Moving in together, rent share question

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
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
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."


I think most people are saying 50/50 rent split and you live someplace affordable to the lower earner and the person earning more takes on a few additional bills or the extras. The person making less is not spending any more than they would without the SO and the person earning more is doing something they could do without the SO, living below their means and saving more.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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."


I think most people are saying 50/50 rent split and you live someplace affordable to the lower earner and the person earning more takes on a few additional bills or the extras. The person making less is not spending any more than they would without the SO and the person earning more is doing something they could do without the SO, living below their means and saving more.


I understand but then again I'm also not a fan of splitting dating expenses 50/50. I think it creates a mindset that isn't conducive of "we." It's like always hanging out with that friend that makes a lot more money than you and the issues that can cause.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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."


I think most people are saying 50/50 rent split and you live someplace affordable to the lower earner and the person earning more takes on a few additional bills or the extras. The person making less is not spending any more than they would without the SO and the person earning more is doing something they could do without the SO, living below their means and saving more.


I understand but then again I'm also not a fan of splitting dating expenses 50/50. I think it creates a mindset that isn't conducive of "we." It's like always hanging out with that friend that makes a lot more money than you and the issues that can cause.


So you want the person you're just dating to pay for everything, just in case there is a future we? Like in 1953?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
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."


Disagree. Not every LTR ends in marriage. Until you're married, the money is his and hers (assuming a hetero couple obvi). If the income is fairly close, the higher earning partner can pick up a bit extra on groceries or going out. If they get married, the money ends up theirs. Either way living for two is usually more affordable than living for one--assuming for instance that you're going to get a one bedroom apartment either way. Of course two people living together can afford a nicer one than each person on their own.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
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."


I'm the one who wrote the long post on the first page, 12:06. I do think that the 50/50 advice is for the marriage trial run - a few years, and then you're either going to get married or go your separate ways.

If you're in a serious long-term relationship that isn't on the immediate marriage path, and living together is more of a "permanent" (as much as anything is ever permanent) status quo, then I actually think proportional splits make more sense.
post reply Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)
Message Quick Reply
Go to: