123321 Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 I do think that splitting according to income/debt levels is fair, the fairest way to do it TBH. Why? Do people who earn more take up more space?
TaraMaiden Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 in a bank, yes. On an economic scale, yes. Let's say the disparity was a whole lot bigger. Let's say person 1 earned $40k per annum. Let's say person 2 earned $20k per annum. it's impossible for person 2 to live to the means of person 1. either they have ro find somewhere where the rent is equally divisible - and affordable - or person 1 has to accept they have more financial clout.... not everything in life can - or should - be equal.....
darkmoon Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) this sounds like two room-mates (not a proper couple) who are at loggerheads already - so what happens if one partner falls ill or gets pregnant? and who is doing what portion of housework? i don't think these two partners should live together cuz they sound too adversarial from the start. last question - as the two are to share a home - why the live-together but no marriage wedding-date, engagement at least? Edited March 30, 2012 by darkmoon
123321 Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Let's say person 1 earned $40k per annum. Let's say person 2 earned $20k per annum. Let's say that p1 earns $100k and p2 earns $20k, all that means is that they have to live in a place where the shared part of the expenses are within p2s means, or they have to let p1 subsidize p2. If p1 is OK living in a place where p2 can afford half the rent and etc, then that's what is fair.
Emilia 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. This. The person with the higher income also appears to be the more sensible one financially (hence the higher income and higher disposable income perhaps?) and shouldn't be punished for it. I have always seen rent as money out of the window and have never paid market price ever. I would resent my partner - who also earned less - if he wanted me to pay a larger % of my income just so that he could look at fancier houses when he left our flat in the morning 50-50
Author pacardi Posted March 30, 2012 Author Posted March 30, 2012 Thanks to everyone who's posted a reply. Lots of good opinions and comments, with many agreeing with partner 1 and many agreeing with partner 2. Perhaps that's not surprising. Maybe this is a better question. If we continue to disagree (and it's not like we're having a knock-down, drag-out fight over it, simply a difference of opinion)... what do you think is the best way to reach an a compromise? It would be one thing if it were a disagreement over something minor like Burger King or Wendy's. But it's a more philosophical issue, and needless to say, that sort of thing can be more difficult to resolve.
veggirl Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Why? Do people who earn more take up more space? No, obviously not, but this isn't a roommate situation, it's a romantic partnership that could potentially lead to marriage where typically many finances are combined ANYWAY. 1
tman666 Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 My girlfriend and I have been living together for over 2 years in a similar arrangement to the "Partner 1" scenario. We refer to it as an "equitable" arrangement vs. and "equal" arrangement. We've set it up so that expenses are shared in such a way that each person is contributing what they can and has the option to have some money left over each month to save. I think that if you are truly committed to another person in a living together situation, you'll find out that your needs and wants are no longer the top priority. Your needs and wants sort of morph into a collective thing. It doesn't take all individual decisions out of the picture, but living with another person to whom you are trying to "build a life" with requires that both of you are able to contribute and share positive benefits. If only one side is reaping positive benefits from an arrangement, then the relationship is not long for this world. As far as compromising, even on little things (Burger King or Wendy's- seriously, that one is too obvious. Wendy's all the way), it's a learned skill and an art. As with any art/learned skill, it requires practice in order to strike that balance between being a pushover and being a pig-headed control freak. 5
Els Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 I agree that the person paying significantly less rent should defer to the other person in choice of houses, barring exceptional circumstances like the house being in a dangerous area, etc. As the bf pays the rent, I'll give him my opinion if he asks, but otherwise choice of rental property will be entirely his. If I were paying close to 50%, I would assert my choices more.
veggirl Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 My girlfriend and I have been living together for over 2 years in a similar arrangement to the "Partner 1" scenario. We refer to it as an "equitable" arrangement vs. and "equal" arrangement. We've set it up so that expenses are shared in such a way that each person is contributing what they can and has the option to have some money left over each month to save. I think that if you are truly committed to another person in a living together situation, you'll find out that your needs and wants are no longer the top priority. Your needs and wants sort of morph into a collective thing. It doesn't take all individual decisions out of the picture, but living with another person to whom you are trying to "build a life" with requires that both of you are able to contribute and share positive benefits. If only one side is reaping positive benefits from an arrangement, then the relationship is not long for this world. As far as compromising, even on little things (Burger King or Wendy's- seriously, that one is too obvious. Wendy's all the way), it's a learned skill and an art. As with any art/learned skill, it requires practice in order to strike that balance between being a pushover and being a pig-headed control freak. Equitable vs equal is a great way to put it, Tman! I like that and totally agree. In the long run, differing opinions on this is probably a huge deal unless you expect to soon earn the same amt of $ and have the same debt level. Money is a huge factor in marriages / LTRs ending, and I'd be very wary of entering one with someone who I had different philosophies on it than I do.
Els Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 As far as compromising, even on little things (Burger King or Wendy's- seriously, that one is too obvious. Wendy's all the way) Dude, no!! :laugh:
carhill Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 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. IMO, at the core, there are markedly different and potentially incompatible philosophies regarding money being displayed here. Whether they are irreconcilable depends on the psychology of the partners and their willingness to find a middle ground as a team. If this isn't resolved and they still wish to marry, I highly recommend both PMC and a pre-nup, especially if one or both partners have significant income boost potentials in their future. Decisions made now can have large impact later in life. Good luck.
tman666 Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Dude, no!! :laugh: Well, Five Guys has them both beat by 100 miles, so I guess it's not worth the fight. BUT given the choice. Come on now. Wendys chili and a frosty?? How can you pass that up?
Dust Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Well, Five Guys has them both beat by 100 miles, so I guess it's not worth the fight. BUT given the choice. Come on now. Wendys chili and a frosty?? How can you pass that up? Chic fillet is the only fast food place I'll go too. Fck Wendy I'd like to stick a frosty right between her legs! Don't let your girl pul the "you make more you pay more" until you have kids with her or something. You probably pay for all the meals to don't you... seriously its not like you make 200k and she makes 40k.. its like if you make a little more and have less debt good for you. I have a lot of debt and just never pay it! wooo hoo. Who pays student loans back? haha
tman666 Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Chic fillet is the only fast food place I'll go too. Fck Wendy I'd like to stick a frosty right between her legs! Don't let your girl pul the "you make more you pay more" until you have kids with her or something. You probably pay for all the meals to don't you... seriously its not like you make 200k and she makes 40k.. its like if you make a little more and have less debt good for you. I have a lot of debt and just never pay it! wooo hoo. Who pays student loans back? haha While I appreciate your input, Dust, I don't recall ever discussing our financial situation with you or anyone else here on the interwebz. Are you a telepath? Teach me your powers!
Dust Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 While I appreciate your input, Dust, I don't recall ever discussing our financial situation with you or anyone else here on the interwebz. Are you a telepath? Teach me your powers! Its called making guesses and just talking. If what I say doesn't apply to you sorry for directing it at you. Lets just look at it more geneneraly then. And in the specifica scenario of one person making 30k and another person making 40k I really think it starts to become silly.
mostlyclueless Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Partner 2 is being a dick. My partner makes 4x as much money as I do and doesn't care if I pay for stuff. As far as resolving it, this is my general process for conflict resolution: 1. Try to find a compromise. Find a place both can comfortably afford and are comfortable splitting down the middle, or have the partner with more income offer to pick up the check more often etc. 2. If no compromise, you need to decide if you are willing to budge. If it is something you can live with even though it's not what you wanted, suck it up and do it. Don't hold it over your partner's head. Once you've made your decision, own it. 3. If you can't compromise, and you aren't willing to budge, your only remaining option is to get out of the relationship.
Dust Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 I agree with partner 1, because if you extend the logic of partner 2, then if partner 2 would be a millionaire and he/she would choose to live in a multi-million dollar mansion, then partner 1 could never pay half, so that type of logic breaks down at a certain point. Well if they don't have children and they arn't married good for partner 2 being a millionaire. Thing is partner 2 only makes 10k more a year and thats before taxes. What if partner 2 has a few unexpeted bills like a pricey doctors visit and a car accident do they suddenly get out of paying extra? Partner 1 makes less money but is the person pushing for the more expensive place... with out any consequences because they can get the more expensive place for the same price as the cheaper on if they have a this is as much as I'll pay you pick up the rest mentality. Its really silly to evaluate the other persons debts and bring that into the equation. It's just not right especialy since partner 2 is happy getting a cheaper place. There's not much to philosophize about. Partner 2 is wrong when it comes down to the logic of it all, his/her logic breaks down at a certain point. Let's hope partner 2 never wins the lottery and decides to live in a multi-million Dollar mansion. Then partner 1 would have to move out, because partner 1 couldn't pay half the rent/mortgage. Thats not the situation they are in. Your logic breaks down.
Els Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Well if they don't have children and they arn't married good for partner 2 being a millionaire. Thing is partner 2 only makes 10k more a year and thats before taxes. What if partner 2 has a few unexpeted bills like a pricey doctors visit and a car accident do they suddenly get out of paying extra? ....Of course. Clearly this sort of relationship is all about give and take. If partner 2 needed to pull back for a while due to unexpected emergencies and partner 1 doesn't pull up all the slack he/she can afford, then that speaks volumes about partner 1. I don't even see how your logic is applicable to a long-term, live-in relationship. If one is afraid to put in more because he/she is afraid that the partner will insist on them paying that much even during a temporary emergency, they likely shouldn't be living together.
make me believe Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) 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. What the hell? Do people in long-term relationships really argue about sh*t down to the dollar like this? Wow. I'd suggest some serious pre-marital counseling because Partner 2 doesn't seem to have a "team attitude" at all. I would NEVER marry somebody with the kind of attitude Partner 2 is showing. And as for the bolded.... again, WOW. Partner 2 sounds like a nightmare to be in a relationship with. Totally selfish, judgmental, and only looking out for him/herself. Edited March 30, 2012 by make me believe 4
TaraMaiden Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 What the hell? Do people in long-term relationships really argue about sh*t down to the dollar like this? My god, yes... what do you think most divorces come down to? Division of assets, money, alimony, child support - it's all financial, which is why it's vital to make sure all financial dealings are ironed out first....
ariadne999 Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) Squabbling over 10k per year? They need to stop worrying about who's paying what and EACH ONE try to earn a DECENT living. their income combined together is barely enough. Edited March 31, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator Unecessary
Feelin Frisky Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 With my first live-in love the arrangement was half each on the rent because we both lived in the flat and that's what it cost to share the rent. I agreed to pay the utilities, cable and phone bill because I made more money. I also didn't negotiate this but I bought almost all of the groceries and funded the laundry and dry cleaning. She had a son being taken care of by grandma in another state so I just assumed there wouldn't be much from her beside the rent but sharing the rent equally I think was appropriate. (This was the 80's and the total rent was like $350. Her $175 was not oppressive.) I think you should work things out in some way so that the bigger bread-winner is not tight as a clam's ass with a buck.
mostlyclueless Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 So when are you gonna tell us if you're Partner 1 or Partner 2?
Author pacardi Posted March 30, 2012 Author Posted March 30, 2012 With my first live-in love the arrangement was half each on the rent because we both lived in the flat and that's what it cost to share the rent. I agreed to pay the utilities, cable and phone bill because I made more money. I also didn't negotiate this but I bought almost all of the groceries and funded the laundry and dry cleaning. She had a son being taken care of by grandma in another state so I just assumed there wouldn't be much from her beside the rent but sharing the rent equally I think was appropriate. (This was the 80's and the total rent was like $350. Her $175 was not oppressive.) I think you should work things out in some way so that the bigger bread-winner is not tight as a clam's ass with a buck. Agreed. But that doesn't negate the fact that the "bigger bread-winner" feels like it's his/her hard-earned money and doesn't like even a hint of someone else telling him/her what to do with it. I don't mean to bring politics into this, but it's kind of reminiscent of Democrats who want to tax big business for the greater good... and (Republican) business leaders who say hands off, that's my cash. Maybe it's a stretch, but that keeps coming to mind.
Recommended Posts