Tayla Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Read your commentary Pacar...and Still stand by the 50/50 straight down the middle for the common areas of budgeting: Rent/home/food/electric . Personal investments (clothing, healthclub, hobbies), auto, or entertainment (Movies, vacation, concerts, music lessons, theater etc), loans,medical are for each to manage separately. Never seen it not work if both are mature enough to accept the responsibility and accept how well they manage their finances. Just because someone flys first class and the other in coach doesnt mean they both don't land in the same city on the same flight....Destination met. See?
Cee Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 I don't know what city you live in, but $30,000 would put you in the poor house in Philadelphia. You don't make really make $30,000. Your take home will be a little over $20,000. You shouldn't pay more than 33% in rent (which is still too high) so the most you could afford to pay for an apartment is $550 a month. You put yourself in danger by going to a more expensive place. She could move out, lose her job, get pregnant, break her leg, have her mom die, and 8,000 other bad things that happen in every day life. You can't rely on her stability to keep you safe. You must always act as a financial independent. I think it's bananas for people to not choose apartments both can afford. My boyfriend earns $25,000 more than me and we split things 50/50. To be honest, I got a good deal. It's cheaper living with him than what I paid for my 1BR in a gentrifying neighborhood. Yes, my boyfriend is socking away a boatload of cash, but that's not my concern. My concern is to continue my financial independence and learn to save money. I hope you crunch the numbers and decide what works for you. If you can't both afford your lifestyle, it will get worse after you are married.
soserious1 Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 greedy partner one is upset that they have more debt and make less money. They need to profit. I'm not calling anybody "greedy" but assuming that both people are already paying rent for their respective apartments/ living quarters it only stands to reason that together they can get a nice place & they'll each pay a lot less than they do on their own. If heavy duty savings is the couple's goal then they look for a place that costs no more than what one of them currently pays IE: partner 1 pays 1K per month in rent, then they take a place together that rents for 1K and they split that rent 50/50 with each partner paying $500 & pocketing a $500 savings. If the couple want to step up a bit, get more amenities or an extra bedroom, they can look for a place that rents for say, $1,500 a month, they each pay $750 per month & pocket a savings of $250 Either way they chose, both parties end up paying significantly less rent than they do now living alone, so I'm not seeing what the problem is here.
Kamille Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Responded before I read the entire thread. Turns out they have paid rent in the past. Point void.
zengirl Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Personally, in general, I favor an equitable agreement (based on a % of net money after incomes and debts) more than an equal agreement, and it depends on the factors. Hubby and I pay "equal" rent (though he pays slightly more on utilities) since our funds aren't totally co-mingled yet. Even though he makes considerably more than me, this is equitable because he also has much higher debts. His "take in" after taxes and debts is not much better than mine. So it's mostly equal and it's equitable. We discussed all this and were really fine with a variety of arrangements. I cannot imagine not being able to see the equitable POV. I cannot imagine wanting to punish a partner for their 'bad' financial choices. If hubby lost his job tomorrow, I would pay 100% of the rent and utilities without batting an eye. I would even help him out with his personal debts where I could. If it is truly a relationship heading towards marriage, I think you have to be willing to help each other out financially. That said, I think it's silly if Person 1 wants a better home than both he/she can afford and than Person 2 who makes more and has more disposable income. No one should have that expectation either. So, both partners are wrong, really, in my book. As to how to resolve it, I think it's hard. Both people seem to be putting housing, fairness, and finances before the relationship. I would say that it does not look like this relationship is truly one "heading toward marriage" under those circumstances. These issues would need to be resolved first, and it's more an issue of how much calculation you're comfortable with in a R than anything else.
Els Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 In this case I think she's just a little resentful over what happened last time we moved together, having to pay the majority of the rent in a place that was her second or third choice. She doesn't want that to happen again and thus why she wanted to put her foot down, quickly and firmly, this time. Some will agree, some will disagree. I think this is key. If you want an 'equitable' arrangement based on income (which, btw, I agree with), the 'equity' should involve the person paying the lion's share deciding what the money is going towards or how much the total should be. Given that you generally sound like a reasonable person, I am frankly surprised that you insisted on your choice of housing in the past, while paying significantly less than half (your words). It just isn't something that someone decent would do IMO, being partially funded by someone else but insisting on their own choice instead of giving the other person the final say. I am even more surprised that she went with it. Granted, this is less of an issue now since you're paying nearly the same amount, but she's understandably wary.
ariadne999 Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) too bad the OP isn't a female. Since it's the man who's making less, he's totally justified. double standard. hope your girlfriend bangs some hot dude behind your back. Edited April 1, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator Unnecessary
jobaba Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 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. Wow. Have you been married before or know anybody who is married? Around 3/4 of my friends are married. When you get married, what's yours is hers and whats hers is yours. That's the meaning of marriage. It doesn't matter if he makes $550,000 a year and she makes $10,000 part time. That bank account is in both their names. That's the way it works so Partner 1's arrangement, while reasonable under certain circumstances I suppose, is in no way marriage minded. Also, I can't imagine going to rent an apartment on Craigslist where the rent is $1500 split down the middle and I say to the guy ... "Hey. You make twice as much as me so we should split the rent $1000/$500. What do you say?
Jane2011 Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 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? Both ways seem fair to me, but it depends on circumstances. If I made a lot more than my partner, I'd be okay paying more than him; i.e. in appropriate proportion. But if I make more than him, but he's still reasonably "close" to me in income, I can see asking him to pay the same amount as me, even if the amount means a greater cut from his income than it is from mine. In the scenario you gave, I think the two parties are reasonably close in income. Paying the same amount exactly is reasonable. These types of things require a lot of consideration of other factors, too, though. It could be that the person who makes $40K has a lot of other debt while the person who makes $30K has little. That'd be a situation where it's even more plausible that they pay equally. The person who makes 30K might even see fit to pay more of the rent because of the 40K person's excessive debt.
darkmoon Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 so further along - who looks after the kids? and how would u manage on one income then?
soserious1 Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) so further along - who looks after the kids? and how would u manage on one income then? Both parents decide that for the good of the family that they will both take "Mommy Track" jobs that allow them each to spend more time devoted to the children. Both parents continue to work, perhaps paying a family member to provide childcare or.. the parents choosing to work opposing shifts so that the children are ALWAYS being cared for by one of their parents. Yoked together firmly and securely like oxen each parent will provide hands on childcare while also getting out there to earn their fair share portion of the money needed to support their young brood. Edited March 31, 2012 by soserious1
darkmoon Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Both parents decide that for the good of the family that they will both take "Mommy Track" jobs that allow them each to spend more time devoted to the children. Both parents continue to work, perhaps paying a family member to provide childcare or.. the parents choosing to work opposing shifts so that the children are ALWAYS being cared for by one of their parents. Yoked together firmly and securely like oxen each parent will provide hands on childcare while also getting out there to earn their fair share portion of the money needed to support their young brood. sorry but OP should answer the question for himself, they not oxen, but could be four/three ppl living on one wage, there'll be more math to work out then
Art_Critic Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 I was thinking that there isn't enough of a difference between 30 and 40k to alter a lifestyle and they should just pay an equal amount... 30 and 40k are essentially the same... As far as who picks the apartment... they both should and it should fit each budget of their own..
soserious1 Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 sorry but OP should answer the question for himself, they not oxen, but could be four/three ppl living on one wage, there'll be more math to work out then lol, what "math" ? the wife & kids will get the money, the Husband & father will get protest, complaints & demands for more money! Being the sole bread winner in a marriage is a sure fire way to earn contempt & scorn from a spouse!
Fondue Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Cut the rent down the middle. You agree on a single place to live TOGETHER. You will share the bills, 50/50. If this isn't the definition of fair, I do not know what is.
darkmoon Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) lol, what "math" ? the wife & kids will get the money, the Husband & father will get protest, complaints & demands for more money! Being the sole bread winner in a marriage is a sure fire way to earn contempt & scorn from a spouse! i take it you are a man who thinks a woman can find the time to be cook, shopper, cleaner, laundress, waitress, sex slave, playleader, nurse - and find forty hours on top of all that to hold down a job - only you are not but you are a woman who had a bad time - very sorry, i jus saw you other posts, but what the heck, it's spring xx Edited March 31, 2012 by darkmoon
soserious1 Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 i take it you are a man who thinks a woman can find the time to be cook, shopper, cleaner, laundress, waitress, sex slave, playleader, nurse - and find forty hours on top of all that to hold down a job - only you are not but you are a woman who had a bad time - very sorry, i jus saw you other posts, but what the heck, it's spring xx Ah you would be wrong in that assumption! Both husband & wife should share in being "cook, shopper, cleaner, laundress, waitress, sex slave, playleader, nurse" on top of putting in their 40 hours to pay the bills. Working doesn't excuse either party from domestic tasks but domestic tasks don't excuse either party from earning money & helping to pay the bills. Also, how is anybody a "sex slave"? one of the top complaints of married people is the lack of sex.
threebyfate Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Another vote for 50/50, regardless of gender. This includes within a marriage.
darkmoon Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) i jus don't know of many men who do the really horrible jobs like clean the loo or wake up for the 4am feeds or put out the trash - but have been asked to be a girlfriend cuz he said wanted a secretary/coffee-maker/lodger like he thought i'd say yes another said he'd "try" to help with running a home although he's a competent batchlor now, so "try" is a weasel never been married but it looks horrible and i have looked and seen the consequences of lack of sex - an affair - men have needs but we will not agree, i do not see men going 50/50, 60/40 more like worse i did live with a guy paid for him all bills - all he did was vacuum the carpet i did all the rest - as i was/am a feminist but had a rude awakening when he was so dominant shouting and violent Edited March 31, 2012 by darkmoon
123321 Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) too bad the OP isn't a female. Nah, he's still a money grubbing .... well whatever. Edited April 1, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator Edit quote
Dust Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 If you like this girl you'll stop making everything about money. She paid more then you in the past, you moved away and now you're back... pick a place you can pay 50/50 on everything. I was in a situation like yours where the girl I was dating who made more money always wanted the more expensive things... consider yourself lucky you like a girl willing to be economical. Also consider what you would be paying if you just had to live alone or with some random stranger. She shouldn't be penalized because she is your gf. As for mariage minded just ask her to marry you if you feel this way. Then after you're married comingle the bank accounts....
soserious1 Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 i jus don't know of many men who do the really horrible jobs like clean the loo or wake up for the 4am feeds or put out the trash - but have been asked to be a girlfriend cuz he said wanted a secretary/coffee-maker/lodger like he thought i'd say yes another said he'd "try" to help with running a home although he's a competent batchlor now, so "try" is a weasel never been married but it looks horrible and i have looked and seen the consequences of lack of sex - an affair - men have needs but we will not agree, i do not see men going 50/50, 60/40 more like worse i did live with a guy paid for him all bills - all he did was vacuum the carpet i did all the rest - as i was/am a feminist but had a rude awakening when he was so dominant shouting and violent Well, if you want to get into who does or doesn't do tasks in a marriage, I'd say that less than 50% of wives do things like take full 50% of responsibility for things like actually tuning up the family cars, landscaping the yard, painting walls, stripping wallpaper & flooring & 1001 other grubby hands on tasks to that go into running a shared life.
reallyhotguy Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 (edited) 50/50 split is such a horrible idea that I can't even breathe. Here's what 50/50 says: "If you want to live with me comfortably, you have to make as least as much money as I do." And it will never be precisely equitable unless both people make the exact same amount of money. That's not going to happen, and even if it does, it's a completely arbitrary requirement which otherwise would have nothing to do with your compatibility, until you make it a factor with dumb requirements like these. In what universe is this a good idea? Put it another way: I have had the great fortune of landing an awesome job 3,000 miles away. They're going to cover my moving costs, and my salary is going to allow me to live in a pretty nice part of town. This opportunity came out of nowhere, so in order for my girlfriend whom I love and cherish to come with me, she's going to have to quit her job and come out on the whim, and I'm going to have to pay for the both of us until she can get a job. Even still, her job won't make the same money mine does, so if I want us to live the way I want us to live, I'm going to have to fork out more than she will. If I were to listen to the arguments in here, I'd have to break up with my girlfriend. At the very least, I'd have to live in a ****ty apartment a few miles away from the city, just to meet this ****ty requirement about what a good, fair, healthy relationship is. Eff you see kay all of that. Those are completely and utterly the wrong decisions. And yet that's the logical conclusion of this bull**** "50/50 is fair" reasoning. You know what isn't fair? That my passion happens to be lucrative, and hers happens not to be. You know what isn't fair? Life's not ****ing fair, and your significant other is supposed to help you with that unfairness, not slap you in the face with it. 50/50 is fair if you're living with a roommate. Is that what your SO is to you? A roommate? Okay, then hit her with the 50/50, it's only fair. Edited April 1, 2012 by reallyhotguy 1
Els Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 50/50 split is such a horrible idea that I can't even breathe. Here's what 50/50 says: "If you want to live with me comfortably, you have to make as least as much money as I do." And it will never be precisely equitable unless both people make the exact same amount of money. That's not going to happen, and even if it does, it's a completely arbitrary requirement which otherwise would have nothing to do with your compatibility, until you make it a factor with dumb requirements like these. In what universe is this a good idea? Put it another way: I have had the great fortune of landing an awesome job 3,000 miles away. They're going to cover my moving costs, and my salary is going to allow me to live in a pretty nice part of town. This opportunity came out of nowhere, so in order for my girlfriend whom I love and cherish to come with me, she's going to have to quit her job and come out on the whim, and I'm going to have to pay for the both of us until she can get a job. Even still, her job won't make the same money mine does, so if I want us to live the way I want us to live, I'm going to have to fork out more than she will. If I were to listen to the arguments in here, I'd have to break up with my girlfriend. At the very least, I'd have to live in a ****ty apartment a few miles away from the city, just to meet this ****ty requirement about what a good, fair, healthy relationship is. Eff you see kay all of that. Those are completely and utterly the wrong decisions. And yet that's the logical conclusion of this bull**** "50/50 is fair" reasoning. You know what isn't fair? That my passion happens to be lucrative, and hers happens not to be. You know what isn't fair? Life's not ****ing fair, and your significant other is supposed to help you with that unfairness, not slap you in the face with it. 50/50 is fair if you're living with a roommate. Is that what your SO is to you? A roommate? Okay, then hit her with the 50/50, it's only fair. I agree with you for the most part, but IMO the person paying significantly less is also beholden to let their partner decide where they should live, since he/she will be the one paying the largest percentage of the total. It's just common consideration and courtesy. It smacks of entitlement to say, 'Hey, I make half what you do, so I'll be paying 33% of the rent, and lets get that beachside bungalow! No, I don't want that crappy cheap apartment!' Likely an exaggeration, of course, but in principle, that is what the OP did in the past. It's okay for the person paying less to set a maximum limit (ie 'I can only fork out $600 a month, and if you want somewhere more expensive than that I can't afford to pay 50%'), but NOT okay for him to insist on having the final say and relegate the person paying the majority to her 3rd or 2nd choice. 1
reallyhotguy Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 I agree with you for the most part, but IMO the person paying significantly less is also beholden to let their partner decide where they should live, since he/she will be the one paying the largest percentage of the total. It's just common consideration and courtesy. It smacks of entitlement to say, 'Hey, I make half what you do, so I'll be paying 33% of the rent, and lets get that beachside bungalow! No, I don't want that crappy cheap apartment!' Likely an exaggeration, of course, but in principle, that is what the OP did in the past. It's okay for the person paying less to set a maximum limit (ie 'I can only fork out $600 a month, and if you want somewhere more expensive than that I can't afford to pay 50%'), but NOT okay for him to insist on having the final say and relegate the person paying the majority to her 3rd or 2nd choice. You're right, I agree. This particular case is nuanced, too. I just got frustrated with the claims that 50/50 is always the way to go.
Recommended Posts