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.
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.
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.
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: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: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 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.
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?
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?