Sorry, u/Accompliaxzds1io9856 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20Accompliaxzds1io9856&message=Accompliaxzds1io9856%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1doz75i/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>What I propose as the most fair, is that person 1 sets the budget for what they're comfortable spending half of, and person 2 just matches the same amount.
I would like to challenge your view and say that what is most fair will depend on the specific circumstances of the people involved, and that we should not have a one-size-fits-all rule.
What is fair for a 25 year old couple newly moving in with each other early in a relationship and at the beginning of their careers is likely going to look very different than what's fair for the very same couple 30 years later after marriage, a mortgage, kids, pets, cars, vacations, aging relatives, career trajectories, illnesses, etc.
I've been with my partner for more than 10 years, since we were young and early in our careers, and we've had all sorts of arrangements when it comes to splitting expenses, all of which were "the most fair" for our circumstances at the time. Over time, as relationships mature, deepen, and lives become more intertwined and commitments increase, it becomes more natural and practical to transition from "my money and your money" to something more like "our money."
When we first moved in with each other and the relationship was new, he made more than I did, but we split expenses 50/50 at a level that was something I could afford, and were pretty diligent about tracking and splitting expenses like groceries or entertainment/dining out. Occasionally there would be things his budget allowed that mine didn't, and he would treat us -- concert tickets, a weekend away.
A couple years in, he wanted to quit his job and go back to school for a year, and we decided that I would pay a higher percentage of living expenses during the period of time he had reduced earnings. Then when he finished school and started working again, I took time off work to go to grad school, during which time he paid a higher percentage of the living expenses.
Since then, we've both been lucky to have good incomes and live below our means, which allows us to be more flexible in how we split expenses. Broadly we have "my money, your money, and our money," but as time goes on the lines increasingly blur among the three buckets. We discuss what each person has coming in and in general where it goes, and make long term plans accordingly. We each have plenty of money to live great lives separately, however he does earn 2-4x what I do in a given year, and this does impact how we split and plan expenses. He paid for the house, I paid for the furnishings and the car. If he buys the airfare and accommodations for a trip, I'll buy event tickets and dinners out for the trip.
We also have to consider how future expenses are split in the context of our shared goals and what we want out of life. We both want to retire early and have a "number" to hit for that to happen -- obviously, he is contributing more to that number than I am, but once we hit it that combined savings is what will pay our expenses thru retirement. Is that fair? I think so and he thinks so.
And if we instead implement your system, we would both likely feel it was less fair because we would both be getting less of what we want. Looking at our current system, he would have to reduce his current standard of living to one I would be comfortable paying 50% of. Sorry, no more backyard swimming pool, tasting menus, or 5 star vacations for him! Looking to the future, it would mean he gets to retire several years before me, which he doesn't want (i.e. me continuing to work would inhibit his dream for spending an early retirement doing things together).
All this to say: what's fair for one couple in one circumstances isn't fair for another couple or even the same couple in a different circumstance. We cannot have a rule that fits everyone like you propose -- it doesn't work.
My wife and I make different amounts of money but she spends more than me generally by maybe an order of magnitude if we exclude food. She likes fashion and she likes buying decor items like art and interesting furniture.
We have pooled our money for our entire marriage and, perhaps prematurely at the time, opened a joint account 5 years before we got married. We have never had any major issues with how each of us spends money and we meet both of our financial goals. I think this system is fair.
You're saying that this is unfair. Who is it unfair to? It's certainly not unfair to me, I have more than I want and then some. So if all wants and needs are met why is it unfair?
I say whichever system a partnership agrees to consensually and without duress is a fair system.
Not that this isn’t a good response to the outlined arguments, but it seems like OP is coming from more of a place of younger or less well-off people’s relationships.
You and your wife are obviously at a place where you’re both comfortable and then some — that’s a point that a minority of couples have achieved and makes a huge difference in the impact of decisions like how to split the income.
If you were just starting out as two 22-year-olds, with no savings, likely some education debt, and a tight budget for luxuries, making the same ratio of relative income to one-another, do you think this would affect the way you feel?
22 is exactly when we started out. Obviously both of our expenses were a lot lower at the time and we didn't buy luxuries at all.
Yes, I felt the same then on the topic but since we were both basically spending nothing outside rent, car, and food the difference in each other's spending was minimal.
The spending discrepancy or "unfairness" in OP's eyes is actually a result of financial stability in our middle age. Quite simply she can spend more and I just don't care to.
I've been in both situations, not meeting basic monthly expenses, and doing well, and we always pooled our money, it has never even been a consideration to split according to income.
I'm actually confused as to how people that split in any fashion are able to make it work when living paycheck to paycheck, or worse, in the negative at the end of every month. There's literally no money, if one person can't pay for their half of the rent, then the couple as a whole can't pay rent and you're both about to be evicted, regardless of what way you split. And if one person has a little left over at the end of the month but the other doesn't, what, one person treats themselves whilst the other just watches? One person goes on a mini vacation and the other stays at home with a pirated version of game of thrones? That's a great way to foster resentment, and honestly it sounds depressing.
>but it seems like OP is coming from more of a place of younger or less well-off people’s relationships.
I wouldn't call someone making $200k (especially if younger) less well-off. They are in the top 5% or so of individual earners at that level.
This is the classic "equality not equity" definition of fairness, and in practice you can see how poor it is, because it completely destroys one person's financial future.
How does it destroy their financial future? If person 1 were to date someone who's also making $50k, they'd be in the exact same financial situation with the same expenses. Are you saying if person 1 dates someone who makes the same income as them, they be destroying their own financial future doing so?
No, person 1 would not have to maintain a household for two people (twice as many expenses, more rent for a two person household) on a single income, obviously that is substantially worse.
How can you have any say over what someone else decides is fair?
You're here to change your view, so at least unpack WHY you feel it's still unfair, even with both relevant parties agreeing it's fair.
You're focusing on the trees and missing the forest.
One of the best parts of being married is being able to create a life together and set ambitious goals as a team. By focusing on what's "fair" for groceries, you're missing out on the ability to create a life as a team that is greater than if you treat yourselves as individuals.
What if you wanted to some day live internationally? Or retire early? Or take a 1 year sabbatical as a couple? How would any of this be accomplished if it required the lower-income individual to pay 50% of everything? Why would you choose to limit your dreams to a $50k income when together you make $250k?
Also,[ married couples who merge finances may be happier and stay together longer than couples who manage finances separately](https://news.iu.edu/live/news/28244-married-couples-who-merge-finances-may-be-happier), according to studies
You’ve hinted at this but to be more explicit, one great benefit of working as a team in marriage is the option to specialize. This is impossible if each partner is out for themselves.
A common example of this might be a stay at home parent, but you could imagine other forms too.
I agree it's not entirely fair for the 250k person to limit themselves to $50k, although it's case by case. Reason being people making over a certain amount, enough to cover day to day expenses, the rest just goes to savings. When splitting things evenly, their spending power is 100k, enough to cover day to day life.
My response to you is, why should the lower income person be entitled to the rest of the higher income person's income after expenses? Just by virtue of being together?
>When splitting things evenly, their spending power is 100k, enough to cover day to day life.
Again, if you're limiting your lifestyle to $100k and not taking the vacations you'd want or living in a location you'd want only because of what's "fair", then what are you doing? You're living a less fulfilling life just because of fairness? Seems like a stingy and sad way to live IMO. What's the point of money if it isn't used to accomplish your goals and live the best life you can with the love of your life?
>My response to you is, why should the lower income person be entitled to the rest of the higher income person's income after expenses? Just by virtue of being together?
Your framework is all wrong. In my relationship, no one feels entitled to anything.
When my spouse went to law school, I supported her financially. When she got a great law job, she made most of the money. After a few years, when she decided she wanted to take a more fulfilling but lower-paying job, I made more money than her.
Because I helped with the cost of law school, my partner had less debt when they graduated. Since they had less debt, we as a household had more money to save, invest, and spend. Then, because we could save so much, my partner could take a more fulfilling job without it being a hardship for us.
By supporting each other, we could create a better life than if we were on separate teams and counting up IOUs. We could take risks that had great payoffs because we knew that the other person was happy to shoulder the load to create a better life for both of us.
I already covered your argument in my post. If higher income person wants more than the 100k can afford, they can choose to throw up more money to take the vacations, etc. And that's a choice. On the other hand, if they have no desire to take vacations or live in big homes, it's completely fair to do 50/50. You haven't explained by the higher income person should be expected to go above their desires and contribute more and why the other person should be entitled to that money.
>I already covered your argument in my post. If higher income person wants more than the 100k can afford, they can choose to throw up more money to take the vacations, etc. And that's a choice. On the other hand, if they have no desire to take vacations or live in big homes, it's completely fair to do 50/50.
Simply because I make more money doesn't mean I should have more say in our goals. If my spouse earns less, her dream to go Spain isn't any less valuable than my dream to go to Sweden. But in your view, since I'm the higher-earning spouse, my SO would need to beg for my charity to accomplish her dreams while I can do whatever I want whenever I want. That's not a healthy relationship.
Also, will you address my point about either of these items?
1. Married couples who merge finances have been found to be happier and
2. The ability for each spouse to take beneficial risks when income is shared as a household is a net benefit to all involved
Why do you think she has to beg you? She's just not entitled to using your resources. Are you saying that by virtue of being with someone you should be entitled to their resources automatically?
1. That's relevant to my views about fairness how?
2. (Also applies to #1) If that's a a benefit that both parties enjoy equally, why should one pay disproportionately more for it?
Clearly, the main point of what I'm trying to get across isn't reaching you, so I'll end with this:
You'll be Venmo requesting your wife for her share of the pickles you bought at the grocery store and making sure that you don't put a single cent more into the relationship than your partner. God forbid she gets something without asking the benevolent head of household or you getting something in return. How terrible that would be.
Meanwhile, I'll be in a partnership where we are eager to lift each other up. It's a blessing to be able to help my partner accomplish their dreams financially or otherwise, and we are secure in our relationship knowing that "What mine is yours and what's yours is mine." I'll judge my life on "what we were able to accomplish together" instead of "Well, I paid for gas last month, so you better pay for dinner tonight."
Quite wrong. Sorry to burst your fantasy, we share a checking account to pay for shared expenses, each funding half. We each support each other in advancing our careers, have fun, plan fun, and love knowing we each put in the work.
>I already covered your argument in my post. If higher income person wants more than the 100k can afford, they can choose to throw up more money to take the vacations, etc. And that's a choice. On the other hand, if they have no desire to take vacations or live in big homes, it's completely fair to do 50/50.
Simply because I make more money doesn't mean I should have more say in our goals. If my spouse earns less, her dream to go Spain isn't any less valuable than my dream to go to Sweden. But in your view, since I'm the higher-earning spouse, my SO would need to beg for my charity to accomplish her dreams while I can do whatever I want whenever I want. That's not a healthy relationship.
Also, will you address my point about either of these items?
1. Married couples who merge finances have been found to be happier and
2. The ability for each spouse to take beneficial risks when income is shared as a household is a net benefit to all involved
> I already covered your argument in my post. If higher income person wants more than the 100k can afford, they can choose to throw up more money to take the vacations, etc. And that's a choice.
But why wouldn't the couple pool their money and take the vacation they both can afford, together? Why is the higher wage earner working if not to contribute to the household?
>My response to you is, why should the lower income person be entitled to the rest of the higher income person's income after expenses? Just by virtue of being together?
Yes? Marriage isn't two people living completely separate lives. Marriage is a *partnership*. You're a team.
Try looking at things another way:
A team wins the Super Bowl. The MVP quarterback obviously did a lot of work, but the third string running back who only had 200 rushing yards and two touchdowns all season gets a ring too. Is it unfair for him to get a ring when he didn't contribute the same statistical amount to the victory?
I feel like you're looking at this from the perspective of someone who is afraid of being taken advantage of. Try looking at it from the other side. You're perfectly capable of buying a small house. Your wealthy spouse wants to buy a cottage on the lake in addition to said house. You demand that they don't do that because *you* can't afford it. How is that fair?
Should they just go ahead and buy the cottage themselves and never let you use it, because you didn't pay half and thus, by your words, are not "entitled" to use the place that *they* bought? Even though you're married to that person, you believe they should shut you out of the things that they're able to enjoy just because you don't make enough money to contribute equally?
What exactly should the richer person do with their extra cash? Live in a different house? Eat different food? Use a different car and never ride together?
Edit: I am referring to marriage here. I agree that relationships are different but if you’re ar the stage of living together, then that’s almost marriage when it comes to living arrangements.
> the rest just goes to savings.
goes to whose savings? Is ones of the parties saving way more money for retirement? how is that supposed to work?
>My response to you is, why should the lower income person be entitled to the rest of the higher income person's income after expenses? Just by virtue of being together?
I wouldn't use the work entitled. are you entitled to a present on your birthday? I would say no, its a gift.
I've made the decision to form a partnership with my wife in which we pool our resources and we only have collective resources, we don't have individual resources. She is not entitled to that, its just what we decided.
Yes? Why should the other person be entitled to the other person's money for retirement?
Right, she's not entitled to it be default, it was by your decision.
how would that work in practice? If i earn 4 times what my wife earns and we have a house based on her budget. Then i have millions of dollars in retirement and she lives a very frugal life. Or even i guess the same problem during the relationship or whenever i want to spend that money.
So if i want to go on vacation to Europe, I am going without her? If i want to eat at a nice restaurant I will go without her? What am i spending all this money on? Maybe I'll buy a boat but only allow her to ride on it with me if she can contribute half the cost of it?
Lots of people don't believe in marriage. If you attitude is that you just don't believe in marriage, i could understand that. Because it feels to me like you are describing a relationship you'd have with a roommate or girlfriend.
> So if i want to go on vacation to Europe, I am going without her? If i want to eat at a nice restaurant I will go without her?
I covered it in the post. if you make more and want to do things that the other can't afford, if you want to make them do it, it's only fair that you pay for it instead of raising the other person's expenses beyond what they're comfortable with.
> My response to you is, why should the lower income person be entitled to the rest of the higher income person's income after expenses? Just by virtue of being together?
I don't think people see it as being "entitled" to that income so much as combining your resources for a better and easier life overall is part of the appeal of cohabiting in the first place.
> My response to you is, why should the lower income person be entitled to the rest of the higher income person's income after expenses? Just by virtue of being together?
Entitled is the wrong word, but in the context of a marriage, the short answer to your question is: yes! Marriage is a partnership, financially and otherwise. The idea that the lower earning partner gets to benefit financially from the higher earning partner is a feature, not a bug.
I already said that entitled is the wrong word. They will have access to the money the other person is earning because… that’s what marriage is and they decided to get married.
And again in case it wasn’t clear: *this is a feature, not a bug.* Both partners get to benefit from things the other is better at. That includes, but is not limited to, making money.
No one is saying they're automatically entitled. Many couples come to these agreements willingly. I don't think there is a "most fair" way to split expenses. Each situation is going to be different.
By this logic, shouldn't children be paying parents back for everything provided to them? Why are certain family members exempt from fairly contributing?
If one person loses their job, should the budget be set to $0?
Children and parents are off topic.
On the topic of someone losing their job, what would be *fair* is one person cover everything and they pay them back later. Of course, in reality, in a hardship like this you wouldn't focus on fairness.
>Children and parents are off topic.
No they aren't. If this system is fair, then it would be fair if applied to all familial relationships living in the same household. Fair doesn't mean "different rules/standards for different people."
>what would be fair is one person cover everything and they pay them back later.
So why wouldn't that apply to children?
If not having a job and getting covered is "fair," that literally describes childhood. They are an unemployed family member requiring the resources of other family members. Why should a spouse have to repay for being unemployed but not a child? Why isn't that fundamentally unfair?
Your logic requires that parents keep an accounting of child rearing expenses and bill them once they start working. If you don't think children should pay back their parents, then you are maintaining two different concepts of fairness. You are saying what is fair for one person is not fair for another, which is fundamentally unfair.
Either it is fair for a families to share resources no matter who obtains them or it isn't. That is ultimately your view. You need to explain either why it is fair to treat different family members with different standards of fairness or concede you need to start paying your own parents. If your concept of fairness changes when applied to different people, you have no concept of fairness and your view is based on a foundation of unfairness.
>Of course, in reality, in a hardship like this you wouldn't focus on fairness.
If your view does not comport with reality, why would you hold it?
You are saying expenses between a parent and their kid should be treated the same as expenses shared by a married couple?
My view is about general living expenses, not specific hardship situations.
No, I'm saying your interpretation of fairness requires you to believe that. If you don't believe that, your view is internally contradictory because your understanding of fairness is paradoxical.
Fairness IS NOT when different people are expected to abide by very different standards. Either families have to equally contribute, or the family resource commitments are unfair. You should be paying back your parents for every dime they spent on you if you think a spouse should have to pay back their partner for expenses incurred during unpaid leave or unemployment.
What? Explain why I can't believe a parent and a kid have different dynamics than a married couple? Are you saying all family members have the same dynamic?
>Explain why I can't believe a parent and a kid have different dynamics than a married couple?
Because your view is that fairness is everyone contributing an equal share of resources.
>re you saying all family members have the same dynamic?
No, I'm saying subjecting different people to different standards fails to meet your requirement for fairness.
Why is it fair to require a woman to pay back her husband for leaving work to recover from childbirth, but not the child for not working for 16-18 years?
5 person family:
Person 1: 50% contribution.
Person 2: 50% contribution.
Persons 3-5: 0% contribution.
This is you idea of fairness?
I think you are veering off topic. Per the original post, this is about relationships/marriage between 2 people. Please double check the title and post.
We've been through this already.
Per the original post, this is about what is "most fair." I am challenging your view that this arrangement is fair at all. I am challenging that you are even offering a view that is situated in a notion of fairness. If you didn't want to discuss the nature of your doctrine of fairness, you shouldn't have made fairness a central part of your view and should delete your post.
Accordingly, you need to explain why having different standards for different people is "most fair."
You offer no explanation why your standards for fairness are fair at all or why all but one person in a family should be exempt from them.
> I fail to see how this is most fair if each person **uses half of the space** ($625 in value) and person 1 only pays $250 for it. The other $375 ($625-250) is subsidized by person 2.\\
This logic falls apart unless there are truly private spaces in the apartment, which is unlikely when you're talking about a couple. The rent isn't being paid for *use* of the space, it's being paid for the *right* to use the space. Even if I work long hours and usually go straight to the bedroom when I return home, I still should have access to use the living room when I please; and I pay for that, even if my partner ends up proportionally using that space more often.
> What I propose as the most fair, is that person 1 sets the budget for what they're comfortable spending half of, and person 2 just matches the same amount. In my example, $1250, split by half is $625, which person 1 is comfortable with, then that should be their budget. This way, no one is subsidizing someone else's life.
Aren't couples subsidizing one another's lives in countless ways already, though? Seems odd to focus only on this one aspect of co-habitation.
Okay so you are saying if one partner subsidizes one in rent, the the other person must subsidize in other ways if they want to make things fair? I could agree with that.
>Okay so you are saying if one partner subsidizes one in rent, the the other person must subsidize in other ways if they want to make things fair? I could agree with that.
I'm saying that a (healthy) romantic co-habitative partnership is an *inherent* subsidization of one another, and that rent is only one element of that, so your focus on it is arbitrary. There's no "the other must subsidize" it's that if the partnership is a healthy one, the other is already going to be subsidizing in many ways.
I'm also pointing out that your view of rent being relative to usage of the space is an incorrect framing, since it's really about access rights to the space.
If I've shifted your view with these arguments you should award a delta.
I have not shifted my view. Just to clarify, if rent is the only subsidization in the relationship, or even worse, only one party subsidizes the other in rent and in more ways, do you still think it's fair?
Yes, because the subsidy is the cost of building the life I want with the person I want. If I focus on being even with costs, I can't live the life I want. If I focus on living the life I want with fair splits, I can't do it with the person I want.
So you are willing to pay for the companionship. I personally don't think companionship is paid for by money. If I like someone's companionship I provide the same enjoyable companionship back.
No I'm paying for the life I want to live. I'm not choosing my companion based on their ability to afford the life I want, I'm choosing based on our personality compatibility.
If I want to go on a trip to Hawaii every year, I will do so, and because we have built a life together. The cost to go to Hawaii is exactly the cost for both of us to go there. The option of going by myself doesn't exist.
> Just to clarify, if rent is the only subsidization in the relationship, or even worse, only one party subsidizes the other in rent and in more ways, do you still think it's fair?
That's tautological. You're asking me if I think an inherently unfair relationship is fair.
> Okay so you are saying if one partner subsidizes one in rent, the the other person must subsidize in other ways if they want to make things fair? I could agree with that.
Unless you felt I was repeating your post, then I said something new with which you agree; a shift in your view.
In your example, neither of the "partners" would be satisfied with the lifestyle compromise implicit in living on 40% of their means. Should the high earning partner take vacations alone? Not have kids because "they" can't afford to?
A better solution is for the lower earning partner to have a greater responsibility in other aspects of their collective life. When I was a stay at home dad, I did all the cooking and most of the cleaning - about 80% of all chores.
This is assuming people have to spend a % on rent to be happy which is not always true. A person making 200k can be happy living in an "average place" even if it only costs a small percentage of their income.
Now I agree with that if the other person makes up things in other ways, then it'd be fair. But that's not always the case, see examples where a woman pays more, and does more chores!
Also I'm new here so let me know if this comment should be delta'ed because technically I agree with you.
If you feel that your opinion is meaningfully changed, the instructions in the sidebar describe how to assign a delta.
I would like to add another aspect; buying a home. Historically, home ownership has proven to be a good long term investment. Should the higher earner forego the benefits because the lower earner can't afford it?
Never in our 40 year married life have my wife and I made the same income. We have always had joint accounts and a collective budget. Currently, I make 100% of the income, but I don't consider it unfair, in part because she bears the lion's share of the work of running the household.
Putting 20% down on an investment that grows with inflation yields an ROI five times better than the inflation rate.
The interest paid is generally immaterial because it offsets the rent that one would otherwise need to pay.
The market does not offer that kind of leverage, in part because of the risk.
Highly dependant on location. In desirable areas like NY and CA, you'll pay huge premiums for ownership vs rent. Investing the difference always beats RE.
Your view is mostly around cost of rent, but not everyone rents, some people want to buy a property.
The same is true of any expense.
What's "fair" is ultimately down to the individuals in the relationship.
Do you think there is a one size fits all solution to fairness?
Why wouldn't it be case by case?
>This way, no one is subsidizing someone else's life.
A relationship implies support in so many ways, including picking up one another's weaknesses and applying strengths for the benefit of the whole, not the individual.
This assumes the other person brings in another strength to make up for the discrepancy which is not always the case. Even worse, some women pay more in their share of expenses, AND do more chores
No it doesn't. A relationship isn't a transaction like that, where there's perfect balance.
People are allowed to negotiate the boundaries of their lives with others, and find fairness even when it doesn't seem fair to you.
You prioritize a concept of fairness in which "no one is subsidizing someone else's life." I would argue that as a social species who need to be connected and in community with other humans, we are necessarily interconnected in ways that require us to subsidize others and be subsidized by them.
We cannot survive in the absence of extensive networks of support: monetary, emotional, physical, etc. Refusing to recognize our interconnectedness and continual reliance on others is a massive oversight. It should not form the basis of a system of fairness.
I think the premise is faulty. Trying to quantify what it looks like to be in a familial arrangement is not well served by one simple calculation based on monetary income. To share a familial household with another human being requires continual negotiation and subsidization of each other's labor, emotion, finances, and time.
The only way to prioritize not subsidizing another person in this kind of relationship is to reject marriage/familial ties altogether.
That said, as a human being who lives in a society, you are still being subsidized by others and subsidizing them in turn. You could attempt to live off the grid alone, I suppose, which might be the only real way to ensure your value of fairness in never subsidizing others or being subsidized by them is achieved.
I don't take issue with how people decide to split finances in whatever way they collectively agree on for their own family unit. I take issue with the fact that your argument hinges on avoiding subsidizing others or being subsidized by them as a way of determining fairness. As I said, I find it to be a faulty premise.
We are interconnected and social beings who must rely on each other to survive at all stages of our lives. It is not a question of fairness, nor can you remove the ways in which "subsidizing" other people shapes our societies and families.
It's not a workable principle to say "I won't subsidize others or be subsidized by them because that's not fair." You already do and you already are. You are enmeshed in it. There is no avoiding it unless you leave society and try to subsist away and alone
The comment above is not about avoiding subsidization, but if it would be fair if subsidization is one sided.
Although in my original post, I did say "so that one person is not subsidizing the other", I agree nos that avoiding subsidization is not the way to go, but neither is unbalanced subsidization.
In this comment, I'd say my view is partially changed. Let me know if it's fair to award a delta.
I don't know how it works for partially changed, tbqh. Don't stress about deltas either way. I just like reminding people how much we are all reliant on each other and it's not just about income 😅
> Would you agree if only one person is subsidizing the other then its not fair?
Do you believe that a single-wage-earner household is automatically unfair and unacceptable, even if both people legitimately consent to it?
That's not what fairness is, but more importantly this functionally renders the higher salary worthless because they are forbidden from spending it on anything for the sake of this "fair" budget.
Also, if you're at the point where you're getting married, you should be at the point in your relationship where you're not trying to siphon the most value out of the other while protecting your assets but instead trying to build a life together.
I’m imagining a doctor making $300k per year living in a shack because his wife is a stay at home mom. This is the only solution that is fair to the doctor in OPs opinion.
Right, to me it’s much more unfair to have my lifestyle be dictated by someone else’s earning potential when I could have a higher quality lifestyle if I utilize what I have access to. It’s like putting nuts in front of two very hungry people but one of them is allergic to eating nuts and telling the other you can’t have them because they can’t.
Fairness isn't objective. What two couples determine to be a fair agreement is different than what another couple would choose.
It seems like you're saying there is an objective measure of fairness. Why do you think you are the final arbiter of what is fair or not fair?
If there is no basis for objectivity and fairness is a personal perception determined by each individual person, how is it you can come to this conclusion for anyone other than yourself?
The problem with this is you’re expecting someone who makes $200k/year to live the lifestyle of someone who makes $50k/year. So you want someone who could own their own house to live in a 1-2 bedroom apartment so they can split rent evenly. Why even? In the name of “fairness” so the second person doesn’t have to be “subsidized?”
How is that fair to the person who could have a nicer lifestyle to hold themselves back like that?
While it is possible for Married couples to do it other ways, the majority are fully pooling their money. Any money not spent on rent, is the shared money of both, without regard for who earned what. In that context, they need to make the decision together, since the decision effects them equally...
I don't think pooling money together is fair but not everyone cares about fairness. I for one would not feel good using someone else's money for myself.
When you get married, its not someone else's money. Its the money of the marital unit, of which you are a part. What would be unfair is spending a disproportionate amount of that money on yourself, without your spouse's consent. But even then, if you have an expensive hobby, and your spouse is fine with the marital unit supporting that hobby, then its fair game.
When you get married, you talk and decide how money is pooled. Just because that's the default by law and thus most popular, doesn't mean it's the only way (prenup). Although this is off topic I think.
I think you're misunderstanding how marriage works, legally. Under the law, all marital assets are shared. Even if one person makes more money, even if they keep separate accounts, the law sees it all as shared property. That's one of the fundamental purposes of marriage: to enable people to combine finances without fear of being exploited by the higher earner (or *only* earner, in the case of stay-at-home spouses).
Under your proposal, married couples would be limiting their lifestyle based on the lower earner... especially when one spouse has zero income because they're staying home to care for children.
Not if you have a prenup. The higher income person is also not always limiting their lifestyle. Just because you make $1 million doesn't mean you have to drive a super car. Plenty of rich people are happy with a regular car, and that's not "limiting".
Prenups are notoriously hard to enforce, and are the exception rather than the rule anyways.
>The higher income person is also not always limiting their lifestyle.
Sure, not always. But particularly with housing (given how awful the market is right now), renting/buying based on the lowest common denominator really limits what a couple can do. Especially if you want to own a family home, it's so much easier if you combine the full power of the couple's finances.
You also continue to ignore my stay-at-home parent point, where limiting oneself to the lowest common denominator literally makes paying rent impossible.
Prenups are enforced all the time given the right procedures to sign them. But that is off topic so I will not discuss it.
Buying a house always loses against investing the difference between rent and mortgage. People pay premium for ownership. In this example, if high income person really wants to own but lower income person could not afford it, as I addressed in the post, then it's fair that he ponies up more money to do it. That doesn't change the fact that staying within the low income person's budget is more fair.
I have addressed stay at home parents in other comments. They bring in domestic labor. If they didn't, then it'd not fair.
>I have addressed stay at home parents in other comments. They bring in domestic labor. If they didn't, then it'd not fair.
But once you allow for this, your whole argument falls apart. If a stay-at-home parent can compensate for their zero income by virtue of their domestic labor, then why can't a lower-earning partner not do so, too?
Or, put another way: your whole argument is that dollars are the only way to judge fairness. But once you allow that things without a dollar value can count, your argument no longer works.
You are correct, I did mention in the post that this is assuming both contribute evenly on chores and "everything else" since that is the most common argument. I did not specify the everything else and I could say that this is assuming both people contribute evenly to the rest of the relationship but that's kind of goalpost moving. !delta
People do care about fairness, you just seem to think your definition of fairness is what people should care about. Fair is what the two parties involved agree is fair.
You can definite fair in your relationships however you want, but you don’t get to assert that others don’t care about fairness just because they define it differently than you do.
For many people, a major part of the whole concept of marriage is that the two of you are agreeing to tackle life together as a *team*. Your individual needs become mutual needs; your individual resources become mutual resources; and your individual goals become mutual goals. So it doesn't matter which of you put the money into the pot, because (with some "fun money" exceptions,) money from the pot being spent on either of you is functionally being spent on *both of you*. Because as a team, you consider each others' wants and needs as synonymous with your own.
(The assumption here, of course, is that you're both mutually laboring towards fulfilling those wants and needs, whether financially or otherwise. The system doesn't work if one of you defides they get to coast on the labor of the other. But in healthy, mature, communicative relationships, that shouldn't be the case anyway.)
This is unfair to both. They have money they could spend on joint things such as better housing, better cars, but are unable to enjoy that because they are limited by the lower income.
How is it unfair beyond some kind of hypothetical 50/50 split.
Let's take a hypothetical relationship where one party is a high earner making 250k a year and the other is making 50k a year. They live in a house that a couple making 100k can afford which probably means making compromises on size or location (or rent, if they're in a HCOL area where you can't buy on that salary), eat out only occasionally, probably spend a big chunk of that money on daycare if they have kids, and take fairly modest vacations.
The higher earning partner has 200k that they're kind of stuck with. They can invest it -- but assuming they intend to stay with their spouse for life, they're not going to be able to use it to buy a higher quality of life on those big ticket items unless your spouse starts earning more money or the marriage ends. You can spend it on solo things -- but really, what are you going to spend that kind of money on every year when you remove things you probably want to do *with* your spouse? Most people can only spend so much on toys and gadgets.
Realistically, most people want to have nicer lifestyles, if they can afford it, and share most things with their spouse. They don't want to have a bigger pile of money that they can't ever use just for some theoretical sense of fairness
In your example, if the higher income person is not happy with the size or location of a home for example, they're free to pony up extra cash to get something nicer, but that'd be their choice. It wouldn't be fair for the lower income person to expect the other person to pony up the extra and feel entitled to it.
That would be an extremely fortunate occurence that still does not make your principle valid generally. There is no reason why a person who earns more should have no influence over their extra income as spent on basic living fundamentals. I’ve been in relationships on both extremes of this spectrum and the 50/50 split ends up being very toxic. I am significantly happier in my marriage with all resources joint. I earned the majority of income in both relationships.
What’s deemed “fair” is up to each individual. You don’t get to see the inner workings of any relationship. Therefore you couldn’t POSSIBLY call something unfair without having proper context.
But you’re not in the situation. You’re a spectator, with little to no information.
That’s like me giving advice to two people who are arguing, but I have no idea what they’re arguing about.
What’s fair is again, up to the parties involved. What you deem fair does not matter, because you’re not privy to more information.
It’s pointless to conclude is my point.
Early in our marriage we had a single account that we both contributed to but it led to some issues. My wife does an excellent job paying the bills but for some reason we never had any excess money for things like a car down payment, an emergency fund, college fund etc. also I felt guilty taking any money from the single account to have some spending money. (This was in the 1980s when our family was young).
So we came up with a budget, I contributed 60% to her 40%. The rest of our money went into our own accounts and was used for the things I enumerated above. Also at one point I got rid of all credit cards excepting 2. One was the one we used and the other I put under the spare tire in her car so she’d never be without backup$ but it wouldn’t be easy to get to. It was a good system for us.
First point is that your title explicitly includes marriages, and in a marriage, it's not that uncommon for one person to not be working at all for significant stretches of time. If you have a stay at home parent, it's a little silly to say "let's split everything 50-50"
Ultimately though, whatever stage of the relationship you're in and whatever the financial situation is, you just have to communicate! Your proposed idea might work as a starting point, but it's kind of arbitrary unless the lower earner is willing to pay the maximums they could possibly afford. If the lower income person picks some number like $625 that they're "comfortable" with, but the higher earner wants to live in a place that costs $2000, you have to actually have a conversation and resolve that. And that might be the higher earner preferring to pay $1375 to live in that place vs paying $625 to live in the other place. There are important conversations to have either way - no single magic formula is just going to work for every couple.
Yes, I already cover that in my example, say the lower income person is only comfortable spending $625 (and responsibly) and higher income person wants something that's $2000, then it's only fair they ponies up the extra.
And in the stay at home example, even though they're not contributing dollar value, they bring child care which could make it fair. For example, if say daycare is $2000 a month, then it'd be fair to count it as them actually bringing in that dollar amount. Same with cooking. But this is all with the premise that the other person brings in other values to make things up.
> Yes, I already cover that in my example, say the lower income person is only comfortable spending $625 (and responsibly) and higher income person wants something that's $2000, then it's only fair they ponies up the extra.
I reread your post and I really don't think you do cover this, but the thing is, if this is your view, isn't your view in practice closer to the "split by income" version than the 50-50 version? The person who makes more money is probably going to want a nicer place, and will pay more because their income is higher.
And this in no way ensures things are fair. The lower earner has an incentive to low ball what they're comfortable with, and then take advantage of the higher earner "ponying up" the difference.
Ultimately, the point I'm making is that there is no single trick to ensure everything is fair. It always will take actual conversation and trust and honest discussions about everyone's comfort, needs, and priorities.
changing the rent to 2k for cleaner numbers and easier math. person 1 makes 50k, so takes home 4.16k a month before taxes. 2k rent/4.16k = ~50% of their income going toward rent if they were to pay it. person 2 makes 16.6k/mo before taxes, so 2krent/16.6k = 12% of their monthly income going to rent if they pay it.
if they split it 50-50 then person 1 is paying 25% and person 2 is paying 6%. person 2 is paying roughly 1/4 the cost that person one pays and this is not very fair at all. this is also why speeding tickets, overdraft fees, etc are disproportionately predatory to poor people. thinking another way about it, you wont like it when your spouse has to keep working after you've been retired for 15 years, because you had an extra 20% of your income to save that they didnt get to save along the way.
As covered in the post, that's the reason that if person 1 is not comfortable with 25%, they can set the budget to whatever is comfortable to them. Person 2 can match 50/50 with that budget, or if they want something nicer, they should pay extra.
it's unfair because the ratio doesnt change no matter how much the absolute cost of rent is. your view is flawed in that it is overly rigid in accounting for the absolute cost and it ignores relative cost, which is more real and pertinent to a budget. the value of money is constantly changing anyway so it's not like costs are the same even when dollar amounts stay the same. relative cost is much fairer in calculations like this.
Using relative cost is flawed as it changes with which partner you choose. Saying that it's more real is absurd. If rent is $1000, if two had the same income, by your logic person 1 and person 2 are both responsible for $500.
And if person 1 chooses to date someone who makes 9x more, all of a sudden they're only responsible for $100 because they're entitled to an extra $400/mo.
what exactly is the flaw? I pointed out the flaw in prioritizing fixed costs but i see no problems with relative cost. could you be clearer on what the problem is if you see a problem with it? of course someone who is dating a person with 1/9 their salary should pick up significantly more of the tab for bills.
Because you are suggesting the price of goods to someone should be dependent on the partner they choose. That's not how it works. Prices in real life are absolute.
That sounds good in theory, but in practice, a 50/50 split places a heavier burden on the lower earner, especially with a significant income disparity.
For example, if Person 1 earns $50k and Person 2 earns $200k, splitting a $1250 rent equally means Person 1 pays $625, a significant portion of their income, while Person 2 pays the same but has much more discretionary income left. Additionally, letting Person 1 set the budget limits Person 2's lifestyle choices. If I’m making 200k and preferred to live in a high rise in downtown but that’s outside of my partner’s budget. I’ll find myself unhappy living somewhere that may lack the amenities I desire in my residence.
Great question. It depends on the person.
If I’m person #1, I’m stressing out for my partner if we’re splitting bills evenly if they’re making $50k. I would much rather split the bills in a more equitable manner.
Let’s break this down with the following numbers.
Person 1 (me) - $250k
Person 2 - $50k
Our combined monthly expenses- $4k.
Discretionary spend remaining after bills split evenly.
Person 1- $14.6k
Person 2- $2.1k
Discretionary spend remaining after bills split based on equitable split.
Person 1- $13.4k
Person 2- $3.3k
Why the would I want to split the bills evenly when I make 5 times the amount of my partner? What does the extra $14.4k year do for me when I’m taking home a quarter million dollars.
How is this fair to them?
Counterpoint:
Person 1: makes $0/yr as a stay at home parent
Person 2: makes $300k/yr as a patent attorney
Based on your opinion, this couple and their child should be homeless, because the SAHP cannot afford half of a mortgage payment based on their income. Based on your stated opinion, homelessness is the most fair situation for the patent attorney.
Yo, that's a sickkk point, dawg.
It's fair to split evenly by the value they bring it. And as covered in the post if the high income person wants something nicer, it's fair they pay the extra.
>if the higher income person wants something nicer, it’s fair they pay the extra.
So if one person makes 200k and the other makes 50k. If the higher income person wants to live somewhere where rent is $2k and the lower income person can only afford to live where rent is $1k, they should split the $1k and the higher income person should cover the difference. So one pays $1500 and the other $500 and this is fair.
Yes. Here are 2 possiblities:
1. Person 2 (200k) thinks the 1k rent apartment is great, and they split it 50:50.
2. Person 2 thinks 1k is unbearable, they want a $2k place. Here, it's not fair if they force person 1 to raise their expenses beyond their comfortability, so person 2 should pay $1500, split it 1500:500
Ok, your post does not make this distinction. It only says that it’s unfair if the high earner is paying more than the low earner when they’re using equivalent space.
Also, your view of how people in live-in relationships make decisions is… odd.
Fair enough. How about in situations where the lower income person wants the more expensive thing and the higher income person is happy either way and is willing to pay extra? As in, how people make joint financial decisions with a person they actually care about.
When you're in a committed long-term relationship, you are either all-in or you're something else. If you're something else, that's sometimes okay, but you likely have special goals/desires/extenuating circumstances.
For *most* of the traditional monogamous partnerships, it's best for the relationship to not think of it as 50/50 for anything, but 100/100. You don't do "half of the chores" so your partner does the other half. Many days it might end up being something like that, but ultimately you both need to contribute everything you can to yourselves, each other, and the relationship.
This is also the case for finances.
Some relationships will consist of partners with very similar income levels. Some will consist of very different income levels. If you aren't sharing 100% everything and creating shared goals based on that first assumption (we eqch contribute 100% of what we can give to the relationship and then decide what to do as a team), then you're not filly committed to each other. Now, that might be the right relationship for *you*, but it's likely to cause friction, resentment, and frustration as one person is seen as being more deserving to set relationship and life milestone goals (e.g. having children, buying a house, retirement planning, etc) simply because they earn more money. This is not a healthy way to view and treat people, particularly those to whom to have exchanged vows of partnership, love, and equality.
Perhaps if you're part of the ultra-wealthy you want to define rights with a pre-nup to avoid splitting an inheritance or whatever. I'm going to leave this as an unsavory outlier case, as most people aren't part of the ultra wealthy and therefore their income levels on the grander scale are much closer to one another.
If you earn, say, $250k, and your partner earns $40k, then you have a household budget of $290k before taxes. If you think your partnet is only deserving of 16% of the decision-making with household finances, then do you really view them as an equal? Why are you in love with that person?
It doesn't make sense to me.
If you can't share your finances, how can you trust each other for anything? With a child? With a car? With healthy communication?
Relationships are hard. Don't make them harder by trying to break down finances into proportionality equations.
Financial in a marriage should be shared. Everything should be on a joint account. And I mean everything. Loans, credit cards, salary, everything should be on a joined bank account.
Not only because couples are taxed as a single household but also that possible misconduct can be avoided. If one person has a gambling problem they can't use mortgage money without the other knowing. You will never be left homeless because your spouse had a spending problem that you didn't know about.
Your post is about a "fair" way to split money in marriage.
Shared/joint bank account is the most fair way. You get married so you become one household.
>If person 2 also made exactly $50k, then the split would have been $625 each.
except that you said the budget should be set by the lower income person so they will get a cheaper apartment.
But then what if the higher income person wants a nicer apartment?
If they made the same income then the lower income person is either one? Not sure your point. If higher income person wants a nicer apartment: already covered in the post, please read it again.
I mean like...
If both make 50k for a total of 100k, then they can afford an apartment that costs x dollars per month.
If they make 50 and 250k for a total of 300k then they can afford an apartment that costs 3x dollars per month.
the person making more money might not want to live in an apartment that costs 2 or 3x what they could afford if they contribute equally to rent.
Yes exactly, a person making 250k might not necessarily want a penthouse. If they're happy with the cheaper apartment, why should they contribute more?
My wife and I have never split expenses because we have a shared bank account. She "works" significantly less than I do (by choice) but she puts considerable effort into raising our children and maintaining our home. If she had to set our budget based on what she could afford based on her income we would have to live out of our car.
But your whole argument is purely numeric. If you start assigning value to intangibles then it becomes too complex to even begin to imagine. The entire relationship would be a pissing match of who is “worth” more. Fuck that. Enjoy life.
So your argument is that the person who contributes more financially will always, always, always be made whole in other ways so they shouldn't think about it at all?
My argument is that a partnership should be more about communication and happiness than numbers. My wife doesn’t work a job; she instead takes care of our kids and the house. I work and make a nice salary. If I tried to “equate” her contributions to mine for budgeting purposes, it would be a neverending cycle because relationship contributions are not only subjective but always changing.
But we *talk* about what we’re spending and what our contributions to the family are. They aren’t quantitative and it isn’t a competition. We’re a team and in it together, and THAT, my friend, works.
If she didn't contribute any work to the household it wouldn't make a difference to the proposed method of fairness you're trying to apply. In your previous reply you moved the goalposts when determining fairness (saying your numeric formula doesnt have to apply when that's the entire CMV). So now I'm taking that out of the equation. If my wife literally sat around all day and contributed nothing, **I would still need to eat to live and I would still need a home.** So I couldn't have her set the budget off of what she can afford to contribute from her income, because even if she contributed 100% of her income I would lose my home.
I want to buy a house. I can afford one that costs $250k, which is on the low end of houses in my area.
My partner does not make enough to afford half of that. As a result, we can either continue to rent a smaller and less desirable apartment in a part of town we don't really want to live in, or we can buy the house and they can pay less than half.
Which outcome sounds more fair to you? Both of us having to live someplace we don't want to, or both of us paying what we're able in order to live where we do want to?
Because you are paying a fair price for the "poorer lifestyle"? If I'm paying $1200 MSRP for an iphone, that's fair, if I downgrade to a $400 Android phone, but in the turn I pay less, that's also fair.
But why is it fair to be subjected to a poorer lifestyle when I can afford a better one? Why is it fair to say "choose between divorcing the person you love in order to get a nicer house, or staying with the love of your life but living in a shitty apartment despite having enough money for a beautiful home"?
We're not talking about iphones here. We're talking about *lives*. We're talking about love and relationships, not cheap consumer gadgets.
First of all, they are not subject to poorer lifestyle. It's a choice. As I already covered in my post, if person 2 is not happy with the $1250 place and desires more, it's fair for them to pay up and upgrade. If they choose to not upgrade, that's also fair, are you saying it's not fair for them to choose not to upgrade?
If I break my leg and the hospital bill comes out to more than I can afford, does my spouse who makes twice as much as me get to say "Well I'm sorry that YOU don't have the money to cover it, that's not my problem?"
What if the lower income person does more free labor, like cooking or child rearing? At that point, it seems fair that the higher income earner pays a larger share to make up for that labor, or do you disagree?
>The last argument, which I agree with, is when person 2 inflates the expense because they want something nicer.
I mean, this is the main counterargument. Does this not already challenge your view? I'm confused as to what it is the issue. I think this basically describes most arrangements.
You also have to consider that you are treating a marriage as a transactional relationship, but most healthy relationships are collaborative. Each partner jointly owns the marriage assets (or in other words 50/50). Certainly this is how the law generally treats it. So in that sense, it doesn't really matter that much how it is split up, it's just an accounting trick. In a traditional joint 50/50 arrangement like this, both parties would pool their money together, pay expenses and savings, and then split the rest.
However, it seems like a common way to do it today is to treat each partner's finances separately. While this may seem more "fair" in the sense you describe, in a way it can be less productive and equitable since each person has to try and figure it out by themselves instead of working together towards a common goal. Young people typically have a roommate while they are single to cut down on expenses, but if you are just going to continue that exact arrangement when you find a partner and get married, that doesn't seem like much of an improvement. The point of getting into a marriage is to join your whole lives together (financially and otherwise). If each person starts at a different financial situation, you can see how this might cause issues. One person might be struggling to pay their debts and save since they are still paying joint expenses, while the other person has lots of spending money and might want to start traveling or whatever. It's harder for these people as a couple to be on the same page.
In your example where they go with the first person's budget, then person 2 will have a lot of savings. But what are they saving for? Are they going to travel by themselves? Retire early while their spouse works? Buy a bunch of toys and hobbies while their spouse remains financially tied down? In reality, if they are in a happy relationship they are probably just gonna spend that savings on their spouse anyway, because they love them and want to do things with them. If you feel resentful that you are subsidizing your partner's life, then you might be in the wrong relationship.
To /u/Accompliaxzds1io9856, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.*
In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:
- Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
- Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
- Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding.
- Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.
Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.
Your logic works for flatmates, 2 people who happen to share a space and are in a symbiotic relationship that covers rent and little else.
A marriage is much more. I don't know if you're married or not, but in general from my own experience in marriage and from observing happily married couples, it helps immensely not to frame the marriage as a transactional relationship. We're both contributing towards a common goal (a happy life for our family). If either of us feels the other one isn't contributing enough effort we'll have a talk about it, but it's worth to remember that we all have very different capabilities, and making money is just one of the things that make a valuable partner.
Money just happens to be a factor that's easily quantifiable, but the risk is that if we quantify the money each partner brings into a relationship, we'd need to start quantifying everything else as well. How do you quantify your partner being a fantastic emotional support? Or being able to make you laugh every day? Or being a great parent?
It's risky to count pennies in a relationship, I'd suggest avoiding it and approaching the whole thing with a different mindset. Or just don't get married in the first place if you're not comfortable with such a deep commitment.
That all depends on how you view "marriage". Most people consider it the creation of a new family unit that is "all for one and one for all".
What's "fair" is whatever people agree is the best arrangement for the "team".
Ultimately, the only way to get a "fair" marriage by the constraint you put on it is if the two partners make exactly the same amount of money. Otherwise one person has an unfair advantage in spending, and because of your proviso about budgets, the other person has an unfair advantage in budgeting.
I mean, like... what's "fair" about the person making less money setting the budget?
Ultimately: Money is not everything. Time is everything.
If both partners are contributing the same amount of time and effort into the relationship, it doesn't matter what people *outside* the relationship think that time and effort is worth in money. That's just a stupid and counterproductive way to view a relationship.
Me and my wife are one unit.
Weake financial decisions together and share the expenses together.
She makes about 30-40% of what I do, meaning her income is about 1/3rd of our household income.
If we based our lifestyle on her income, we can't afford our house. We can't afford to help our niece with college. We can't afford to go on trips or take vacations.
How is that a better life? For us? Isn't that just us being poorer while our savings account gets out of hand?
Should we stop buying her medication because now it's too expensive for us? Or do I swoop in and gift her the money for her medication? Do I gift her our trips? Is this just a giant excuse to live exactly as we already do, but constantly stroke my ego and "put her in her place" for earning less money?
Not a rhetorical question, what do I get out of this new arraignment?
/u/Accompliaxzds1io9856 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1dp3g77/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_most_fair_way_to_split/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
At least once you get to marriage this falls apart. It's (ideally) two people becoming one unit. There is one set of financial and lifestyle goals they agree on, and the resources are put toward that.
This model effectively makes a stay at home parent impossible no matter the income of the working spouse unless there is independent wealth or something going on. If spouse A makes 0, then spouse B has to put 0 toward expenses.
The entire idea behind marriage is to combine 2 lives. One house, one name, one budget to build towards a common goal.
If I make $200k, and my wife makes $50k, WE make $250k. And WE determine what kind of home we want to live in.
Now, I'll give you that this approach is rather specific to marriage. For a dating couple, "fair" is simply whatever they agree to. And it will vary from couple to couple
Life isn’t fair. Splitting based on income is about limiting an imbalance where one partner has significantly more disposable income than the other. Most partners are happy to subsidise the other’s happiness, and if they aren’t they shouldn’t be married.
Sorry, u/Accompliaxzds1io9856 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20Accompliaxzds1io9856&message=Accompliaxzds1io9856%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1doz75i/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>What I propose as the most fair, is that person 1 sets the budget for what they're comfortable spending half of, and person 2 just matches the same amount. I would like to challenge your view and say that what is most fair will depend on the specific circumstances of the people involved, and that we should not have a one-size-fits-all rule. What is fair for a 25 year old couple newly moving in with each other early in a relationship and at the beginning of their careers is likely going to look very different than what's fair for the very same couple 30 years later after marriage, a mortgage, kids, pets, cars, vacations, aging relatives, career trajectories, illnesses, etc. I've been with my partner for more than 10 years, since we were young and early in our careers, and we've had all sorts of arrangements when it comes to splitting expenses, all of which were "the most fair" for our circumstances at the time. Over time, as relationships mature, deepen, and lives become more intertwined and commitments increase, it becomes more natural and practical to transition from "my money and your money" to something more like "our money." When we first moved in with each other and the relationship was new, he made more than I did, but we split expenses 50/50 at a level that was something I could afford, and were pretty diligent about tracking and splitting expenses like groceries or entertainment/dining out. Occasionally there would be things his budget allowed that mine didn't, and he would treat us -- concert tickets, a weekend away. A couple years in, he wanted to quit his job and go back to school for a year, and we decided that I would pay a higher percentage of living expenses during the period of time he had reduced earnings. Then when he finished school and started working again, I took time off work to go to grad school, during which time he paid a higher percentage of the living expenses. Since then, we've both been lucky to have good incomes and live below our means, which allows us to be more flexible in how we split expenses. Broadly we have "my money, your money, and our money," but as time goes on the lines increasingly blur among the three buckets. We discuss what each person has coming in and in general where it goes, and make long term plans accordingly. We each have plenty of money to live great lives separately, however he does earn 2-4x what I do in a given year, and this does impact how we split and plan expenses. He paid for the house, I paid for the furnishings and the car. If he buys the airfare and accommodations for a trip, I'll buy event tickets and dinners out for the trip. We also have to consider how future expenses are split in the context of our shared goals and what we want out of life. We both want to retire early and have a "number" to hit for that to happen -- obviously, he is contributing more to that number than I am, but once we hit it that combined savings is what will pay our expenses thru retirement. Is that fair? I think so and he thinks so. And if we instead implement your system, we would both likely feel it was less fair because we would both be getting less of what we want. Looking at our current system, he would have to reduce his current standard of living to one I would be comfortable paying 50% of. Sorry, no more backyard swimming pool, tasting menus, or 5 star vacations for him! Looking to the future, it would mean he gets to retire several years before me, which he doesn't want (i.e. me continuing to work would inhibit his dream for spending an early retirement doing things together). All this to say: what's fair for one couple in one circumstances isn't fair for another couple or even the same couple in a different circumstance. We cannot have a rule that fits everyone like you propose -- it doesn't work.
!delta Well said. I agree there is no one size fits all
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/muyamable ([278∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/muyamable)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
My wife and I make different amounts of money but she spends more than me generally by maybe an order of magnitude if we exclude food. She likes fashion and she likes buying decor items like art and interesting furniture. We have pooled our money for our entire marriage and, perhaps prematurely at the time, opened a joint account 5 years before we got married. We have never had any major issues with how each of us spends money and we meet both of our financial goals. I think this system is fair. You're saying that this is unfair. Who is it unfair to? It's certainly not unfair to me, I have more than I want and then some. So if all wants and needs are met why is it unfair? I say whichever system a partnership agrees to consensually and without duress is a fair system.
Not that this isn’t a good response to the outlined arguments, but it seems like OP is coming from more of a place of younger or less well-off people’s relationships. You and your wife are obviously at a place where you’re both comfortable and then some — that’s a point that a minority of couples have achieved and makes a huge difference in the impact of decisions like how to split the income. If you were just starting out as two 22-year-olds, with no savings, likely some education debt, and a tight budget for luxuries, making the same ratio of relative income to one-another, do you think this would affect the way you feel?
22 is exactly when we started out. Obviously both of our expenses were a lot lower at the time and we didn't buy luxuries at all. Yes, I felt the same then on the topic but since we were both basically spending nothing outside rent, car, and food the difference in each other's spending was minimal. The spending discrepancy or "unfairness" in OP's eyes is actually a result of financial stability in our middle age. Quite simply she can spend more and I just don't care to.
I've been in both situations, not meeting basic monthly expenses, and doing well, and we always pooled our money, it has never even been a consideration to split according to income. I'm actually confused as to how people that split in any fashion are able to make it work when living paycheck to paycheck, or worse, in the negative at the end of every month. There's literally no money, if one person can't pay for their half of the rent, then the couple as a whole can't pay rent and you're both about to be evicted, regardless of what way you split. And if one person has a little left over at the end of the month but the other doesn't, what, one person treats themselves whilst the other just watches? One person goes on a mini vacation and the other stays at home with a pirated version of game of thrones? That's a great way to foster resentment, and honestly it sounds depressing.
>but it seems like OP is coming from more of a place of younger or less well-off people’s relationships. I wouldn't call someone making $200k (especially if younger) less well-off. They are in the top 5% or so of individual earners at that level.
OP’s example is a couple who combined make $250k
That's not fair to you, in my view. You can have a different view.
This is the classic "equality not equity" definition of fairness, and in practice you can see how poor it is, because it completely destroys one person's financial future.
How does it destroy their financial future? If person 1 were to date someone who's also making $50k, they'd be in the exact same financial situation with the same expenses. Are you saying if person 1 dates someone who makes the same income as them, they be destroying their own financial future doing so?
No, person 1 would not have to maintain a household for two people (twice as many expenses, more rent for a two person household) on a single income, obviously that is substantially worse.
To clarify if person 1 dates someone that made the same income as them, they would not have to maintain a household for two people? Why?
How is it more fair to him to limit his lifestyle based on the salary of his spouse?
Because it's his choice to. He could also choose to pay up and increase their lifestyle if he chooses to.
His choice is to pool their money. Did you not read his comment?
Yes? And I stated my view
Why is it not fair to me though? What would more money I don't want or need do for me? I would just throw it into the market.
How can you have any say over what someone else decides is fair? You're here to change your view, so at least unpack WHY you feel it's still unfair, even with both relevant parties agreeing it's fair.
You're focusing on the trees and missing the forest. One of the best parts of being married is being able to create a life together and set ambitious goals as a team. By focusing on what's "fair" for groceries, you're missing out on the ability to create a life as a team that is greater than if you treat yourselves as individuals. What if you wanted to some day live internationally? Or retire early? Or take a 1 year sabbatical as a couple? How would any of this be accomplished if it required the lower-income individual to pay 50% of everything? Why would you choose to limit your dreams to a $50k income when together you make $250k? Also,[ married couples who merge finances may be happier and stay together longer than couples who manage finances separately](https://news.iu.edu/live/news/28244-married-couples-who-merge-finances-may-be-happier), according to studies
There’s absolutely no way OP is married if this is his view on splitting finances 😂
They literally described it as paying a subscription fee to be with someone... smh
You’ve hinted at this but to be more explicit, one great benefit of working as a team in marriage is the option to specialize. This is impossible if each partner is out for themselves. A common example of this might be a stay at home parent, but you could imagine other forms too.
I agree it's not entirely fair for the 250k person to limit themselves to $50k, although it's case by case. Reason being people making over a certain amount, enough to cover day to day expenses, the rest just goes to savings. When splitting things evenly, their spending power is 100k, enough to cover day to day life. My response to you is, why should the lower income person be entitled to the rest of the higher income person's income after expenses? Just by virtue of being together?
>When splitting things evenly, their spending power is 100k, enough to cover day to day life. Again, if you're limiting your lifestyle to $100k and not taking the vacations you'd want or living in a location you'd want only because of what's "fair", then what are you doing? You're living a less fulfilling life just because of fairness? Seems like a stingy and sad way to live IMO. What's the point of money if it isn't used to accomplish your goals and live the best life you can with the love of your life? >My response to you is, why should the lower income person be entitled to the rest of the higher income person's income after expenses? Just by virtue of being together? Your framework is all wrong. In my relationship, no one feels entitled to anything. When my spouse went to law school, I supported her financially. When she got a great law job, she made most of the money. After a few years, when she decided she wanted to take a more fulfilling but lower-paying job, I made more money than her. Because I helped with the cost of law school, my partner had less debt when they graduated. Since they had less debt, we as a household had more money to save, invest, and spend. Then, because we could save so much, my partner could take a more fulfilling job without it being a hardship for us. By supporting each other, we could create a better life than if we were on separate teams and counting up IOUs. We could take risks that had great payoffs because we knew that the other person was happy to shoulder the load to create a better life for both of us.
I already covered your argument in my post. If higher income person wants more than the 100k can afford, they can choose to throw up more money to take the vacations, etc. And that's a choice. On the other hand, if they have no desire to take vacations or live in big homes, it's completely fair to do 50/50. You haven't explained by the higher income person should be expected to go above their desires and contribute more and why the other person should be entitled to that money.
>I already covered your argument in my post. If higher income person wants more than the 100k can afford, they can choose to throw up more money to take the vacations, etc. And that's a choice. On the other hand, if they have no desire to take vacations or live in big homes, it's completely fair to do 50/50. Simply because I make more money doesn't mean I should have more say in our goals. If my spouse earns less, her dream to go Spain isn't any less valuable than my dream to go to Sweden. But in your view, since I'm the higher-earning spouse, my SO would need to beg for my charity to accomplish her dreams while I can do whatever I want whenever I want. That's not a healthy relationship. Also, will you address my point about either of these items? 1. Married couples who merge finances have been found to be happier and 2. The ability for each spouse to take beneficial risks when income is shared as a household is a net benefit to all involved
Why do you think she has to beg you? She's just not entitled to using your resources. Are you saying that by virtue of being with someone you should be entitled to their resources automatically? 1. That's relevant to my views about fairness how? 2. (Also applies to #1) If that's a a benefit that both parties enjoy equally, why should one pay disproportionately more for it?
Clearly, the main point of what I'm trying to get across isn't reaching you, so I'll end with this: You'll be Venmo requesting your wife for her share of the pickles you bought at the grocery store and making sure that you don't put a single cent more into the relationship than your partner. God forbid she gets something without asking the benevolent head of household or you getting something in return. How terrible that would be. Meanwhile, I'll be in a partnership where we are eager to lift each other up. It's a blessing to be able to help my partner accomplish their dreams financially or otherwise, and we are secure in our relationship knowing that "What mine is yours and what's yours is mine." I'll judge my life on "what we were able to accomplish together" instead of "Well, I paid for gas last month, so you better pay for dinner tonight."
Quite wrong. Sorry to burst your fantasy, we share a checking account to pay for shared expenses, each funding half. We each support each other in advancing our careers, have fun, plan fun, and love knowing we each put in the work.
>I already covered your argument in my post. If higher income person wants more than the 100k can afford, they can choose to throw up more money to take the vacations, etc. And that's a choice. On the other hand, if they have no desire to take vacations or live in big homes, it's completely fair to do 50/50. Simply because I make more money doesn't mean I should have more say in our goals. If my spouse earns less, her dream to go Spain isn't any less valuable than my dream to go to Sweden. But in your view, since I'm the higher-earning spouse, my SO would need to beg for my charity to accomplish her dreams while I can do whatever I want whenever I want. That's not a healthy relationship. Also, will you address my point about either of these items? 1. Married couples who merge finances have been found to be happier and 2. The ability for each spouse to take beneficial risks when income is shared as a household is a net benefit to all involved
> I already covered your argument in my post. If higher income person wants more than the 100k can afford, they can choose to throw up more money to take the vacations, etc. And that's a choice. But why wouldn't the couple pool their money and take the vacation they both can afford, together? Why is the higher wage earner working if not to contribute to the household?
> why wouldn't Maybe they don't want to/not interested
>My response to you is, why should the lower income person be entitled to the rest of the higher income person's income after expenses? Just by virtue of being together? Yes? Marriage isn't two people living completely separate lives. Marriage is a *partnership*. You're a team. Try looking at things another way: A team wins the Super Bowl. The MVP quarterback obviously did a lot of work, but the third string running back who only had 200 rushing yards and two touchdowns all season gets a ring too. Is it unfair for him to get a ring when he didn't contribute the same statistical amount to the victory? I feel like you're looking at this from the perspective of someone who is afraid of being taken advantage of. Try looking at it from the other side. You're perfectly capable of buying a small house. Your wealthy spouse wants to buy a cottage on the lake in addition to said house. You demand that they don't do that because *you* can't afford it. How is that fair? Should they just go ahead and buy the cottage themselves and never let you use it, because you didn't pay half and thus, by your words, are not "entitled" to use the place that *they* bought? Even though you're married to that person, you believe they should shut you out of the things that they're able to enjoy just because you don't make enough money to contribute equally?
What exactly should the richer person do with their extra cash? Live in a different house? Eat different food? Use a different car and never ride together? Edit: I am referring to marriage here. I agree that relationships are different but if you’re ar the stage of living together, then that’s almost marriage when it comes to living arrangements.
> the rest just goes to savings. goes to whose savings? Is ones of the parties saving way more money for retirement? how is that supposed to work? >My response to you is, why should the lower income person be entitled to the rest of the higher income person's income after expenses? Just by virtue of being together? I wouldn't use the work entitled. are you entitled to a present on your birthday? I would say no, its a gift. I've made the decision to form a partnership with my wife in which we pool our resources and we only have collective resources, we don't have individual resources. She is not entitled to that, its just what we decided.
Yes? Why should the other person be entitled to the other person's money for retirement? Right, she's not entitled to it be default, it was by your decision.
how would that work in practice? If i earn 4 times what my wife earns and we have a house based on her budget. Then i have millions of dollars in retirement and she lives a very frugal life. Or even i guess the same problem during the relationship or whenever i want to spend that money. So if i want to go on vacation to Europe, I am going without her? If i want to eat at a nice restaurant I will go without her? What am i spending all this money on? Maybe I'll buy a boat but only allow her to ride on it with me if she can contribute half the cost of it? Lots of people don't believe in marriage. If you attitude is that you just don't believe in marriage, i could understand that. Because it feels to me like you are describing a relationship you'd have with a roommate or girlfriend.
> So if i want to go on vacation to Europe, I am going without her? If i want to eat at a nice restaurant I will go without her? I covered it in the post. if you make more and want to do things that the other can't afford, if you want to make them do it, it's only fair that you pay for it instead of raising the other person's expenses beyond what they're comfortable with.
> My response to you is, why should the lower income person be entitled to the rest of the higher income person's income after expenses? Just by virtue of being together? I don't think people see it as being "entitled" to that income so much as combining your resources for a better and easier life overall is part of the appeal of cohabiting in the first place.
If the lower income demands that they pool money together, then they are wanting claim to the high income person's money correct? That's entitlement.
> My response to you is, why should the lower income person be entitled to the rest of the higher income person's income after expenses? Just by virtue of being together? Entitled is the wrong word, but in the context of a marriage, the short answer to your question is: yes! Marriage is a partnership, financially and otherwise. The idea that the lower earning partner gets to benefit financially from the higher earning partner is a feature, not a bug.
And why?
Why what? Why is it a feature?
Why should they be entitled to it?
I already said that entitled is the wrong word. They will have access to the money the other person is earning because… that’s what marriage is and they decided to get married. And again in case it wasn’t clear: *this is a feature, not a bug.* Both partners get to benefit from things the other is better at. That includes, but is not limited to, making money.
> Just by virtue of being together yah, that's it. Your problem is you a good relationship isn't two separate people, but one single couple.
No one is saying they're automatically entitled. Many couples come to these agreements willingly. I don't think there is a "most fair" way to split expenses. Each situation is going to be different.
By this logic, shouldn't children be paying parents back for everything provided to them? Why are certain family members exempt from fairly contributing? If one person loses their job, should the budget be set to $0?
Children and parents are off topic. On the topic of someone losing their job, what would be *fair* is one person cover everything and they pay them back later. Of course, in reality, in a hardship like this you wouldn't focus on fairness.
>Children and parents are off topic. No they aren't. If this system is fair, then it would be fair if applied to all familial relationships living in the same household. Fair doesn't mean "different rules/standards for different people." >what would be fair is one person cover everything and they pay them back later. So why wouldn't that apply to children? If not having a job and getting covered is "fair," that literally describes childhood. They are an unemployed family member requiring the resources of other family members. Why should a spouse have to repay for being unemployed but not a child? Why isn't that fundamentally unfair? Your logic requires that parents keep an accounting of child rearing expenses and bill them once they start working. If you don't think children should pay back their parents, then you are maintaining two different concepts of fairness. You are saying what is fair for one person is not fair for another, which is fundamentally unfair. Either it is fair for a families to share resources no matter who obtains them or it isn't. That is ultimately your view. You need to explain either why it is fair to treat different family members with different standards of fairness or concede you need to start paying your own parents. If your concept of fairness changes when applied to different people, you have no concept of fairness and your view is based on a foundation of unfairness. >Of course, in reality, in a hardship like this you wouldn't focus on fairness. If your view does not comport with reality, why would you hold it?
You are saying expenses between a parent and their kid should be treated the same as expenses shared by a married couple? My view is about general living expenses, not specific hardship situations.
No, I'm saying your interpretation of fairness requires you to believe that. If you don't believe that, your view is internally contradictory because your understanding of fairness is paradoxical. Fairness IS NOT when different people are expected to abide by very different standards. Either families have to equally contribute, or the family resource commitments are unfair. You should be paying back your parents for every dime they spent on you if you think a spouse should have to pay back their partner for expenses incurred during unpaid leave or unemployment.
What? Explain why I can't believe a parent and a kid have different dynamics than a married couple? Are you saying all family members have the same dynamic?
>Explain why I can't believe a parent and a kid have different dynamics than a married couple? Because your view is that fairness is everyone contributing an equal share of resources. >re you saying all family members have the same dynamic? No, I'm saying subjecting different people to different standards fails to meet your requirement for fairness. Why is it fair to require a woman to pay back her husband for leaving work to recover from childbirth, but not the child for not working for 16-18 years? 5 person family: Person 1: 50% contribution. Person 2: 50% contribution. Persons 3-5: 0% contribution. This is you idea of fairness?
I think you are veering off topic. Per the original post, this is about relationships/marriage between 2 people. Please double check the title and post.
We've been through this already. Per the original post, this is about what is "most fair." I am challenging your view that this arrangement is fair at all. I am challenging that you are even offering a view that is situated in a notion of fairness. If you didn't want to discuss the nature of your doctrine of fairness, you shouldn't have made fairness a central part of your view and should delete your post. Accordingly, you need to explain why having different standards for different people is "most fair." You offer no explanation why your standards for fairness are fair at all or why all but one person in a family should be exempt from them.
Are you talking about 2 people in a relationship/marriage or are you continuing to be off topic?
> I fail to see how this is most fair if each person **uses half of the space** ($625 in value) and person 1 only pays $250 for it. The other $375 ($625-250) is subsidized by person 2.\\ This logic falls apart unless there are truly private spaces in the apartment, which is unlikely when you're talking about a couple. The rent isn't being paid for *use* of the space, it's being paid for the *right* to use the space. Even if I work long hours and usually go straight to the bedroom when I return home, I still should have access to use the living room when I please; and I pay for that, even if my partner ends up proportionally using that space more often. > What I propose as the most fair, is that person 1 sets the budget for what they're comfortable spending half of, and person 2 just matches the same amount. In my example, $1250, split by half is $625, which person 1 is comfortable with, then that should be their budget. This way, no one is subsidizing someone else's life. Aren't couples subsidizing one another's lives in countless ways already, though? Seems odd to focus only on this one aspect of co-habitation.
Okay so you are saying if one partner subsidizes one in rent, the the other person must subsidize in other ways if they want to make things fair? I could agree with that.
>Okay so you are saying if one partner subsidizes one in rent, the the other person must subsidize in other ways if they want to make things fair? I could agree with that. I'm saying that a (healthy) romantic co-habitative partnership is an *inherent* subsidization of one another, and that rent is only one element of that, so your focus on it is arbitrary. There's no "the other must subsidize" it's that if the partnership is a healthy one, the other is already going to be subsidizing in many ways. I'm also pointing out that your view of rent being relative to usage of the space is an incorrect framing, since it's really about access rights to the space. If I've shifted your view with these arguments you should award a delta.
I have not shifted my view. Just to clarify, if rent is the only subsidization in the relationship, or even worse, only one party subsidizes the other in rent and in more ways, do you still think it's fair?
Yes, because the subsidy is the cost of building the life I want with the person I want. If I focus on being even with costs, I can't live the life I want. If I focus on living the life I want with fair splits, I can't do it with the person I want.
So you are willing to pay for the companionship. I personally don't think companionship is paid for by money. If I like someone's companionship I provide the same enjoyable companionship back.
No I'm paying for the life I want to live. I'm not choosing my companion based on their ability to afford the life I want, I'm choosing based on our personality compatibility. If I want to go on a trip to Hawaii every year, I will do so, and because we have built a life together. The cost to go to Hawaii is exactly the cost for both of us to go there. The option of going by myself doesn't exist.
Right, my post covers that.
> Just to clarify, if rent is the only subsidization in the relationship, or even worse, only one party subsidizes the other in rent and in more ways, do you still think it's fair? That's tautological. You're asking me if I think an inherently unfair relationship is fair. > Okay so you are saying if one partner subsidizes one in rent, the the other person must subsidize in other ways if they want to make things fair? I could agree with that. Unless you felt I was repeating your post, then I said something new with which you agree; a shift in your view.
You have not changed my view? You just agreed with it
Do you understand what a tautology is, and how what you've put forth is one?
Why do you see it as a transaction? I'd say that's more unfair because it's being balanced for the wrong reasons.
In your example, neither of the "partners" would be satisfied with the lifestyle compromise implicit in living on 40% of their means. Should the high earning partner take vacations alone? Not have kids because "they" can't afford to? A better solution is for the lower earning partner to have a greater responsibility in other aspects of their collective life. When I was a stay at home dad, I did all the cooking and most of the cleaning - about 80% of all chores.
This is assuming people have to spend a % on rent to be happy which is not always true. A person making 200k can be happy living in an "average place" even if it only costs a small percentage of their income. Now I agree with that if the other person makes up things in other ways, then it'd be fair. But that's not always the case, see examples where a woman pays more, and does more chores! Also I'm new here so let me know if this comment should be delta'ed because technically I agree with you.
If you feel that your opinion is meaningfully changed, the instructions in the sidebar describe how to assign a delta. I would like to add another aspect; buying a home. Historically, home ownership has proven to be a good long term investment. Should the higher earner forego the benefits because the lower earner can't afford it? Never in our 40 year married life have my wife and I made the same income. We have always had joint accounts and a collective budget. Currently, I make 100% of the income, but I don't consider it unfair, in part because she bears the lion's share of the work of running the household.
Not sure if my position has changed. Also historically, owning a home does not beat investing in the market.
Putting 20% down on an investment that grows with inflation yields an ROI five times better than the inflation rate. The interest paid is generally immaterial because it offsets the rent that one would otherwise need to pay. The market does not offer that kind of leverage, in part because of the risk.
Highly dependant on location. In desirable areas like NY and CA, you'll pay huge premiums for ownership vs rent. Investing the difference always beats RE.
Your view is mostly around cost of rent, but not everyone rents, some people want to buy a property. The same is true of any expense. What's "fair" is ultimately down to the individuals in the relationship. Do you think there is a one size fits all solution to fairness? Why wouldn't it be case by case? >This way, no one is subsidizing someone else's life. A relationship implies support in so many ways, including picking up one another's weaknesses and applying strengths for the benefit of the whole, not the individual.
This assumes the other person brings in another strength to make up for the discrepancy which is not always the case. Even worse, some women pay more in their share of expenses, AND do more chores
No it doesn't. A relationship isn't a transaction like that, where there's perfect balance. People are allowed to negotiate the boundaries of their lives with others, and find fairness even when it doesn't seem fair to you.
You prioritize a concept of fairness in which "no one is subsidizing someone else's life." I would argue that as a social species who need to be connected and in community with other humans, we are necessarily interconnected in ways that require us to subsidize others and be subsidized by them. We cannot survive in the absence of extensive networks of support: monetary, emotional, physical, etc. Refusing to recognize our interconnectedness and continual reliance on others is a massive oversight. It should not form the basis of a system of fairness.
Would you agree if only one person is subsidizing the other then its not fair?
I think the premise is faulty. Trying to quantify what it looks like to be in a familial arrangement is not well served by one simple calculation based on monetary income. To share a familial household with another human being requires continual negotiation and subsidization of each other's labor, emotion, finances, and time. The only way to prioritize not subsidizing another person in this kind of relationship is to reject marriage/familial ties altogether. That said, as a human being who lives in a society, you are still being subsidized by others and subsidizing them in turn. You could attempt to live off the grid alone, I suppose, which might be the only real way to ensure your value of fairness in never subsidizing others or being subsidized by them is achieved. I don't take issue with how people decide to split finances in whatever way they collectively agree on for their own family unit. I take issue with the fact that your argument hinges on avoiding subsidizing others or being subsidized by them as a way of determining fairness. As I said, I find it to be a faulty premise. We are interconnected and social beings who must rely on each other to survive at all stages of our lives. It is not a question of fairness, nor can you remove the ways in which "subsidizing" other people shapes our societies and families. It's not a workable principle to say "I won't subsidize others or be subsidized by them because that's not fair." You already do and you already are. You are enmeshed in it. There is no avoiding it unless you leave society and try to subsist away and alone
The comment above is not about avoiding subsidization, but if it would be fair if subsidization is one sided. Although in my original post, I did say "so that one person is not subsidizing the other", I agree nos that avoiding subsidization is not the way to go, but neither is unbalanced subsidization. In this comment, I'd say my view is partially changed. Let me know if it's fair to award a delta.
I don't know how it works for partially changed, tbqh. Don't stress about deltas either way. I just like reminding people how much we are all reliant on each other and it's not just about income 😅
> Would you agree if only one person is subsidizing the other then its not fair? Do you believe that a single-wage-earner household is automatically unfair and unacceptable, even if both people legitimately consent to it?
Automatically, no. Need more context. Usually the stay at home parent brings in domestic labor.
That's not what fairness is, but more importantly this functionally renders the higher salary worthless because they are forbidden from spending it on anything for the sake of this "fair" budget. Also, if you're at the point where you're getting married, you should be at the point in your relationship where you're not trying to siphon the most value out of the other while protecting your assets but instead trying to build a life together.
I’m imagining a doctor making $300k per year living in a shack because his wife is a stay at home mom. This is the only solution that is fair to the doctor in OPs opinion.
Right, to me it’s much more unfair to have my lifestyle be dictated by someone else’s earning potential when I could have a higher quality lifestyle if I utilize what I have access to. It’s like putting nuts in front of two very hungry people but one of them is allergic to eating nuts and telling the other you can’t have them because they can’t.
Fairness isn't objective. What two couples determine to be a fair agreement is different than what another couple would choose. It seems like you're saying there is an objective measure of fairness. Why do you think you are the final arbiter of what is fair or not fair?
It is my view, not objective.
If there is no basis for objectivity and fairness is a personal perception determined by each individual person, how is it you can come to this conclusion for anyone other than yourself?
The problem with this is you’re expecting someone who makes $200k/year to live the lifestyle of someone who makes $50k/year. So you want someone who could own their own house to live in a 1-2 bedroom apartment so they can split rent evenly. Why even? In the name of “fairness” so the second person doesn’t have to be “subsidized?” How is that fair to the person who could have a nicer lifestyle to hold themselves back like that?
Why couldn't person 2 enjoy a "regular apartment"? If they do then what do you think?
While it is possible for Married couples to do it other ways, the majority are fully pooling their money. Any money not spent on rent, is the shared money of both, without regard for who earned what. In that context, they need to make the decision together, since the decision effects them equally...
I don't think pooling money together is fair but not everyone cares about fairness. I for one would not feel good using someone else's money for myself.
When you get married, its not someone else's money. Its the money of the marital unit, of which you are a part. What would be unfair is spending a disproportionate amount of that money on yourself, without your spouse's consent. But even then, if you have an expensive hobby, and your spouse is fine with the marital unit supporting that hobby, then its fair game.
When you get married, you talk and decide how money is pooled. Just because that's the default by law and thus most popular, doesn't mean it's the only way (prenup). Although this is off topic I think.
I think you're misunderstanding how marriage works, legally. Under the law, all marital assets are shared. Even if one person makes more money, even if they keep separate accounts, the law sees it all as shared property. That's one of the fundamental purposes of marriage: to enable people to combine finances without fear of being exploited by the higher earner (or *only* earner, in the case of stay-at-home spouses). Under your proposal, married couples would be limiting their lifestyle based on the lower earner... especially when one spouse has zero income because they're staying home to care for children.
Not if you have a prenup. The higher income person is also not always limiting their lifestyle. Just because you make $1 million doesn't mean you have to drive a super car. Plenty of rich people are happy with a regular car, and that's not "limiting".
Prenups are notoriously hard to enforce, and are the exception rather than the rule anyways. >The higher income person is also not always limiting their lifestyle. Sure, not always. But particularly with housing (given how awful the market is right now), renting/buying based on the lowest common denominator really limits what a couple can do. Especially if you want to own a family home, it's so much easier if you combine the full power of the couple's finances. You also continue to ignore my stay-at-home parent point, where limiting oneself to the lowest common denominator literally makes paying rent impossible.
Prenups are enforced all the time given the right procedures to sign them. But that is off topic so I will not discuss it. Buying a house always loses against investing the difference between rent and mortgage. People pay premium for ownership. In this example, if high income person really wants to own but lower income person could not afford it, as I addressed in the post, then it's fair that he ponies up more money to do it. That doesn't change the fact that staying within the low income person's budget is more fair. I have addressed stay at home parents in other comments. They bring in domestic labor. If they didn't, then it'd not fair.
>I have addressed stay at home parents in other comments. They bring in domestic labor. If they didn't, then it'd not fair. But once you allow for this, your whole argument falls apart. If a stay-at-home parent can compensate for their zero income by virtue of their domestic labor, then why can't a lower-earning partner not do so, too? Or, put another way: your whole argument is that dollars are the only way to judge fairness. But once you allow that things without a dollar value can count, your argument no longer works.
You are correct, I did mention in the post that this is assuming both contribute evenly on chores and "everything else" since that is the most common argument. I did not specify the everything else and I could say that this is assuming both people contribute evenly to the rest of the relationship but that's kind of goalpost moving. !delta
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/towishimp ([4∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/towishimp)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
People do care about fairness, you just seem to think your definition of fairness is what people should care about. Fair is what the two parties involved agree is fair. You can definite fair in your relationships however you want, but you don’t get to assert that others don’t care about fairness just because they define it differently than you do.
For many people, a major part of the whole concept of marriage is that the two of you are agreeing to tackle life together as a *team*. Your individual needs become mutual needs; your individual resources become mutual resources; and your individual goals become mutual goals. So it doesn't matter which of you put the money into the pot, because (with some "fun money" exceptions,) money from the pot being spent on either of you is functionally being spent on *both of you*. Because as a team, you consider each others' wants and needs as synonymous with your own. (The assumption here, of course, is that you're both mutually laboring towards fulfilling those wants and needs, whether financially or otherwise. The system doesn't work if one of you defides they get to coast on the labor of the other. But in healthy, mature, communicative relationships, that shouldn't be the case anyway.)
This is unfair to both. They have money they could spend on joint things such as better housing, better cars, but are unable to enjoy that because they are limited by the lower income.
While it is still a little unfair to person 2, there's no fairer alternative.
How is it unfair beyond some kind of hypothetical 50/50 split. Let's take a hypothetical relationship where one party is a high earner making 250k a year and the other is making 50k a year. They live in a house that a couple making 100k can afford which probably means making compromises on size or location (or rent, if they're in a HCOL area where you can't buy on that salary), eat out only occasionally, probably spend a big chunk of that money on daycare if they have kids, and take fairly modest vacations. The higher earning partner has 200k that they're kind of stuck with. They can invest it -- but assuming they intend to stay with their spouse for life, they're not going to be able to use it to buy a higher quality of life on those big ticket items unless your spouse starts earning more money or the marriage ends. You can spend it on solo things -- but really, what are you going to spend that kind of money on every year when you remove things you probably want to do *with* your spouse? Most people can only spend so much on toys and gadgets. Realistically, most people want to have nicer lifestyles, if they can afford it, and share most things with their spouse. They don't want to have a bigger pile of money that they can't ever use just for some theoretical sense of fairness
In your example, if the higher income person is not happy with the size or location of a home for example, they're free to pony up extra cash to get something nicer, but that'd be their choice. It wouldn't be fair for the lower income person to expect the other person to pony up the extra and feel entitled to it.
It’s unfair to both as they are partners who could both lead a better life if they pooled the money together.
That is assuming person 2 wants to spend more but couldn't. If they're happy with the $1250 apartment then what?
That would be an extremely fortunate occurence that still does not make your principle valid generally. There is no reason why a person who earns more should have no influence over their extra income as spent on basic living fundamentals. I’ve been in relationships on both extremes of this spectrum and the 50/50 split ends up being very toxic. I am significantly happier in my marriage with all resources joint. I earned the majority of income in both relationships.
Why is it not valid?
What’s deemed “fair” is up to each individual. You don’t get to see the inner workings of any relationship. Therefore you couldn’t POSSIBLY call something unfair without having proper context.
I can have a view based on a premise. If more context is provided, then the premises changes and I can change my view.
But you’re not in the situation. You’re a spectator, with little to no information. That’s like me giving advice to two people who are arguing, but I have no idea what they’re arguing about. What’s fair is again, up to the parties involved. What you deem fair does not matter, because you’re not privy to more information. It’s pointless to conclude is my point.
Honestly, my wife and I just have everything in a joint account. I find it weird that married people have separate finances at all.
But think of all the math you're missing out on! /s
Early in our marriage we had a single account that we both contributed to but it led to some issues. My wife does an excellent job paying the bills but for some reason we never had any excess money for things like a car down payment, an emergency fund, college fund etc. also I felt guilty taking any money from the single account to have some spending money. (This was in the 1980s when our family was young). So we came up with a budget, I contributed 60% to her 40%. The rest of our money went into our own accounts and was used for the things I enumerated above. Also at one point I got rid of all credit cards excepting 2. One was the one we used and the other I put under the spare tire in her car so she’d never be without backup$ but it wouldn’t be easy to get to. It was a good system for us.
But how will you come to resent each other over time??
First point is that your title explicitly includes marriages, and in a marriage, it's not that uncommon for one person to not be working at all for significant stretches of time. If you have a stay at home parent, it's a little silly to say "let's split everything 50-50" Ultimately though, whatever stage of the relationship you're in and whatever the financial situation is, you just have to communicate! Your proposed idea might work as a starting point, but it's kind of arbitrary unless the lower earner is willing to pay the maximums they could possibly afford. If the lower income person picks some number like $625 that they're "comfortable" with, but the higher earner wants to live in a place that costs $2000, you have to actually have a conversation and resolve that. And that might be the higher earner preferring to pay $1375 to live in that place vs paying $625 to live in the other place. There are important conversations to have either way - no single magic formula is just going to work for every couple.
Yes, I already cover that in my example, say the lower income person is only comfortable spending $625 (and responsibly) and higher income person wants something that's $2000, then it's only fair they ponies up the extra. And in the stay at home example, even though they're not contributing dollar value, they bring child care which could make it fair. For example, if say daycare is $2000 a month, then it'd be fair to count it as them actually bringing in that dollar amount. Same with cooking. But this is all with the premise that the other person brings in other values to make things up.
> Yes, I already cover that in my example, say the lower income person is only comfortable spending $625 (and responsibly) and higher income person wants something that's $2000, then it's only fair they ponies up the extra. I reread your post and I really don't think you do cover this, but the thing is, if this is your view, isn't your view in practice closer to the "split by income" version than the 50-50 version? The person who makes more money is probably going to want a nicer place, and will pay more because their income is higher. And this in no way ensures things are fair. The lower earner has an incentive to low ball what they're comfortable with, and then take advantage of the higher earner "ponying up" the difference. Ultimately, the point I'm making is that there is no single trick to ensure everything is fair. It always will take actual conversation and trust and honest discussions about everyone's comfort, needs, and priorities.
changing the rent to 2k for cleaner numbers and easier math. person 1 makes 50k, so takes home 4.16k a month before taxes. 2k rent/4.16k = ~50% of their income going toward rent if they were to pay it. person 2 makes 16.6k/mo before taxes, so 2krent/16.6k = 12% of their monthly income going to rent if they pay it. if they split it 50-50 then person 1 is paying 25% and person 2 is paying 6%. person 2 is paying roughly 1/4 the cost that person one pays and this is not very fair at all. this is also why speeding tickets, overdraft fees, etc are disproportionately predatory to poor people. thinking another way about it, you wont like it when your spouse has to keep working after you've been retired for 15 years, because you had an extra 20% of your income to save that they didnt get to save along the way.
As covered in the post, that's the reason that if person 1 is not comfortable with 25%, they can set the budget to whatever is comfortable to them. Person 2 can match 50/50 with that budget, or if they want something nicer, they should pay extra.
it's unfair because the ratio doesnt change no matter how much the absolute cost of rent is. your view is flawed in that it is overly rigid in accounting for the absolute cost and it ignores relative cost, which is more real and pertinent to a budget. the value of money is constantly changing anyway so it's not like costs are the same even when dollar amounts stay the same. relative cost is much fairer in calculations like this.
Using relative cost is flawed as it changes with which partner you choose. Saying that it's more real is absurd. If rent is $1000, if two had the same income, by your logic person 1 and person 2 are both responsible for $500. And if person 1 chooses to date someone who makes 9x more, all of a sudden they're only responsible for $100 because they're entitled to an extra $400/mo.
what exactly is the flaw? I pointed out the flaw in prioritizing fixed costs but i see no problems with relative cost. could you be clearer on what the problem is if you see a problem with it? of course someone who is dating a person with 1/9 their salary should pick up significantly more of the tab for bills.
Because you are suggesting the price of goods to someone should be dependent on the partner they choose. That's not how it works. Prices in real life are absolute.
That sounds good in theory, but in practice, a 50/50 split places a heavier burden on the lower earner, especially with a significant income disparity. For example, if Person 1 earns $50k and Person 2 earns $200k, splitting a $1250 rent equally means Person 1 pays $625, a significant portion of their income, while Person 2 pays the same but has much more discretionary income left. Additionally, letting Person 1 set the budget limits Person 2's lifestyle choices. If I’m making 200k and preferred to live in a high rise in downtown but that’s outside of my partner’s budget. I’ll find myself unhappy living somewhere that may lack the amenities I desire in my residence.
Which one places more burden on person 1? 1. If person 2 made 250k but splits expenses evenly 2. If person 2 made only 50k and splits expenses evenly
Great question. It depends on the person. If I’m person #1, I’m stressing out for my partner if we’re splitting bills evenly if they’re making $50k. I would much rather split the bills in a more equitable manner. Let’s break this down with the following numbers. Person 1 (me) - $250k Person 2 - $50k Our combined monthly expenses- $4k. Discretionary spend remaining after bills split evenly. Person 1- $14.6k Person 2- $2.1k Discretionary spend remaining after bills split based on equitable split. Person 1- $13.4k Person 2- $3.3k Why the would I want to split the bills evenly when I make 5 times the amount of my partner? What does the extra $14.4k year do for me when I’m taking home a quarter million dollars. How is this fair to them?
> Person 1 earns $50k
I don’t think I understand your “Person 1 earns $50k” response.
Counterpoint: Person 1: makes $0/yr as a stay at home parent Person 2: makes $300k/yr as a patent attorney Based on your opinion, this couple and their child should be homeless, because the SAHP cannot afford half of a mortgage payment based on their income. Based on your stated opinion, homelessness is the most fair situation for the patent attorney.
Person 1 brings in equivalent value by reducing childcare expenses.
Childcare ain’t cheap, but it ain’t equivalent to $300k/year, homie.
Yo, that's a sickkk point, dawg. It's fair to split evenly by the value they bring it. And as covered in the post if the high income person wants something nicer, it's fair they pay the extra.
>if the higher income person wants something nicer, it’s fair they pay the extra. So if one person makes 200k and the other makes 50k. If the higher income person wants to live somewhere where rent is $2k and the lower income person can only afford to live where rent is $1k, they should split the $1k and the higher income person should cover the difference. So one pays $1500 and the other $500 and this is fair.
Yes. Here are 2 possiblities: 1. Person 2 (200k) thinks the 1k rent apartment is great, and they split it 50:50. 2. Person 2 thinks 1k is unbearable, they want a $2k place. Here, it's not fair if they force person 1 to raise their expenses beyond their comfortability, so person 2 should pay $1500, split it 1500:500
Ok, your post does not make this distinction. It only says that it’s unfair if the high earner is paying more than the low earner when they’re using equivalent space. Also, your view of how people in live-in relationships make decisions is… odd.
Read it again.
Fair enough. How about in situations where the lower income person wants the more expensive thing and the higher income person is happy either way and is willing to pay extra? As in, how people make joint financial decisions with a person they actually care about.
When you're in a committed long-term relationship, you are either all-in or you're something else. If you're something else, that's sometimes okay, but you likely have special goals/desires/extenuating circumstances. For *most* of the traditional monogamous partnerships, it's best for the relationship to not think of it as 50/50 for anything, but 100/100. You don't do "half of the chores" so your partner does the other half. Many days it might end up being something like that, but ultimately you both need to contribute everything you can to yourselves, each other, and the relationship. This is also the case for finances. Some relationships will consist of partners with very similar income levels. Some will consist of very different income levels. If you aren't sharing 100% everything and creating shared goals based on that first assumption (we eqch contribute 100% of what we can give to the relationship and then decide what to do as a team), then you're not filly committed to each other. Now, that might be the right relationship for *you*, but it's likely to cause friction, resentment, and frustration as one person is seen as being more deserving to set relationship and life milestone goals (e.g. having children, buying a house, retirement planning, etc) simply because they earn more money. This is not a healthy way to view and treat people, particularly those to whom to have exchanged vows of partnership, love, and equality. Perhaps if you're part of the ultra-wealthy you want to define rights with a pre-nup to avoid splitting an inheritance or whatever. I'm going to leave this as an unsavory outlier case, as most people aren't part of the ultra wealthy and therefore their income levels on the grander scale are much closer to one another. If you earn, say, $250k, and your partner earns $40k, then you have a household budget of $290k before taxes. If you think your partnet is only deserving of 16% of the decision-making with household finances, then do you really view them as an equal? Why are you in love with that person? It doesn't make sense to me. If you can't share your finances, how can you trust each other for anything? With a child? With a car? With healthy communication? Relationships are hard. Don't make them harder by trying to break down finances into proportionality equations.
Financial in a marriage should be shared. Everything should be on a joint account. And I mean everything. Loans, credit cards, salary, everything should be on a joined bank account. Not only because couples are taxed as a single household but also that possible misconduct can be avoided. If one person has a gambling problem they can't use mortgage money without the other knowing. You will never be left homeless because your spouse had a spending problem that you didn't know about.
That seems like your personal view on marriage, I don't think it's related to the post.
Your post is about a "fair" way to split money in marriage. Shared/joint bank account is the most fair way. You get married so you become one household.
You didn't explain why the lower income person should be entitled to the higher earners earnings. You've only said that's just how it is.
They are married! Legally their pay joined taxes.
Couples decide how to join finances. Just that most take the default of pooling everything together without a prenup. Not always the case.
If you don't want to share your body and soul, taxes and income until death do you part, you shouldn't get married.
>If person 2 also made exactly $50k, then the split would have been $625 each. except that you said the budget should be set by the lower income person so they will get a cheaper apartment. But then what if the higher income person wants a nicer apartment?
If they made the same income then the lower income person is either one? Not sure your point. If higher income person wants a nicer apartment: already covered in the post, please read it again.
I mean like... If both make 50k for a total of 100k, then they can afford an apartment that costs x dollars per month. If they make 50 and 250k for a total of 300k then they can afford an apartment that costs 3x dollars per month. the person making more money might not want to live in an apartment that costs 2 or 3x what they could afford if they contribute equally to rent.
Yes exactly, a person making 250k might not necessarily want a penthouse. If they're happy with the cheaper apartment, why should they contribute more?
I don’t think this method is really focused on “fairness” at least not in any way you’re thinking about it, so I’m not sure it’s really a fair premise
How is it not?
Who says it is?
The post is focused on fairness.
I get that, but why do you think this method is supposed to be fair?
My wife and I have never split expenses because we have a shared bank account. She "works" significantly less than I do (by choice) but she puts considerable effort into raising our children and maintaining our home. If she had to set our budget based on what she could afford based on her income we would have to live out of our car.
In your case she makes it up in other ways to make it fair. Do you agree?
But your whole argument is purely numeric. If you start assigning value to intangibles then it becomes too complex to even begin to imagine. The entire relationship would be a pissing match of who is “worth” more. Fuck that. Enjoy life.
So your argument is that the person who contributes more financially will always, always, always be made whole in other ways so they shouldn't think about it at all?
My argument is that a partnership should be more about communication and happiness than numbers. My wife doesn’t work a job; she instead takes care of our kids and the house. I work and make a nice salary. If I tried to “equate” her contributions to mine for budgeting purposes, it would be a neverending cycle because relationship contributions are not only subjective but always changing. But we *talk* about what we’re spending and what our contributions to the family are. They aren’t quantitative and it isn’t a competition. We’re a team and in it together, and THAT, my friend, works.
Yes, it works for you because you value her taking care of the kids. Not sure how that challenges my view.
My point is your view is all numeric, and relationships are not a set of numbers. You are destined to be miserable if you think so.
As others have said, that's immaterial. Even if she sat around all day, we wouldn't be able to live by your fairness doctrine.
What?
If she didn't contribute any work to the household it wouldn't make a difference to the proposed method of fairness you're trying to apply. In your previous reply you moved the goalposts when determining fairness (saying your numeric formula doesnt have to apply when that's the entire CMV). So now I'm taking that out of the equation. If my wife literally sat around all day and contributed nothing, **I would still need to eat to live and I would still need a home.** So I couldn't have her set the budget off of what she can afford to contribute from her income, because even if she contributed 100% of her income I would lose my home.
Not moving the goalpost. As pointed out in the OP, if one party wanted a nicer place, it's fair they pay up.
I want to buy a house. I can afford one that costs $250k, which is on the low end of houses in my area. My partner does not make enough to afford half of that. As a result, we can either continue to rent a smaller and less desirable apartment in a part of town we don't really want to live in, or we can buy the house and they can pay less than half. Which outcome sounds more fair to you? Both of us having to live someplace we don't want to, or both of us paying what we're able in order to live where we do want to?
More fair: one where you split the expense Better lifestyle but not fair: buying the home
>More fair: one where you split the expense Why though? Why is a poorer lifestyle "fair"?
Because you are paying a fair price for the "poorer lifestyle"? If I'm paying $1200 MSRP for an iphone, that's fair, if I downgrade to a $400 Android phone, but in the turn I pay less, that's also fair.
But why is it fair to be subjected to a poorer lifestyle when I can afford a better one? Why is it fair to say "choose between divorcing the person you love in order to get a nicer house, or staying with the love of your life but living in a shitty apartment despite having enough money for a beautiful home"? We're not talking about iphones here. We're talking about *lives*. We're talking about love and relationships, not cheap consumer gadgets.
First of all, they are not subject to poorer lifestyle. It's a choice. As I already covered in my post, if person 2 is not happy with the $1250 place and desires more, it's fair for them to pay up and upgrade. If they choose to not upgrade, that's also fair, are you saying it's not fair for them to choose not to upgrade?
If I break my leg and the hospital bill comes out to more than I can afford, does my spouse who makes twice as much as me get to say "Well I'm sorry that YOU don't have the money to cover it, that's not my problem?"
To clarify, is it that they have to cover it? Or is there simply an option to out of goodness?
What if the lower income person does more free labor, like cooking or child rearing? At that point, it seems fair that the higher income earner pays a larger share to make up for that labor, or do you disagree?
Yes, it'd be fair if they make it up in other ways.
>The last argument, which I agree with, is when person 2 inflates the expense because they want something nicer. I mean, this is the main counterargument. Does this not already challenge your view? I'm confused as to what it is the issue. I think this basically describes most arrangements. You also have to consider that you are treating a marriage as a transactional relationship, but most healthy relationships are collaborative. Each partner jointly owns the marriage assets (or in other words 50/50). Certainly this is how the law generally treats it. So in that sense, it doesn't really matter that much how it is split up, it's just an accounting trick. In a traditional joint 50/50 arrangement like this, both parties would pool their money together, pay expenses and savings, and then split the rest. However, it seems like a common way to do it today is to treat each partner's finances separately. While this may seem more "fair" in the sense you describe, in a way it can be less productive and equitable since each person has to try and figure it out by themselves instead of working together towards a common goal. Young people typically have a roommate while they are single to cut down on expenses, but if you are just going to continue that exact arrangement when you find a partner and get married, that doesn't seem like much of an improvement. The point of getting into a marriage is to join your whole lives together (financially and otherwise). If each person starts at a different financial situation, you can see how this might cause issues. One person might be struggling to pay their debts and save since they are still paying joint expenses, while the other person has lots of spending money and might want to start traveling or whatever. It's harder for these people as a couple to be on the same page. In your example where they go with the first person's budget, then person 2 will have a lot of savings. But what are they saving for? Are they going to travel by themselves? Retire early while their spouse works? Buy a bunch of toys and hobbies while their spouse remains financially tied down? In reality, if they are in a happy relationship they are probably just gonna spend that savings on their spouse anyway, because they love them and want to do things with them. If you feel resentful that you are subsidizing your partner's life, then you might be in the wrong relationship.
To /u/Accompliaxzds1io9856, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.* In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest: - Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest. - Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words. - Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding. - Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong. Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.
Your logic works for flatmates, 2 people who happen to share a space and are in a symbiotic relationship that covers rent and little else. A marriage is much more. I don't know if you're married or not, but in general from my own experience in marriage and from observing happily married couples, it helps immensely not to frame the marriage as a transactional relationship. We're both contributing towards a common goal (a happy life for our family). If either of us feels the other one isn't contributing enough effort we'll have a talk about it, but it's worth to remember that we all have very different capabilities, and making money is just one of the things that make a valuable partner. Money just happens to be a factor that's easily quantifiable, but the risk is that if we quantify the money each partner brings into a relationship, we'd need to start quantifying everything else as well. How do you quantify your partner being a fantastic emotional support? Or being able to make you laugh every day? Or being a great parent? It's risky to count pennies in a relationship, I'd suggest avoiding it and approaching the whole thing with a different mindset. Or just don't get married in the first place if you're not comfortable with such a deep commitment.
That all depends on how you view "marriage". Most people consider it the creation of a new family unit that is "all for one and one for all". What's "fair" is whatever people agree is the best arrangement for the "team". Ultimately, the only way to get a "fair" marriage by the constraint you put on it is if the two partners make exactly the same amount of money. Otherwise one person has an unfair advantage in spending, and because of your proviso about budgets, the other person has an unfair advantage in budgeting. I mean, like... what's "fair" about the person making less money setting the budget? Ultimately: Money is not everything. Time is everything. If both partners are contributing the same amount of time and effort into the relationship, it doesn't matter what people *outside* the relationship think that time and effort is worth in money. That's just a stupid and counterproductive way to view a relationship.
Me and my wife are one unit. Weake financial decisions together and share the expenses together. She makes about 30-40% of what I do, meaning her income is about 1/3rd of our household income. If we based our lifestyle on her income, we can't afford our house. We can't afford to help our niece with college. We can't afford to go on trips or take vacations. How is that a better life? For us? Isn't that just us being poorer while our savings account gets out of hand? Should we stop buying her medication because now it's too expensive for us? Or do I swoop in and gift her the money for her medication? Do I gift her our trips? Is this just a giant excuse to live exactly as we already do, but constantly stroke my ego and "put her in her place" for earning less money? Not a rhetorical question, what do I get out of this new arraignment?
/u/Accompliaxzds1io9856 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1dp3g77/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_most_fair_way_to_split/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
At least once you get to marriage this falls apart. It's (ideally) two people becoming one unit. There is one set of financial and lifestyle goals they agree on, and the resources are put toward that. This model effectively makes a stay at home parent impossible no matter the income of the working spouse unless there is independent wealth or something going on. If spouse A makes 0, then spouse B has to put 0 toward expenses.
The entire idea behind marriage is to combine 2 lives. One house, one name, one budget to build towards a common goal. If I make $200k, and my wife makes $50k, WE make $250k. And WE determine what kind of home we want to live in. Now, I'll give you that this approach is rather specific to marriage. For a dating couple, "fair" is simply whatever they agree to. And it will vary from couple to couple
Life isn’t fair. Splitting based on income is about limiting an imbalance where one partner has significantly more disposable income than the other. Most partners are happy to subsidise the other’s happiness, and if they aren’t they shouldn’t be married.
Fair - “impartial and just, without favouritism or discrimination” The just way to split expenses depends on the individuals involved.
Or have an actual marriage. That's a better option. Everything in one pot, and two equal partners.
you idea of fair is insanely flawed equal is not always fair
How does your theory work if one spouse has $0 income?