Anonymous wrote:But since we do have income and relationship information, I'll say that if they are talking marriage but he's still so thoroughly bean-counting that he doesn't want to pay a penny more than he technically has to for this trip, even though he makes 10 times what she does, they shouldn't get married.

I agree. He should find someone who doesn't see him as a cash machine simply because he has a good income.

Anonymous wrote:I'd think she should pay for what she'd pay anyway. Her own airfare, the hotel, car and gift. He can pay his own airfare. Note I say this primarily because it appears she doesn't make much money and this trip is likely a stretch already for her. If she were better positioned, I'd think it would be nice for her to pay for everything, but I'd imagine that could be rough.

Sounds like that's the issue on the table. He's already paid his own airfare. OP seems to think that he should spring for hotel and rental car as well, or at least split it.

the man duh

Anonymous wrote:Thirty something man and woman dating for 1.5 years, discussing marriage.

Woman has a family member getting married. Costs are airfare, hotel, and car rental.

Woman makes 50,000. Man makes 500,000. How should travelling costs be split? Should the woman pay for everything or maybe everything but the mans flight, since it is her family? Or should the man pay for more since he makes so much more?

I guess I'd propose covering all of his costs, since he's coming as my guest. However, after 1.5 years of dating, being thirty something, and discussing marriage, I'd expect that he'd reject that offer and offer to cover all of his own costs, and propose covering some of yours as well!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd say the relationship should be dissolved. Arguing about who is going to pay for a wedding after 1.5 years of dating, especially when one person is making so much more than the other, either screams a penny-pinching man or a gold-digger woman. Yuck, what gross people on both sides.

+1

Mostly, though it tells me he doesn't think of the partnership as equal and doesn't care about her family events. My guess is that even after marriage he would insist she pays for her family events

Jesus. Unless he pays all of the expenses for HER family wedding trip he doesn't see the relationship as equal? They aren't married. They aren't engaged.

If the gender roles were reversed, so would your attitude be.

Anonymous wrote:Thirty something man and woman dating for 1.5 years, discussing marriage.

Woman has a family member getting married. Costs are airfare, hotel, and car rental.

Woman makes 50,000. Man makes 500,000. How should travelling costs be split? Should the woman pay for everything or maybe everything but the mans flight, since it is her family? Or should the man pay for more since he makes so much more?

If you took all income and relationship history information out of the scenario, I would say they should each pay for their own clothes and flights (after all, those are added costs from him deciding to come along), she pays for the hotel room and the gift (because she'd have to incur those costs either way).

But since we do have income and relationship information, I'll say that if they are talking marriage but he's still so thoroughly bean-counting that he doesn't want to pay a penny more than he technically has to for this trip, even though he makes 10 times what she does, they shouldn't get married.

I'd think she should pay for what she'd pay anyway. Her own airfare, the hotel, car and gift. He can pay his own airfare. Note I say this primarily because it appears she doesn't make much money and this trip is likely a stretch already for her. If she were better positioned, I'd think it would be nice for her to pay for everything, but I'd imagine that could be rough.

Anonymous wrote:I'd say the relationship should be dissolved. Arguing about who is going to pay for a wedding after 1.5 years of dating, especially when one person is making so much more than the other, either screams a penny-pinching man or a gold-digger woman. Yuck, what gross people on both sides.

+1

Mostly, though it tells me he doesn't think of the partnership as equal and doesn't care about her family events. My guess is that even after marriage he would insist she pays for her family events

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would say that the woman offers to pay for everything. OR chooses to go solo.

They are not married yet or even engaged. The woman is not owned anything by the man.

Agree. Relative incomes are a non-issue in this case. It's her event and if she wishes to invite someone then it's her cost to cover. Now, if he offers to help pay or pay outright then fine, but it's unfair to expect that he should feel obligated just because he's a man with a higher income.

Female should cover her own tickets, the hotel and gift.

Man should pay for own tickets. If feeling generous then offer to cover hotel.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd say the relationship should be dissolved. Arguing about who is going to pay for a wedding after 1.5 years of dating, especially when one person is making so much more than the other, either screams a penny-pinching man or a gold-digger woman. Yuck, what gross people on both sides.

Not arguing.

What I meant is that we are not arguing about this. We have each bought plane tickets and right now the hotel is on my credit card. We haven't discussed rental car yet. He usually drives when we travel and his credit card has good rental car insurance so it makes more sense for him to drive the car.

I'm just wondering what the standard is.

Anonymous wrote:I'd say the relationship should be dissolved. Arguing about who is going to pay for a wedding after 1.5 years of dating, especially when one person is making so much more than the other, either screams a penny-pinching man or a gold-digger woman. Yuck, what gross people on both sides.

Not arguing.

I'd say the relationship should be dissolved. Arguing about who is going to pay for a wedding after 1.5 years of dating, especially when one person is making so much more than the other, either screams a penny-pinching man or a gold-digger woman. Yuck, what gross people on both sides.

Anonymous wrote:I would say that the woman offers to pay for everything. OR chooses to go solo.

They are not married yet or even engaged. The woman is not owned anything by the man.

Agree. Relative incomes are a non-issue in this case. It's her event and if she wishes to invite someone then it's her cost to cover. Now, if he offers to help pay or pay outright then fine, but it's unfair to expect that he should feel obligated just because he's a man with a higher income.

I would say that the woman offers to pay for everything. OR chooses to go solo.

They are not married yet or even engaged. The woman is not owned anything by the man.

Thirty something man and woman dating for 1.5 years, discussing marriage.

Woman has a family member getting married. Costs are airfare, hotel, and car rental.

Woman makes 50,000. Man makes 500,000. How should travelling costs be split? Should the woman pay for everything or maybe everything but the mans flight, since it is her family? Or should the man pay for more since he makes so much more?