MayoSalmon wrote: » 50/50 equality feminism all that no?!!
Murrisk wrote: The female is often the higher earner these days so paying proportionately doesn't mean the male is worse off.
One_Of_Shanks wrote: » Ah well most people just mean staying together forever etc. Marriage is just a quick way of summing it up, for the purpose of this topic. I'm not even married myself, despite being with herself for 14 years. But when people call her my wife I know what they mean. It saves time.
theteal wrote: » Is moving in together just for the craic? I'd assume the whole moving in would be the start of the rest of ye're lives. Marriage makes little to no difference on top of that. It just surprised me that a few people have made mention of the split being different depending marital status as opposed to accommodation status.
anon808 wrote: » As above, I'm just wondering how couples split rent when they are living together? Do you do it 50/50? Based on income? Based on what you can afford? Savings? Basically my partner and I moved in together about 2 months ago. We currently do everything 50/50 (rent and bills).? It's actually working out more expensive for me now compared to when I was housesharing as everything was split between 4 of us then. I'm not on the breadline or anything but my savings ability has taken a huge hit and I'm now only saving 100-200 per month, compared to about 400-500 in the past, which is significant as I want to save a deposit for a house. He, on the other hand, is now saving more as he used to pay a lot more for rent and bills. Also, he earns about 2.5 times what I do and is saving circa 1000 a month. Some friends said they used to pro-rata with their partner based on Net Income and others said they did it 50/50 as why should it cost someone more to live with their partner than if they didn't? I'm just looking for opinions on how others do it. If enough people think I should raise it with him, I might. If not, I'll just leave it and keep going on as we are!
_Brian wrote: » we were married in 1995
Murrisk wrote: » They don't necessarily work harder though. If the relationship proceeds to marriage this is a recipe for disaster.
catrionanic wrote: » If you're in it for the long haul, then you're a partnership and should pool your finances.
_Brian wrote: » It's a long time ago now but the week we moved in together we opened a joint account and all money was pooled, all bills expenses paid from that.
Alexia Repulsive Munitions wrote: » All costs split 50/50 imo. I don't see fairness in one paying more than the other regardless of income. The higher earner should be left with more disposable income and should be able to save more as they earn more and are entitled to benefit from this.
bertsmom wrote: » As a lady I cannot understand why it should be less than 50/50. I have always been the partner on the lower income but I have always paid my half. Why should my partner pay more than I just because they have made better life decisions as regards education and job prospects etc. I don't value promotions in work as it would have an effect on my work/ life balance but if my partner works hard and excels his pay becomes better why should I be rewarded by paying less? I use 50% I pay 50% end of.
anon808 wrote: » both our leases were up around the same time and it just seemed like the next logical step in our relationship.
anon808 wrote: » When I mentioned this to some friends recently, that's when the topic of splitting rent by income came up. To be honest, I hadn't even considered this until then. I actually fully think it should be 50/50 for rent and bills and have no problem with this. But it got me wondering what others do and wondering if the fact that we aren't doing this, does it mean that he isn't as serious about me as I am about him. Which some of the comments seem to indicate.
Victor wrote: Balance.