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."

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."

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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