Rent in a relationship

[Els]

 

I continue to see both sides of the discussion. She is probably right to be wary of the situation. She should have gotten more say the last time we moved. She shouldn't have had to live in a place that was her second or third choice. On the other hand, she later admitted it was the best option, even though it was a little more than she wanted to pay. Ideally, we would have continued looking for a place we both agreed was our first choice.

 

It's very big of you to acknowledge this. I agree with your proposed solution to the situation. Pony up the extra cash for the nicer apartment if you want it and she doesn't. Perhaps in the future, when she is less wary and more trusting that you will do your part in a partnership (or she gets hooked onto the concept of having a nice place), the rent can become equitable again.

 

I still can't help but feel that this is a very black and white way of looking at it. It doesn't recognize the nuance of the situation (or any situation) and it allows no room for gray area. What if one partner does lose a job? By the logic above, it's a very unfair situation and the partner who retains a job would be right to kick out the partner who lost the job. But everyone recognizes that such a situation would be very unfair indeed.

 

The poster you quoted would indeed kick out a man for losing his job, even if she had no rent to pay on a place and it is all hers. Certainly not the best premise for a LTR. So, I wouldn't worry too much, if I were you.

 

 

I think this is how I viewed it. I like to save money, and I like to live within my means, but insisting on a precise 50/50 split based on principal alone, without any consideration to nuance, threatens to take over a relationship. We've always been very relaxed about money in every other respect. We try to keep things fair, i.e, on vacation, "If you pay for breakfast and lunch, I'll pay for a nice dinner," so it's roughly equitable without being precisely equal. Or, "I know money's a little tight for you right now, I'll pay the heating bill if you pay the water bill." I figured the discussion about rent would follow a similar trajectory. That's not to say it won't, but for reasons already mentioned, the rent discussion is more sensitive to her and will have to be handled more delicately. Admittedly, I would do well to keep that in mind.

 

Agreed with every bit of that.

[threebyfate]

Much of the issue resides in age and stage in life. At my age and stage, someone who can't or hasn't saved sufficient to tide themselves over during the rough times such as job loss, etc., isn't at the same stage and isn't much of a saver personality, looking to the future.

 

Even when I quit working during my last pregnancy, I still put in my fiscal 50% where my husband didn't want me to do this. The same will happen with this pregnancy. That's the nature of my own belief in equality, relationship and marriage. Equal partners.

 

Bear in mind that when my husband comes home from work, he puts in his portion of domestic work/child minding, as do I during the weekday, self-employed and telecommuting from home. We also have domestic help for childminding and cleaning so this covers the majority of our familial domestic demands.

 

Most twenty-something year olds won't be at this stage so they'll have different requirements for relationships.

 

Overall, this topic is purely subjective, reliant on financial/personal situation of perspective.

[zengirl]

Much of the issue resides in age and stage in life. At my age and stage, someone who can't or hasn't saved sufficient to tide themselves over during the rough times such as job loss, etc., isn't at the same stage and isn't much of a saver personality, looking to the future.

 

Not necessarily. I have excellent savings, and hubby has decent savings. (His loans make it hard for him to have really great savings yet, but those payments could be suspended during a job loss, as it's student loans.) I would be downright appalled with a spouse or myself expecting the other to take out of savings when they could easily pay the total rent and utilities with their job and continue saving. That's the position I was in when I lived with my BF and was much younger -- I paid all the bills, and he only used savings for his personal bills -- and I chose to step up and help him out, as that's how relationships are FOR ME. I'm not saying it's the only right way, but it's not about a savings mindset or not. I just would never let hubby dip into emergency funds, if I could pay with non-emergency funds and just cut out my fun money for those months. I would feel selfish and like a bad partner.

 

I think it's more in what you want out of a partnership. Some people want to be equal and seem to want to remain more. . . separate is the word, I think? To me, marriage is about getting closer and closer till you are one functioning unit. Granted, I don't think that should necessarily happen immediately (hubby and I have discussed how we will bring down barriers between us and merge finances and such over time) but I don't see the point of marriage without that. To me, it's about having another person in my family whose back I have and who has my back -- in ALL matters, including the financial -- no matter what. I'd also give money to my parents or them to me to avoid dipping into emergency funds. I'd do the same for any close family and some friends. It's just different values, I think.

 

Some people value independence and the notion of calculated equality more (and I'm not criticizing that in all situations--it's not for me, but it works for some), and some people feel that equality comes from having equal commitment to help each other and work things out in a partnership setting -- not necessarily doing 50% of every thing but doing different things with the same level of commitment and consideration.

[soserious1]

I am conservative with money by nature, I am a saver which is why I'm able to pay the hefty monthly alimony to my ex & still afford to support myself.

 

I would never dream of expecting a romantic partner to cover any of my bills, I've planned ahead, I have short & long term disability coverage, my home & modest car are paid for, credit cards are used to acquire reward points & are paid in full monthly. I also have TONS of vacation & sick time banked, my employment contract includes a decent parachute should a layoff come.

 

I'm the sort of person who would have to exhaust every single asset I have before I looked to ANYBODY to bail me out.

 

Would I throw out a partner who had a catastrophic accident or illness? No I would not, would I heartlessly throw out a man who lost his job? No, I would not, BUT and this is a big but, my support would not be unconditional nor would it be unlimited.

 

If you are my age & haven't managed to save enough to cover modest expenses during a layoff you have bigger problems than I can or am willing to handle over the long term. My help would come with the price tag of a few "come to Jesus" conversations along with a reworking of your fiscal priorities, any balking, any attempt to bull shiat me, guilt trip me into paying your way forever would not be received warmly by me.

 

While other people were spending their money & youth having a good time, i was studying, working and saving. I walked and rode a bike while others were driving, I wore thrift store clothing while my peers wore designer, I brown bagged meals while others splurged at fancy restaurants.

 

In short, in mid-life I have earned the right to enjoy the fruits of my sacrifices, I've "shared' my assets with a man and continue to "share" them monthly quite generously , I'm not interested in living frugally again just so I can "share" even more with another man.. and no, "shacking up" doesn't legally bind me to provide a "forever home" or fiscal supports for a partner, if I wanted that headache I'd get married again.

Edited April 4, 2012 by soserious1

[nofool4u]

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?

 

Partner 2. Because once married, both of your money becomes each other's. The "partners" aren't married yet. So it would be like to regular roommates. And in a situation like that one roommate wouldn't look at the other and say, "you make more, therefore you should pay more".

 

You think when they get married Partner 2 should be able to say, "since I make more, you are only entitled to 25% of all marital assets because you don't contribute as much to the household?"

 

Absolutely not.

[nofool4u]

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.

 

Then based on your logic, Partner 2 can tell Partner 1 that if this is the line of thinking and it should be based on who makes more, then Partner 1 shouldn't be entitled to 1/2 the marital assets then since Partner 1 doesn't contribute as much.

 

If you don't agree, then there is a double standard.