pacardi Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 My partner and I are having a serious disagreement over rent. Let me run through the situation. We are considering relocating to a medium-sized US city. We've been in a relationship for over two years and have thrown around the idea of marriage. Both of us would like to live in a nice part of town but that may not be feasible, depending on the outcome of this disagreement. Partner 1 makes $30,000 a year. Partner 2 makes $40,000 a year. Partner 1 believes the two should contribute a fair amount relative to each partner's income because contributing an equal amount would put extra financial hardship on Partner 1. Partner 2 believes both partners should contribute equally to rent. Partner 2 says (s)he has earned his/her extra money and (s)he shouldn't have to support Partner 1. Given the context of a long term relationship with a view toward marriage, who is right?
veggirl Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 I agree with Partner 1, rent etc should be divided up based on % of income. Partner 2 should pay more. Ermmm if I was Partner 1, I would actually be considering ending this relationship, Partner 2s comments are out of line and certainly not very marriage-minded. Partner 2 sounds really resentful and bitter. 1
Els Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 My POV would be more aligned towards Partner 1's. However, I don't see a problem with stinging on the place a little (I don't need a very nice house, etc), if it would solve the problem by each person being able to contribute to the other person's liking without straining their budget.
Kamille Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 My POV would be more aligned towards Partner 1's. However, I don't see a problem with stinging on the place a little (I don't need a very nice house, etc), if it would solve the problem by each person being able to contribute to the other person's liking without straining their budget. Agree with this. When I lived with an ex, we contributed according to our fluctuating incomes. But the compromise would be for partner 1 to determine what amount of their income they're comfortable spending on rent (recommended is 30% of income) and the other partner adjusting accordingly.
kaylan Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 People should be able to pull their weight equally. Split right down the middle. If you cant afford the place, you should live somewhere cheaper. 5
oldguy Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 People should be able to pull their weight equally. Split right down the middle. If you cant afford the place, you should live somewhere cheaper. To add to this if the partner making more doesn't like the idea of a less expensive place then they should pay the difference to get a better place. 3
WildHorses Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Wait a minute?! I thought the guy was supposed to pay for everything?! Tee hee. 2
Author pacardi Posted March 30, 2012 Author Posted March 30, 2012 To add to this if the partner making more doesn't like the idea of a less expensive place then they should pay the difference to get a better place. Living in a nicer place is more important to Partner 1 than Partner 2, who makes more. Partner 1 is willing to pay a lot more, relative to the starting point, while Partner 2 feels that Partner 1 asking for any more from Partner 2 equates to Partner 1 telling Partner 2 how to spend his/her money.
Kamille Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 What percentage of income is each partner currently spending on rent? What percentage would they feel comfortable spending? What other expenses do they share in common? How are these currently distributed (particularly dates / hobbies / groceries / entertainment)? What is the plan for when they move? What portion of their income do they each currently spend on personal variable expenses (clothes / entertainment) Are either of the partners bringing debt repayment into the expenses?
Tayla Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 I side with the 50/50 rule on sharing residential debts. Electric/food/water/cable/ gas (heating). Personal matters ( medical, clothing, car payments,entertainment,) belong to the individual . 1
oldguy Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Living in a nicer place is more important to Partner 1 than Partner 2, who makes more. Partner 1 is willing to pay a lot more, relative to the starting point, while Partner 2 feels that Partner 1 asking for any more from Partner 2 equates to Partner 1 telling Partner 2 how to spend his/her money. Partner 1 makes $30,000 a year. Partner 2 makes $40,000 a year. Partner 1 believes the two should contribute a fair amount relative to each partner's income because contributing an equal amount would put extra financial hardship on Partner 1. Partner 2 believes both partners should contribute equally to rent. Partner 2 says (s)he has earned his/her extra money and (s)he shouldn't have to support Partner 1. Given the context of a long term relationship with a view toward marriage, who is right? Partner 2 should not have to pay more than they, (partner 2), are comfortable paying for whatever reason. Who has higher bills; cars, credit cards, student loans, who spends more on externals; clothes food ect. Who pays for utilities, heat,AC, cable, internet, phone, ect? Including insurance & how will marriage effect their income?
oldguy Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Living in a nicer place is more important to Partner 1 than Partner 2, who makes more. Partner 1 is willing to pay a lot more, relative to the starting point, while Partner 2 feels that Partner 1 asking for any more from Partner 2 equates to Partner 1 telling Partner 2 how to spend his/her money. Partner 1 makes $30,000 a year. Partner 2 makes $40,000 a year. Partner 1 believes the two should contribute a fair amount relative to each partner's income because contributing an equal amount would put extra financial hardship on Partner 1. Partner 2 believes both partners should contribute equally to rent. Partner 2 says (s)he has earned his/her extra money and (s)he shouldn't have to support Partner 1. Given the context of a long term relationship with a view toward marriage, who is right? Partner 2 should not have to pay more than they, (partner 2), are comfortable paying for whatever reason. Who has higher bills; cars, credit cards, student loans, who spends more on externals; clothes food ect. Who pays for utilities, heat,AC, cable, internet, phone, ect? Including insurance & how will marriage effect their income?
Author pacardi Posted March 30, 2012 Author Posted March 30, 2012 What percentage of income is each partner currently spending on rent? What percentage would they feel comfortable spending? What other expenses do they share in common? How are these currently distributed (particularly dates / hobbies / groceries / entertainment)? What is the plan for when they move? What portion of their income do they each currently spend on personal variable expenses (clothes / entertainment) Are either of the partners bringing debt repayment into the expenses? Currently none. It's a hypothetical at this point. Partner 2 is willing to contribute about 15% of gross monthly income and initially suggested that Partner 1 contribute about 12%. Partner 1 is willing to contribute an extra 6% for 18% total of personal income, and wants Partner 2 to contribute an extra 1% to make 16% total monthly income in order to find a better place. Other expenses, despite occasional disagreements, do generally even out and would probably continue to even out. Rent would be the only area Person 2 would be paying more. Partner 2 spends more on other items like new clothes and alcohol. Partner 2 believes (s)he was the smart one who chose less expensive education options and says Partner 1 should have chosen better and would therefore spend less on loan repayment and could contribute more to rent.
FitChick Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 The person with the loan should work on repaying it as soon as possible so live in the cheaper place for now. Otherwise that will be a thorn in the side of the other person who will think they will be expected to pay it off once married.
veggirl Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Partner 2 believes (s)he was the smart one who chose less expensive education options and says Partner 1 should have chosen better and would therefore spend less on loan repayment and could contribute more to rent. See now stuff like that is just spiteful and seems vindictive and patronizing. Is it really Partner 2s job to punish Partner 1 for his/her past choices/mistakes? Goodness. Not someone I'd marry. I mean if Partner 1 had made "better choices" but still only made 30k because of his/her field of work, would Partner 2 still feel the need to teach this lesson, so to speak? Yuck. 2
Author pacardi Posted March 30, 2012 Author Posted March 30, 2012 See now stuff like that is just spiteful and seems vindictive and patronizing. Is it really Partner 2s job to punish Partner 1 for his/her past choices/mistakes? Goodness. Not someone I'd marry. I mean if Partner 1 had made "better choices" but still only made 30k because of his/her field of work, would Partner 2 still feel the need to teach this lesson, so to speak? Yuck. But if you set aside the apparent selfishness, isn't it a valid point? Partner 1 can't have his/her cake and eat it too. It's not Partner 2's fault that Partner 1 has more education bills. If Partner 1 wants to live in a nicer place, but can't afford to pay his/her share, why should Partner 2 have to make up the difference?
veggirl Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 But if you set aside the apparent selfishness, isn't it a valid point? Partner 1 can't have his/her cake and eat it too. It's not Partner 2's fault that Partner 1 has more education bills. If Partner 1 wants to live in a nicer place, but can't afford to pay his/her share, why should Partner 2 have to make up the difference? Right, well there needs to be compromise on BOTH parts. I do think that splitting according to income/debt levels is fair, the fairest way to do it TBH. But yes Partner 1 should be more giving than he/she apparently is on the extravagence of the place they both live.
ASG Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 No, it's not a valid point. It's a patronizing point. If Partner 1 chose a more expensive education, there will have been some reason behind it and it is not Partner 2's business, so he/she shouldn't pass judgement. And even without the debt, Partner 1 will still be making 10k less than partner 2, so will still have less money. Partner 1 is willing to put in a bigger effort, at 18% than Partner 2, at 16%. How is that telling partner 2 how to spend their money?
Author pacardi Posted March 30, 2012 Author Posted March 30, 2012 No, it's not a valid point. It's a patronizing point. If Partner 1 chose a more expensive education, there will have been some reason behind it and it is not Partner 2's business, so he/she shouldn't pass judgement. And even without the debt, Partner 1 will still be making 10k less than partner 2, so will still have less money. Partner 1 is willing to put in a bigger effort, at 18% than Partner 2, at 16%. How is that telling partner 2 how to spend their money? Because Partner 1 is still trying to force Partner 2 into paying more money, compromise or not.
veggirl Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Because Partner 1 is still trying to force Partner 2 into paying more money, compromise or not. Is this a real life scenario where you are Partner 2?
Author pacardi Posted March 30, 2012 Author Posted March 30, 2012 Is this a real life scenario where you are Partner 2? Could be. Or I could also be Partner 1 who likes playing devil's advocate.
TaurusTerp Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Sounds more like partner 1 doesnt know how to manage money, wants to live past their means, and wants partner 2 to subsidize them. 2
Star Gazer Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 For RENT, I agree with Partner 1. For other household expenses (utilities, cable, food, etc.), I agree with Partner 2.
Dust Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 heres the thing the person who makes more money is also the person willing to live in cheaper housing... It isn't that person fault they make a little more and don't have as many debts. In fact even if they get married unless one person starts making a lot more then the other... the one who makes more money should have to pay more just because they have less debts.... definetly not at this stage in the relationship. Split everything 50/50. 1
TaraMaiden Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 what would Judge Judy say? she would say agree everything in writing, whatever you do, because this, above all, seems to be the bone of contention, and the final nail in the coffin to a lot of cases that land on her bench.... i believe the matter should be proportional. It's neither person's fault that they earn the amounts they earn, and the rent should be proportional, as should the deposit. However, utility bills, shopping, household expenses should be down the middle. Keep every single receipt, and credit card bill, and cheque stub. Jude Judy will thank you!!
Recommended Posts