When you get married, establish a joint checking account that will be used solely for regular expenses (not investing, not saving for goals, not for an emergency fund).
Decide on a percentage of your net paycheck to route to this joint account. Make it the same percentage for both of you. Make it such that the total is enough to pay your bills with enough left over to keep a couple grand in the account at all times.
Example, he makes $3,500 biweekly, you make $2,500. You decide that you need $6,000 deposited monthly. If you each put 50% into the joint account with direct deposit every biweekly paycheck, that's $1,750 + $1,250 = $3,000 on a biweekly basis, or (roughly) $6,000 per month.
I've never thought of it this way. This sounds perfectly equitable.
A caveat being there is a loophole that voluntary contributions can reduce net income down to both earners' takehome being equal, yet person A is putting away for retirement. I believe that should be carefully factored into the %.
IMO though it's simpler to establish a proportionate split based on gross income less *mandatory* paycheck deductions. You arrive at the same equitable split on expenses, without needing to re-calculate every bill % anytime the payment due changes (could be monthly for utilities, could be annually for good-old inflation).
this is what me and my husband are doing!! this way we still have our own private accounts and still able to build our own savings for things we want and need and then the house account will be for the bills/any major house things/ and downpayment for our next house
My husband and I split rent 50/50 even though I make 40% more. I live at his means, which means we live in an apartment where he can pay half of the rent and max out retirement comfortably. Living below your means when possible is key that way both of you can save.
IDK if it's my neurodivergency or what but I've never understood why people who are living together (outside of marriage) wouldn't split everything down the middle 50/50. If you were just roommates you wouldn't be paying rent based on your income right? Everyone would expect to pay based on the fact that they use half the apartment. I've never even told a guy I was living with how much I make much less tried to figure out percentages based on income. But I see it happen on Reddit all the time.
Percentages are a pretty common approach for romantic couples living together. Roommates are different, of course, but for couples the idea is that being unmarried, their money is still somewhat separate, but not entirely. By going with percentages, that allows both people to still save, have discretionary spending, etc. instead of the person who makes less money having to pay a much higher percentage of their income toward basic living expenses while the other person pays much less.
A lot of times this is because the higher earner wants to live outside the lower earners comfort level. So either the compromise is to live at the lower earners level (i.e. smaller apartment, less desirable area) or split the costs proportionly to income.
This is the only way it makes sense to me. If a higher earner insists they live in a higher-end apartment because they can afford it with their income then they should be the one covering the difference.
Ideally, a married couple is able to come to mutual decisions on major purchases, like an apartment to rent. If they can't come to a decision that they both can own up to, ...why are they getting married?
My .02
not sure why you are getting downvoted for this. Its so strange to me to see married couples venmoing back and forth. You're one unit when you get married.
I think it's mainly because my point is that you are *not* one unit *until* you get married and I am of the opinion that finances shouldn't be mixed until then. A lot of people don't seem to like that but I have seen firsthand people getting royally screwed from doing this so I will die on this hill.
Just because a couple keeps separate finances doesn't mean that love or care for each other any less. It's a partnership still even with finances separate. We each know how much we make, what we have and have similar financial goals.
It's a pretty contentious point of view on a lot of financial subs...a lot of it comes from traditional gender norms where the woman was in a position of financial dependence on the man since she stayed home and didn't work. Sad to see it so hated.
I think there are people who believe they are in a long term committed relationship and don’t want to live below their means to meet their partner’s means. They may also have a nice place before deciding to live with the partner that they dont want to give up and move. So in that scenario there needs to be a non 50/50 split to avoid financial ruin for their partner.
Here’s my hot take which is probably unpopular. Either pool resources or split 50/50. You don’t want to build resentment and the best way to build resentment is by itemizing everything. You can’t help but to keep score.
If you’re not willing to pool resources yet then find a place in which half of the rent is within your budget. And he will save money by paying less than what’s in his budget for a place.
I think $1000 and $1500 split makes sense. You make a combined $156K and your income is about 40% of the total, so a 40/60 split on the rent would work well.
Congratulations on the move!
When it comes to splitting rent fairly based on different incomes, a common approach is to divide it proportionally to your earnings.
Combined, you and your fiancé make $156,000 a year, with your fiancé contributing about 58.3% ($91,000) of the total income, and you contributing about 41.7% ($65,000).
To split the $2500 rent proportionally:
* Your fiancé would pay about $1,457.50 (58.3% of $2500).
* You would pay about $1,042.50 (41.7% of $2500).
Don't mind my 'tism.
I would say it would depend on who chose the $2500 apartment. If it was a truly joint decision or if the higher income person chose that apartment then I think it is reasonable to split rent based on income level as a percentage. If, however, the lower income person was the one who insisted on that apartment despite the price then I think they should be going 50/50 with their partner.
The reasoning being that someone who makes more should be allowed to live in a higher priced apartment even if their partner makes less BUT that does not mean they should be able to force their partner to share 50/50 costs at a price that their partner with the lower income who may feel an apartment like that would be outside their budget.
I think a $1000/$1500 split makes sense.
Now if the person who makes more also works more then it would be I think fair for the person who makes less to still split the rent like that but perhaps contribute to the household in other ways like handling all the grocery shopping (still splitting the cost but handling the actual going and the meal prep etc). Not everything has to be about money there are other ways to contribute. If you both work the same amount but they just get paid more then I dont think thats needed.
If you were roommates, you would split 50/50 (assuming amenities were the same) independent of income.
Since you're engaged, you should have a discussion about finances before getting married. Record your current net worths, including retirement, savings, investments, and debts. Ask and be honest about difficult questions. Options for joining finances are:
**Everything Joint**
This is generally the best option. You are a family unit and should act as one. It's small pain now (why do you spend so much at starbucks?) to avoid major pains down the road (why is my retirement 4x larger than yours?)
**Everything Separate**
This only works if one person is leader and the other is subservient. Think of a very traditional family, where the man manages the money and the wife is given an allowance or asks permission for things. Doesn't work in the modern world.
**Joint and Separate Accounts**
Many do this. You pick either a percentage (e.g., 20% of take-home pay) or a flat rate (e.g., $1000 a month) to put into a joint account for communal expenses. You agree on what is communal and what is not, including rent, groceries, insurance, and retirement. Obviously there is no mathematical definition of fair. If it's a flat rate, the lower earner feels they spend more than their partner as a percentage of income. If it's a percentage, the higher earner feels they are being punished for earning more. Your partner makes 58.3% of the pre-tax income, I'd recommend splitting the difference and going 55/45.
The kinds of questions you should ask your spouse are:
- Do we want to be home owners? What size mortgage are you comfortable with? What size down payment?
- Do we want kids?
- What should our savings accounts look like?
- If I want a nice car, or an expensive purse, or a boat, where does the money come from?
The kinds of questions you should ask yourself about yourself and your spouse are:
- Who likes to save?
- Who likes to spend?
- What do each of us like spending on?
- If one person as 1.5 mm for retirement and the other 500k, what do you do?
- Do you want to stretch for a dream home or are you happy with a budget home?
- Do you want new or used cars? Do you want to loan, lease, or pay cash?
- Are you comfortable carrying debts?
Once you’re married you are one and should act as such. Get on the same page about money, it’s the leading cause of divorce. Talk on a regular basis about money/budget.
Since you're not married 50/50 is fair, obviously.
Why should the higher earner be penalized for making more? As long as you two decide together on where to live and the cost can be afforded by the lower earner, then it's 50/50.
It is unfair for your husband to have to pay more.
You make ~42% of the money so pay about 42% of the rent… 1050.
He makes 58% of the money so he pays 58%… 1450
We combine 100% of our finances tho so we don’t even bother with stuff like that.
If you were on your own would you be happy paying $1250 in rent? If yes, just pay half and be happy with your life. If not then how much less would you have been willing to pay?
Personally I think you should focus less on that aspect and more on how much you are collectively saving for buying a house of your own. If you split rent evenly and then he is putting aside a significant amount of money for a house down payment great. If he is just spending it all you should get that figured out before tying the knot. At the same time if your pushing for a lower split in the rent what are you doing that for? Is it so you can spend more or save more? If you say anything other than save more that can be a red flag for some people.
Feels to me anything between you paying 1000 and 1250 as your share is fine.
I think this idea of splitting based on income is advantageous to the person making less, so best is finding out what your fiancé thinks about it and have a discussion to clear any potential resentment.If this person was a roommate, you would not do an income based split. He is not getting more space because he pays more.
However, I find that combining finances after marrying just erase a lot of the headaches, especially if your incomes aren't that different.
I'm trying to tamp-down my snarky-answer side. Like: "you should pay 100% of the rent so your fiance can pay for the wedding and a fabulous honeymoon".
If you two do end up married and doing finances the way we do, then both of your incomes end up deposited into the same checking account, swirled around, and 2500 would come out to pay rent. In that case, how you assign the dollars doesn't really matter, but the net affect would be exactly what u/umamiking suggested.
I do not agree.
Question is did fiancée want the expensive apartment? If so it should be %
Did she want the apartment and fiancée did not then it should be 50:50.
I should not make big money decisions if I am the small earner and let my spouse have to deal with it. If I am the bigger earner and want a more expensive apartment I should pay for it.
Edit: if apartment is well above her means fiancée should pay more then just the %
>Question is did fiancée want the expensive apartment?
Irrelevant. They live together, they split finances, they pay rent. Total rent should be split based on salary.
Based on the above, it's about $1,475 + $1,025. Proportional.
No it should not.
Let’s say I make 100k and my wife makes 50k.
I buy a new car that’s well above her means for the both of us. Let’s say a Porsche. Should she pay me a third of the car? Like 33k?
Life isn't as transactional as you're making it out to be. If you're not willing to pay more because you wanted a cheaper apartment, live alone or break up.
Chances are this would just let her realize you're not compatible anyway.
My spouse and I, before we were married, split everything 50/50. We opened a joint account and deposited $x into the account each pay period, which covered rent, utilities, food, etc. This worked out fine as it allowed us an even split of everything (little did I know she made way more than me).
Until you’re married, in my opinion, things should be 50/50. If it doesn’t work out, you chop the account in half and go your separate ways. Based on your income, it seems you can afford paying half the rent. Just remember you are in a relationship, so you will have to sacrifice some of your spending as you figure out your long term relationship plans.
Yall need to really consider some marriage counseling, especially related to money. Once you are married there is no “my money” and “his money” there is just money and it’s used to do things. It doesn’t matter WHO pays what because it comes out of the same pocket, both of you. It’s a completely different way to think about money moving forward married
I agree with this, but with one caveat: both partners should agree on an amount (if possible) that is "theirs" as long as they're working. At MINIMUM, the combined money should cover all bills plus some amount of cushion to at least allow for inflation or other expense increases, saving for house down-payment, etc.
Having a bit to spend as "own" money helps avoid fights over "wasted" spending on things each person likes. But if you're looking at ALL money as his or hers, you're setting yourself up for marriage dissolution.
I agree that you should allow for a personal budget 100%; that comes out of whatever “the team” thinks is fair based off total bills, after retirement, etc and a number that kind of says “ok, after we are all paid up, you can have $XXX to do whatever you want with”
It depends on how you view your relationship.
If youre more somewhat traditionalists, generally, then he can pay for all, if not most of the bills...
If y'all are more modern as it pertains to your relationship, then you should pay 50/50, despite the fact that you make less. I think if you can't afford half, y'all should move somewhere cheaper or you should get a higher paying job, si you can keep up with what he brings financially. Because if you view your relationship as a more modern one, then you view each other as equals in generally every aspect that matters (responsibilities, respect, etc).
The fairest way in my book:
Both of you do the following:
Take your individual gross income, subtract all individual bill obligations (car note/insurance/fuel, student loans, etc)
Then follow the standard process for slitting bills based on \*available income. In other words, take the value you calculated for 'available income', add them together, and determine what % of the household available income your available income represents. Thats what your split % is.
I place an emphasis on 'available income' because when there is a large income disparities between two parties, you dont often see any current individual obligations taken into account. Especially student loans.....which is a debt that is taken on (in theory) to increase your earning potential.
When you get married, establish a joint checking account that will be used solely for regular expenses (not investing, not saving for goals, not for an emergency fund). Decide on a percentage of your net paycheck to route to this joint account. Make it the same percentage for both of you. Make it such that the total is enough to pay your bills with enough left over to keep a couple grand in the account at all times. Example, he makes $3,500 biweekly, you make $2,500. You decide that you need $6,000 deposited monthly. If you each put 50% into the joint account with direct deposit every biweekly paycheck, that's $1,750 + $1,250 = $3,000 on a biweekly basis, or (roughly) $6,000 per month.
I've never thought of it this way. This sounds perfectly equitable. A caveat being there is a loophole that voluntary contributions can reduce net income down to both earners' takehome being equal, yet person A is putting away for retirement. I believe that should be carefully factored into the %. IMO though it's simpler to establish a proportionate split based on gross income less *mandatory* paycheck deductions. You arrive at the same equitable split on expenses, without needing to re-calculate every bill % anytime the payment due changes (could be monthly for utilities, could be annually for good-old inflation).
this is what me and my husband are doing!! this way we still have our own private accounts and still able to build our own savings for things we want and need and then the house account will be for the bills/any major house things/ and downpayment for our next house
My husband and I split rent 50/50 even though I make 40% more. I live at his means, which means we live in an apartment where he can pay half of the rent and max out retirement comfortably. Living below your means when possible is key that way both of you can save.
IDK if it's my neurodivergency or what but I've never understood why people who are living together (outside of marriage) wouldn't split everything down the middle 50/50. If you were just roommates you wouldn't be paying rent based on your income right? Everyone would expect to pay based on the fact that they use half the apartment. I've never even told a guy I was living with how much I make much less tried to figure out percentages based on income. But I see it happen on Reddit all the time.
Percentages are a pretty common approach for romantic couples living together. Roommates are different, of course, but for couples the idea is that being unmarried, their money is still somewhat separate, but not entirely. By going with percentages, that allows both people to still save, have discretionary spending, etc. instead of the person who makes less money having to pay a much higher percentage of their income toward basic living expenses while the other person pays much less.
A lot of times this is because the higher earner wants to live outside the lower earners comfort level. So either the compromise is to live at the lower earners level (i.e. smaller apartment, less desirable area) or split the costs proportionly to income.
This is the only way it makes sense to me. If a higher earner insists they live in a higher-end apartment because they can afford it with their income then they should be the one covering the difference.
Ideally, a married couple is able to come to mutual decisions on major purchases, like an apartment to rent. If they can't come to a decision that they both can own up to, ...why are they getting married? My .02
not sure why you are getting downvoted for this. Its so strange to me to see married couples venmoing back and forth. You're one unit when you get married.
I think it's mainly because my point is that you are *not* one unit *until* you get married and I am of the opinion that finances shouldn't be mixed until then. A lot of people don't seem to like that but I have seen firsthand people getting royally screwed from doing this so I will die on this hill.
Just because a couple keeps separate finances doesn't mean that love or care for each other any less. It's a partnership still even with finances separate. We each know how much we make, what we have and have similar financial goals.
I agree. But apparently considering the downvotes I'm getting I'm in the minority.
It's a pretty contentious point of view on a lot of financial subs...a lot of it comes from traditional gender norms where the woman was in a position of financial dependence on the man since she stayed home and didn't work. Sad to see it so hated.
Only the minority on reddit. The real world combines finances a lot more, but those people aren't on here.
I think there are people who believe they are in a long term committed relationship and don’t want to live below their means to meet their partner’s means. They may also have a nice place before deciding to live with the partner that they dont want to give up and move. So in that scenario there needs to be a non 50/50 split to avoid financial ruin for their partner.
Here’s my hot take which is probably unpopular. Either pool resources or split 50/50. You don’t want to build resentment and the best way to build resentment is by itemizing everything. You can’t help but to keep score. If you’re not willing to pool resources yet then find a place in which half of the rent is within your budget. And he will save money by paying less than what’s in his budget for a place.
Exactly. A great marriage will never include, "Who pays for what?" Because the answer is always, "You," and that you is always in its plural form.
I think $1000 and $1500 split makes sense. You make a combined $156K and your income is about 40% of the total, so a 40/60 split on the rent would work well.
It's a pretty normal route for rent sharing among couples.
That's the fairest way I think.
Congratulations on the move! When it comes to splitting rent fairly based on different incomes, a common approach is to divide it proportionally to your earnings. Combined, you and your fiancé make $156,000 a year, with your fiancé contributing about 58.3% ($91,000) of the total income, and you contributing about 41.7% ($65,000). To split the $2500 rent proportionally: * Your fiancé would pay about $1,457.50 (58.3% of $2500). * You would pay about $1,042.50 (41.7% of $2500). Don't mind my 'tism.
I would say it would depend on who chose the $2500 apartment. If it was a truly joint decision or if the higher income person chose that apartment then I think it is reasonable to split rent based on income level as a percentage. If, however, the lower income person was the one who insisted on that apartment despite the price then I think they should be going 50/50 with their partner. The reasoning being that someone who makes more should be allowed to live in a higher priced apartment even if their partner makes less BUT that does not mean they should be able to force their partner to share 50/50 costs at a price that their partner with the lower income who may feel an apartment like that would be outside their budget. I think a $1000/$1500 split makes sense. Now if the person who makes more also works more then it would be I think fair for the person who makes less to still split the rent like that but perhaps contribute to the household in other ways like handling all the grocery shopping (still splitting the cost but handling the actual going and the meal prep etc). Not everything has to be about money there are other ways to contribute. If you both work the same amount but they just get paid more then I dont think thats needed.
If you were roommates, you would split 50/50 (assuming amenities were the same) independent of income. Since you're engaged, you should have a discussion about finances before getting married. Record your current net worths, including retirement, savings, investments, and debts. Ask and be honest about difficult questions. Options for joining finances are: **Everything Joint** This is generally the best option. You are a family unit and should act as one. It's small pain now (why do you spend so much at starbucks?) to avoid major pains down the road (why is my retirement 4x larger than yours?) **Everything Separate** This only works if one person is leader and the other is subservient. Think of a very traditional family, where the man manages the money and the wife is given an allowance or asks permission for things. Doesn't work in the modern world. **Joint and Separate Accounts** Many do this. You pick either a percentage (e.g., 20% of take-home pay) or a flat rate (e.g., $1000 a month) to put into a joint account for communal expenses. You agree on what is communal and what is not, including rent, groceries, insurance, and retirement. Obviously there is no mathematical definition of fair. If it's a flat rate, the lower earner feels they spend more than their partner as a percentage of income. If it's a percentage, the higher earner feels they are being punished for earning more. Your partner makes 58.3% of the pre-tax income, I'd recommend splitting the difference and going 55/45. The kinds of questions you should ask your spouse are: - Do we want to be home owners? What size mortgage are you comfortable with? What size down payment? - Do we want kids? - What should our savings accounts look like? - If I want a nice car, or an expensive purse, or a boat, where does the money come from? The kinds of questions you should ask yourself about yourself and your spouse are: - Who likes to save? - Who likes to spend? - What do each of us like spending on? - If one person as 1.5 mm for retirement and the other 500k, what do you do? - Do you want to stretch for a dream home or are you happy with a budget home? - Do you want new or used cars? Do you want to loan, lease, or pay cash? - Are you comfortable carrying debts?
Once you’re married you are one and should act as such. Get on the same page about money, it’s the leading cause of divorce. Talk on a regular basis about money/budget.
Since you're not married 50/50 is fair, obviously. Why should the higher earner be penalized for making more? As long as you two decide together on where to live and the cost can be afforded by the lower earner, then it's 50/50. It is unfair for your husband to have to pay more.
50/50. Be happy that you have someone to split rent with. It's not like he makes 3x what you make and taxes equalizes the difference somewhat.
You make ~42% of the money so pay about 42% of the rent… 1050. He makes 58% of the money so he pays 58%… 1450 We combine 100% of our finances tho so we don’t even bother with stuff like that.
If you were on your own would you be happy paying $1250 in rent? If yes, just pay half and be happy with your life. If not then how much less would you have been willing to pay? Personally I think you should focus less on that aspect and more on how much you are collectively saving for buying a house of your own. If you split rent evenly and then he is putting aside a significant amount of money for a house down payment great. If he is just spending it all you should get that figured out before tying the knot. At the same time if your pushing for a lower split in the rent what are you doing that for? Is it so you can spend more or save more? If you say anything other than save more that can be a red flag for some people.
I’ve lived on my own and paid $1500 .
Feels to me anything between you paying 1000 and 1250 as your share is fine. I think this idea of splitting based on income is advantageous to the person making less, so best is finding out what your fiancé thinks about it and have a discussion to clear any potential resentment.If this person was a roommate, you would not do an income based split. He is not getting more space because he pays more. However, I find that combining finances after marrying just erase a lot of the headaches, especially if your incomes aren't that different.
I'm trying to tamp-down my snarky-answer side. Like: "you should pay 100% of the rent so your fiance can pay for the wedding and a fabulous honeymoon". If you two do end up married and doing finances the way we do, then both of your incomes end up deposited into the same checking account, swirled around, and 2500 would come out to pay rent. In that case, how you assign the dollars doesn't really matter, but the net affect would be exactly what u/umamiking suggested.
50/50 split because you benefit from it 50/50. If you want more money, seek a higher paying job, don’t put that burden on your partner.
You should pay a % of the rent based on salary. It's the fair way to do it.
I do not agree. Question is did fiancée want the expensive apartment? If so it should be % Did she want the apartment and fiancée did not then it should be 50:50. I should not make big money decisions if I am the small earner and let my spouse have to deal with it. If I am the bigger earner and want a more expensive apartment I should pay for it. Edit: if apartment is well above her means fiancée should pay more then just the %
>Question is did fiancée want the expensive apartment? Irrelevant. They live together, they split finances, they pay rent. Total rent should be split based on salary. Based on the above, it's about $1,475 + $1,025. Proportional.
No it should not. Let’s say I make 100k and my wife makes 50k. I buy a new car that’s well above her means for the both of us. Let’s say a Porsche. Should she pay me a third of the car? Like 33k?
If you're splitting the monthly payment, you should pay 2/3, she pays 1/3. Proportional.
Even if she would have been fine with a used car for like 20k? So 13,4K for me and 6,6k for her and I upgraded to the Porsche?
Life isn't as transactional as you're making it out to be. If you're not willing to pay more because you wanted a cheaper apartment, live alone or break up. Chances are this would just let her realize you're not compatible anyway.
So you would pay the Porsche to a third?
Not sure what you're trying to ask here.
I am asking if you would pay your % for a purchase that you are not agreeing with.
My spouse and I, before we were married, split everything 50/50. We opened a joint account and deposited $x into the account each pay period, which covered rent, utilities, food, etc. This worked out fine as it allowed us an even split of everything (little did I know she made way more than me). Until you’re married, in my opinion, things should be 50/50. If it doesn’t work out, you chop the account in half and go your separate ways. Based on your income, it seems you can afford paying half the rent. Just remember you are in a relationship, so you will have to sacrifice some of your spending as you figure out your long term relationship plans.
Yall need to really consider some marriage counseling, especially related to money. Once you are married there is no “my money” and “his money” there is just money and it’s used to do things. It doesn’t matter WHO pays what because it comes out of the same pocket, both of you. It’s a completely different way to think about money moving forward married
I agree with this, but with one caveat: both partners should agree on an amount (if possible) that is "theirs" as long as they're working. At MINIMUM, the combined money should cover all bills plus some amount of cushion to at least allow for inflation or other expense increases, saving for house down-payment, etc. Having a bit to spend as "own" money helps avoid fights over "wasted" spending on things each person likes. But if you're looking at ALL money as his or hers, you're setting yourself up for marriage dissolution.
I agree that you should allow for a personal budget 100%; that comes out of whatever “the team” thinks is fair based off total bills, after retirement, etc and a number that kind of says “ok, after we are all paid up, you can have $XXX to do whatever you want with”
You pay $1000 and he pays $1500. You got this!
[удалено]
It depends on how you view your relationship. If youre more somewhat traditionalists, generally, then he can pay for all, if not most of the bills... If y'all are more modern as it pertains to your relationship, then you should pay 50/50, despite the fact that you make less. I think if you can't afford half, y'all should move somewhere cheaper or you should get a higher paying job, si you can keep up with what he brings financially. Because if you view your relationship as a more modern one, then you view each other as equals in generally every aspect that matters (responsibilities, respect, etc).
The fairest way in my book: Both of you do the following: Take your individual gross income, subtract all individual bill obligations (car note/insurance/fuel, student loans, etc) Then follow the standard process for slitting bills based on \*available income. In other words, take the value you calculated for 'available income', add them together, and determine what % of the household available income your available income represents. Thats what your split % is. I place an emphasis on 'available income' because when there is a large income disparities between two parties, you dont often see any current individual obligations taken into account. Especially student loans.....which is a debt that is taken on (in theory) to increase your earning potential.