wanted me to pay half his mortgage and he would use the money he saved to buy an investment property for himself.

We had already been going 50:50 on dates which was fine, but I was trying to save and paying half of his mortgage would have left me with nothing to spare. He was adamant about me going 50:50 on the mortgage and living costs despite him earning significantly more so I ended the relationship on the basis that I couldn't afford it. It was a sorry day but it's true that money is one of the major causes of couples splitting up.

I think that the Dutch system of splitting rent and costs on a proportional basis is fair. The Dutch have a healthy and open attitude to money and other things in general. This is going off the point, but which country has a healthier economy, Ireland or the Netherlands?

yellowcrayon

I cant believe he expected you to pay half HIS mortgage :eek:

squonk

^ ^ ^
I don't see that as unreasonable. Heck, what was the alternative? Both move out and rent and pay potentially a mortgage AND rent until someone was found to rent the house? The poster was living in the house too. She was right to end it if it was too expensive for her.

LegacyUser

<Mod Snip>

Poster we have split your post into your own thread to prevent it pulling this one off topic.

Taltos

Seraphina

Go 50/50

Speaking from experience, people are not always the same once you've moved in with them, and things can go pear shaped pretty rapidly!
Unless you're 100% certain this is long term, splitting things evenly is the best way to go.

Lolajay

Well, my sister is with a Dutch guy and he was earning more than her and he paid a lot more towards rent than she did now she has gone back to college and he is paying the rent and giving her an allowance.

yellowcrayon

yellowcrayon wrote: »

I cant believe he expected you to pay half HIS mortgage :eek:

Would you expect to move into an owner-occupier property and pay less because you earn less? They might have been in a relationship, but I still don't see why some people seem to think it's fine to essentially live off a weathier partner. It's never occured to me, except for one short period where I was being emergency taxed and earning next to nothing, to pay less than my fair share of the rent. Unless my partner absolutely insisted on getting a nicer place than I could afford and insisted that he didn't mind paying the difference, then I don't see why 50-50 isn't fair.

dearg lady

Arian Red Tomcat wrote: »

Would you expect to move into an owner-occupier property and pay less because you earn less? They might have been in a relationship, but I still don't see why some people seem to think it's fine to essentially live off a weathier partner. It's never occured to me, except for one short period where I was being emergency taxed and earning next to nothing, to pay less than my fair share of the rent. Unless my partner absolutely insisted on getting a nicer place than I could afford and insisted that he didn't mind paying the difference, then I don't see why 50-50 isn't fair.

I'd say it depends how much the mortgage is versus rent. For example if my partner could easily afford their mortgage on their own and then I moved in I would expect to pay a rental amount, which is usually (though not always!) less than what half the mortgage would be.

Daisy M

Arian Red Tomcat wrote: »

Would you expect to move into an owner-occupier property and pay less because you earn less? They might have been in a relationship, but I still don't see why some people seem to think it's fine to essentially live off a weathier partner. It's never occured to me, except for one short period where I was being emergency taxed and earning next to nothing, to pay less than my fair share of the rent. Unless my partner absolutely insisted on getting a nicer place than I could afford and insisted that he didn't mind paying the difference, then I don't see why 50-50 isn't fair.

When you choose to rent, you choose the area and type of house you want and which you can afford. The poster in question was been given none of these options. It was obviously going to cost her more to live with him, contribute towards the mortgage with no gain in it for her. He was secure in the knowledge that one day he would have a mortgage free home and an investment property while she would be paying the same as him but have no asset.
He earned twice as much as her and they always went 50/50. Its a funny mindset to have if you believe you love someone would you not want to treat them a little.

yellowcrayon

@Arian Red Tomcat: If you looked at my previous posts I said that I do think 50:50 is best. The reason I was a little shocked is because he expected her to pay half his mortgage. If my name wasnt on the deeds, I wouldnt be paying half.. I would contribute, but no way would I pay half, because you are paying half their mortgage and have nothing to show for it.
Me and my partner pay 50:50, but we both have our names on the lease, so we equally own the place. But if it was just his name on it, Id contribute, but not pay half. Especially because then he could throw me out and I wouldnt have a leg to stand on.