Moving in together, rent share question

[Anonymous]

Anddddd I forgot to answer the question after reading the stupid comment above. Anyway:

I would say you either pay 50/50 and make sure you get a place that the lower earning person is comfortable with and can afford OR you pay a proportional split. Gender roles don't matter, what matters is that neither partner is taking advantage or feels like they are being taken advantage of. An open conversation and listening is key.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the best way for two people who are moving in together to deal with paying the rent when one person earns more than the other? Not more as in $200k vs $60k but more like $80k vs $60k. Or does this matter? Does it matter if it's the man or the woman who earns more?

Planning on having this discussion soon and just looking for input and viewpoints. Thanks.

Pay equal amounts.

How much someone makes DOESN'T MATTER.

[Anonymous]

If you have been together less than 5ish years, then you get a place the lower earner can afford and you each pay 50% of everything. This keeps power and control equal, less resentment, and it keeps both people living a life and lifestyle they can afford. That way if it ends, both can move on. Keep finances separate.

If this is a long term 5+ years relationship heading to marriage or to a life long partners type thing then proportional is fine or keep rent 50/50 but the partner making more takes on more bills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it’s renting, I think it’s fair to pay rent in proportion to income and try to not live too high above the lower earner’s means.

In my case, I have kids and needed a bigger space so I pay 2/3 what my partner pays. I also prefer this over equal so that if we did end up breaking up (and he would never try to push me out even if we did) I would have more claim to stay here. He pays for utilities (which are very low in our case) and shared home expenses. I usually cover most groceries since the kids and I obviously consume more.

We both are pretty happy with this arrangement even though it’s not a clear 50/50. If I ever bought a home, we’d have to figure something new out, but I think I’d buy so it would be in my name and he’d contribute through paying for more household expenses, but not rent since I would want to be the sole owner.

Your situation is different because you have kids so you are paying for more people to live in the space. You should be paying for 100% of your kids share and all kid expenses and 50% of yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My strong opinion, assuming that you are moving in together as a bit of an "are we compatible enough for marriage?" trial run, is that you should each pay for half of your living expenses, and rent a place that you can both afford. The genders of the people are not relevant.

One of the risks of living with someone before marriage is that breaking up seems like such a high bar, that you stay together basically by default. If one person is going to have to take a big hit to their standard of living by moving out, that really increases that risk, in my opinion. You don't want to be in a situation where someone is thinking, ugh, I don't know if this relationship is really working for me, but if I move out I'm going to have to get a much crappier place.

There's also basic fairness. You both share the apartment, you both share the cost. You are NOT a financial unit. You keep your finances separate until/unless you marry. In fact, I'd say that merging finances and making joint financial decisions was the biggest immediate change to my relationship when I got married.

For what it's worth, I lived this. In the early 2000s, I lived with a boyfriend who made $80k to my $35k, and we found a place that I could afford to pay have the rent on (it was essentially a small place and it was like 50% of my take home pay). My then boyfriend saved a ton of money during that time. That was an added bonus - if we had gotten married, we would have had a really big nest egg to start our marriage with. But I ended up dumping him. And I could afford to keep up my standard of living. No regrets.

Oh - and one thing we did do that I think worked out well, is that he would give me, as a present from time to time, a vacation. Worked out great - he'd shell out for a trip for both of us, and we'd call it a "Christmas-Valentines-Birthday" present. Saved him from having to actually shop for a gift, plus losing that when we broke up wasn't big enough to impact my decision, as it wasn't part of my day-to-day life.

Strong recommend.

DP here. In our situation we were engaged when we moved in. From a financial standpoint my mom always encouraged me to have a situation where as a married couple you could live off one salary if you needed so in good times you increase your nest egg and in downturns/job layoffs you can still afford to pay your bills. I am also a firm believer each person should be able to support him or herself on their own so when you combine forces it’s the icing on top rather than being needed for survival and you either stay together due to finances or start off with financial stress. So in our case, my now DH moved in with me and I continued to pay the mortgage since I already could afford it, but he paid other bills like utilities, cable, groceries etc. and put a set amount in a joint savings account (our only joint account) for the wedding. At the time, he made less than me so this worked out on many fronts. He had responsibilities for those bills - checking charges and making sure they were paid on time and he was a more economical shopper because he was on a tighter budget so I benefited from that as well.

If we had been dating and not sure about getting married or if we had been looking for a new place to rent together, I probably would have changed the approach slightly. But fundamentally it was good to split responsibility for the bills, not just have one person do everything and ask for the contribution from the other person to cover their share. It was also good that we didn’t increase our standard of living such that we needed the combined amount for housing - we stayed within our means probably leaning slightly closer to the lower earner and what we saved put us in a better place financially.

[Anonymous]

Split all costs 50/50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You move into a place the lower earner can afford (ie their portion) and then pay equally, or if you move into a place the lower earner couldn't afford 50%, you pay by %s

This^. Gender doesn't matter. This is 2025. Women want equality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the best way for two people who are moving in together to deal with paying the rent when one person earns more than the other? Not more as in $200k vs $60k but more like $80k vs $60k. Or does this matter? Does it matter if it's the man or the woman who earns more?

Planning on having this discussion soon and just looking for input and viewpoints. Thanks.

The man pays rents and the woman keeps all her money. Income difference does not matter.

If you are married and she takes care of the household chores and parenting. Not if you aren't married and she spends her time and energy on making money for herself. She has to contribute equally in whichever way she chooses.

[Anonymous]

If you two are married, all money earned is shared and divided between expenses and savings.

[Anonymous]

If you aren't in love and can help it, don't marry anyone who has debt, bankruptcy, parents with bad financials etc as all of their problems become your problems. Which is fine if you are a high earner but not if you're not. You need to protect yourself.

Even if they are earning but big chunk is going towards their obligations. They can't spend enough time, energy or money on life with you because they are busy and earnings aren't coming home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You move into a place the lower earner can afford (ie their portion) and then pay equally, or if you move into a place the lower earner couldn't afford 50%, you pay by %s

This^. Gender doesn't matter. This is 2025. Women want equality.

I did this in 1992. Women want(ed) equality. Having a man "take care of " in this sense when you are not married is taking advantage of him at best, and something else at worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you two are married, all money earned is shared and divided between expenses and savings.

If they were married, he/she wouldn't be asking this question would they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My strong opinion, assuming that you are moving in together as a bit of an "are we compatible enough for marriage?" trial run, is that you should each pay for half of your living expenses, and rent a place that you can both afford. The genders of the people are not relevant.

One of the risks of living with someone before marriage is that breaking up seems like such a high bar, that you stay together basically by default. If one person is going to have to take a big hit to their standard of living by moving out, that really increases that risk, in my opinion. You don't want to be in a situation where someone is thinking, ugh, I don't know if this relationship is really working for me, but if I move out I'm going to have to get a much crappier place.

There's also basic fairness. You both share the apartment, you both share the cost. You are NOT a financial unit. You keep your finances separate until/unless you marry. In fact, I'd say that merging finances and making joint financial decisions was the biggest immediate change to my relationship when I got married.

For what it's worth, I lived this. In the early 2000s, I lived with a boyfriend who made $80k to my $35k, and we found a place that I could afford to pay have the rent on (it was essentially a small place and it was like 50% of my take home pay). My then boyfriend saved a ton of money during that time. That was an added bonus - if we had gotten married, we would have had a really big nest egg to start our marriage with. But I ended up dumping him. And I could afford to keep up my standard of living. No regrets.

Oh - and one thing we did do that I think worked out well, is that he would give me, as a present from time to time, a vacation. Worked out great - he'd shell out for a trip for both of us, and we'd call it a "Christmas-Valentines-Birthday" present. Saved him from having to actually shop for a gift, plus losing that when we broke up wasn't big enough to impact my decision, as it wasn't part of my day-to-day life.

Strong recommend.

This is excellent advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like a proportional split, thought you're both pretty close in income. That works out to 43%/57%.

This sort of proportional split allows each partner to have their own spending money and not feel resentment over paying too much, etc.

+1 I'm actually surprised by all these 50/50 posts. If it's a serious long-term relationship I think this is more "fair."

[Anonymous]

50/50 on EVERYTHING