Moving in together, rent share question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Or maybe that PP wants to pay everything, not possible? Nah, I guess not.

[Anonymous]

If you are not married or engaged, I would go with 50 50 for rent and utilities. Higher earner could pay for extras like vacations, better food, furniture maybe.

[Anonymous]

Rent, utilities, big and set expenses equal but higher earner can be more generous with occasionals like groceries or dining out etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, but I expect them to take a proportional to their income share in rent and other expenses. The vacation is once a year, no guarantee they would be actually willing to take on these extra costs. And living together is not "Dating". Higher earner shouldn't be saving way more thanks to living in a crappier place than they usually would be living in. This is just silly, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Living together is more purposeful for some than others.

[Anonymous]

Just be fair to yourself and the other person.

[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.

A woman who makes 60K will not live with a man who makes 80K, unless he has high ceiling of making at least 400K in the future. Hypergamy is a real thing.

[Anonymous]

Its not like everyone has what it takes to get a partner of that potential.

[Anonymous]

or prioritizes it over getting a good person who has a potential to be a stable, loving and supportive partner. High potential partners often have high potential for high maintenance and affairs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, but I expect them to take a proportional to their income share in rent and other expenses. The vacation is once a year, no guarantee they would be actually willing to take on these extra costs. And living together is not "Dating". Higher earner shouldn't be saving way more thanks to living in a crappier place than they usually would be living in. This is just silly, sorry.

You are what's known as a gold-digger. Plain and truthfully.

[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.

.

People are moving in together before they are really sure if it’s a we long term and it might be a trial run to decide. There are lots of different ways that it could be approached but at the end of the day as long as the people in the relationship together see it the same way and don’t feel coerced/taken advantage of, it doesn’t matter how anyone else might handle it.

[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.

This, but ensure that the rent is affordable for the lower earning partner.


I will add that the focus on minutia (like cat food) and emotions in conversations my then-bf and I had about this were a pink flag. Completely different experience with my now husband.

[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.

A woman who makes 60K will not live with a man who makes 80K, unless he has high ceiling of making at least 400K in the future. Hypergamy is a real thing.

This is completely untrue. I know a lot of two teacher or two public servant couples like this.

Hypergamy happens, but not every woman participates. And in my community (AA), it’s not uncommon for a woman to outearn her husband although he is gainfully employed as well.

[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.

As a rule, don't spend more than 1/3rd of your income on housing. Make that your max and let him know that's your contribution. He/She can figure out the rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, but I expect them to take a proportional to their income share in rent and other expenses. The vacation is once a year, no guarantee they would be actually willing to take on these extra costs. And living together is not "Dating". Higher earner shouldn't be saving way more thanks to living in a crappier place than they usually would be living in. This is just silly, sorry.

You are what's known as a gold-digger. Plain and truthfully.

Exactly. Zero percent chance this person would be willing to do this if she earned more. Or would even date anyone who earned less.