# young couple moving in together, how to share expenses



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Here is something I want to request feedback on from the group.

Consider the case of a young couple in their mid-20s who want to move in together. One of them makes $7K per month and the other makes $3K per month. Assume the monthly household expenses to be $3K.

The conventional wisdom seems to be they should simply split the expenses 50-50. But I feel this is flawed, because the one making less income is giving up 50% of their income ($1500 of $3000) to the household expenses, while the one making more money is only paying 20-25% of their income towards their $1500 of the expenses. This is not an equal relationship.

Suze Orman feels they should add together their income and that each party should pay towards the expenses based on the ratio of their income in the household. So adding together the $7K and the $3K we have household income of $10K. This is 70% and 30% per person, towards the expenses. This means the higher income person pays $2100 and the lower income person pays $900 per month.

I agree with Suze's approach, but I suspect it is controversial. What does everyone here think? How do the couples here handle this?


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

First question before I comment:

Are the expenses tied to a rented property, or do the expenses include a mortgage of a purchase house?


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

I totally agree with that approach. When it comes to relationships, nothing is 50/50. Heck, I'd love to be wrong only 50% of the time but according to my wife, it's significantly higher. Like 100% 

If your main concern is about splitting expenses 50/50, then it's fair to say your main concern is not your relationship so much as your own finances. And that's going to cause issues.

Plus if you're the one paying 70%, at the very least, you're probably still saving some money. Living together reduces a lot of expenses. 70% of a $1000 apartment is still less than 100% of a $850 apartment.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

At first, we tried the 50/50 thing, although it was more like 60/40. It was a headache to figure out stuff every month and felt so divided with money. 

Now we treat everything as "our" money. No one is worth more, or using more. It's all together, as "one" couple's finances.

We have one goal together and that is financial independence. We will achieve this as a team effort. We group all our income in a joint account. The bills get paid from one account, regardless who uses the most or makes the most. We must communicate everything with money and obtain permission from both each other, when discretionary spending. We share goals together and have similar priorities. We review our net worth every month and spending habits as feedback and have a great sense that this seems to be working well for building wealth.


----------



## Dana (Nov 17, 2009)

Suze's approach makes the most sense to me - having everyone pay their share proportionate to their income. 

However, there may be hard feelings either way. If the young couple opts for the expenses-geared-to-income approach, the higher earning partner (who pays the lion's share of the expenses) may resent carrying so much of the load. 

On the flip side, if they take a 50/50 approach the lower earning partner will feel financial stress and eventually resentful.

I also agree with the poster who said that this is dependent on whether they pay rent or a mortgage payment as well, because then you would consider who paid what portion of the downpayment, etc. 

We have been together since our very early twenties and we have always put all our resources into one joint pot. It has worked well for us and made the transition from double income to single income easier.


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

Jungle said:


> At first, we tried the 50/50 thing, although it was more like 60/40. It was a headache to figure out stuff every month and felt so divided with money.
> 
> Now we treat everything as "our" money. No one is worth more, or using more. It's all together, as "one" couple's finances.
> 
> We have one goal together and that is financial independence. We will achieve this as a team effort. We group all our income in a joint account. The bills get paid from one account, regardless who uses the most or makes the most. We must communicate everything with money and obtain permission from both each other, when discretionary spending. We share goals together and have similar priorities. We review our net worth every month and spending habits as feedback and have a great sense that this seems to be working well for building wealth.


I agree with this as well. Once you're sure of each other, either through common-law or marriage or whatever makes you sure about the other person, then it makes a lot of sense. It's a team effort, and the goals are the same.

But for a new couple moving in together for the first time, I wouldn't advise the joint account. And I also assumed the question was about renting, because there's no way in hell I'd buy a place with someone I hadn't lived with and wasn't certain about.


----------



## GeniusBoy27 (Jun 11, 2010)

When my wife and I first moved in together in Boston for school (when we were dating), we did it 50-50. It was obvious to me though that it was financially stressful for her, and that she was running out of cash quickly, so I paid alot of the expenses, since I was still working and she wasn't. The difference was closer to 70/30.
On the grand scheme of things, I rather see if I have someone who I can live with for life by "investing" in a few thousand (or a hundred thousand) than to live someone who isn't worth it, and being reasonable in a two-way compromise is how a lifetime partnership works.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

KaeJS said:


> First question before I comment:
> 
> Are the expenses tied to a rented property, or do the expenses include a mortgage of a purchase house?


I think that's a bit too specific. In the example I gave, the common monthly expenses are $3K. I don't think (IMO) that renting or owning is germane to the point being made here. But since you asked, please answer both ways.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

The quick answer in society seems to be 50-50 but I think that's way too simplistic. It isn't fair to the person with lower income that they be shelling out almost all of their money to pay the common bills, while the higher income earner has more take home pay.

But OTOH you could also say it's not fair to the higher earner that he is paying $2100 while she is only paying $900 for the same standard of living.

I still prefer the idea of income proportion, though. In a perfect world both parties would be earning the same income, but relationships are not usually sparked by how much money both sides make.

Thanks for all the comments, please keep them coming.


----------



## Helianthus (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm currently going in to this exact situation. My significant other and I will be renting a place together and we plan to split things 50/50. I make at least $15,000 - $20,000 more than she does, but we chose an affordable place so that she could still pay her share. I personally would not subsidize someone else's standard of living. I worked hard to be where I am and I do not feel that someone who is not my wife should be seeing the benefit of that. If we were married, it would be a totally different story. I'd pool the funds, and pay the bills out of the joint account.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

We only have one income, so the point is moot for us.

I think if the couple is really committed then sharing the money makes sense.

In your case (or sorry - your "friend")  it sounds like maybe this is just the next stage of a relationship. I would say splitting the costs is appropriate.

As to whether splitting 50/50 or splitting according to income ratio... I think the couple has to figure that out.

If there is a large difference in income, I don't see how the 50/50 split will work. They would have to have a lower standard of living so that the lower income person could afford it. Is that ok with the higher income person?

It could be itemized as well - maybe the high income person wants an expensive apartment so they might have to contribute more than 50% of the rent to make it happen. Things like utilities/food etc might be split 50/50. Vacations can be 50/50 if they are cheap.


----------



## Helianthus (Oct 19, 2010)

Four Pillars said:


> It could be itemized as well - maybe the high income person wants an expensive apartment so they might have to contribute more than 50% of the rent to make it happen. Things like utilities/food etc might be split 50/50. Vacations can be 50/50 if they are cheap.


I like this approach. If it was essential for me to have an exceptional living space, I would foot the extra bill. We had discussed a scenario similar to this, but in the end, I decided it was probably best if I lived well below my means at a level that she could afford.


----------



## bpcrally (Sep 12, 2010)

Four Pillars said:


> It could be itemized as well - maybe the high income person wants an expensive apartment so they might have to contribute more than 50% of the rent to make it happen. Things like utilities/food etc might be split 50/50. Vacations can be 50/50 if they are cheap.


I agree with this as well. My girlfriend and I are 23 and recently started renting a basement appartment together.. Since I make majority of the income, i agree to pay majority of the rent/expenses, i think the income ratio is a fair approach. 

And when it comes to vacations or extra things (for example furniture) we would split 50/50.. We've found that this is the most comfortable approach to things. She doesn't want to feel like she's putting in less, and this keeps things fair.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

This is one of those things where there is no "right" answer from a mathematical or rational perspective, but rather depends entirely on the individuals concerned, their emotions (towards each other and towards finances) and their future perceptions (i.e. how commited they are, etc.)

In our case, once we had made up our minds on future plans and moved in together, we decided that I'd foot all the bills while she'd save 100% of her income.
Back then, our expenses were a lot lower so this was possible.

Initially, all the savings went to the "wedding fund" - to pay for our wedding.
Fortunately, our parents contributed as well.
Once that category was taken care of, next we started saving for future needs - a larger apartment, etc.

However, at that time, our incomes were pretty similar.

After we were married, this arrangement continued since it seemed to work for both of us.

I don't know how this would have panned out over the years since after our first kid was born, we decided she'd stay home.
So for the last 6 years or so, we're a single income family.

Had she continued working, it's likely her income would still be quite similar to mine and we might have continued the same arrangement i.e. one pays all the bills while the other tries to save whatever is left over.

I think in general if there is a wide difference between the incomes it makes sense to contribute proportionately to % of income.
However, if incomes are similar, then do 50/50.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

How was the "poorer" of the couple living before the planned move-in? On their own (expensive) or having a roomate (paying 50:50) ? I think if the richer of the two is perhaps pressuring the poorer to excessively upgrade their housing lifestyle, then it would make sense to skew the expenses to the richer individual. But I would think that everything should be a 50:50 split up-to, and perhaps a little past, what the poorer person was already paying for rent on their own.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Ultimately it is up to you...


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

At the time we were dating, my wife and I did the joint account thing. If it's a stable and long term relationship, its everybody's money.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> I think that's a bit too specific. In the example I gave, the common monthly expenses are $3K. I don't think (IMO) that renting or owning is germane to the point being made here. But since you asked, please answer both ways.


The reason I asked is because I feel that if you are renting together, it should be split 50-50. If, however, the property is on a mortgage, maybe the person making 7k could pay 70% of the mortgage and the person making 3k could pay 30% and if something ever happened to the relationship (of course we all hope that things work out well, though, things do happen...) the person that has the 7k income could own 70% of the house.

If the relationship proved stable after living together for a while and marriage (if the case may be) came into play, then you would just join everything together and you both own the property.

That's how I would do it, but I'm a pessimist and I believe in Murphy's Law. Some people call it selfish, but I just call it protection. Who knows if things would work out in the end, especially if two people have never lived together before...

If you're the person making $3k, then things don't seem like such a bad deal. If you're the person making 7k, paying 70% of the expenses, and something happens to the relationship down the road -- that might hurt in more ways than one.


----------



## danny_yaya (Mar 21, 2011)

Jungle said:


> At first, we tried the 50/50 thing, although it was more like 60/40. It was a headache to figure out stuff every month and felt so divided with money.
> 
> Now we treat everything as "our" money. No one is worth more, or using more. It's all together, as "one" couple's finances.
> 
> We have one goal together and that is financial independence. We will achieve this as a team effort. We group all our income in a joint account. The bills get paid from one account, regardless who uses the most or makes the most. We must communicate everything with money and obtain permission from both each other, when discretionary spending. We share goals together and have similar priorities. We review our net worth every month and spending habits as feedback and have a great sense that this seems to be working well for building wealth.


i think this is the best way...common money working toward common goals....assuming you're heading toward marriage eventually. if one person is spending significantly more than the other, this can become an issue, but my wife is the cheap...i mean frugal one...so it's not too much of a concern for us. that being said...just be careful about how you're investing yourself in it if it's a newer relationship...living together can be a whole different ball game, so i'd same spend some time living together before you go the "our money" route. if you've only recently moved in together and she's already calling it "our money" you might be in some trouble lol

until you're 100% ready i say stick to the ratio...once you get get married it's all "our money"...enjoy some time having your own money while you can lol


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

KaeJS said:


> The reason I asked is because I feel that if you are renting together, it should be split 50-50. If, however, the property is on a mortgage, maybe the person making 7k could pay 70% of the mortgage and the person making 3k could pay 30% and if something ever happened to the relationship (of course we all hope that things work out well, though, things do happen...) the person that has the 7k income could own 70% of the house.
> 
> If the relationship proved stable after living together for a while and marriage (if the case may be) came into play, then you would just join everything together and you both own the property.
> 
> ...


Very interesting. Of course, this won't be worth a hill of beans in divorce court. The judge will award 50% of the house to each party, regardless of how much each party contributed.

I would never want to buy property with someone unless we were both sure things are rock solid between us.


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

the-royal-mail said:


> Very interesting. Of course, this won't be worth a hill of beans in divorce court. The judge will award 50% of the house to each party, regardless of how much each party contributed.
> 
> I would never want to buy property with someone unless we were both sure things are rock solid between us.


I agree 100%. What if you bought the place yourself and lived there for a while, and then your SO could either chip in with a little rent or some bills or groceries? Then it isn't an ownership type of issue, and lets the lower-income person contribute.

I've read that the 50% thing isn't necessarily true for common-law. Once you're married, it's sort of a moot point anyways, but for long-term dating, you'd still be protected somewhat I believe. Not a lawyer mind you.


----------



## Sustainable PF (Nov 5, 2010)

When Mrs. SPF and I first moved in together she was a student with about $16k per year and I was making just under 5x that. She wouldn't let me pay the bills myself so she paid about 20% of our household bills. We split evenly on expenses such as food and entertainment. Everything else, we split - excluding pet expenses which I covered.


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

I think if you are renting and unmarried, 50-50 makes sense. I am married and renting and that is basically what we have been doing still. Until there is a significant discrepancy splitting the costs just works better for us. we have a joint credit card that everything joint goes on and we split the bill, and personal cards for "personal" purchases. 

I think once you are paying a mortgage there needs to be an agreement about how that's going to work. If unmarried I would strongly suggest that that agreement be drawn up in writing by a lawyer. 


Things can get complicated though. If one spouse goes back to school who pays? If one spouse has a huge student debt and the other does not, is that part of the communal debt or the individual? If one person can afford to take a vacation and the other can not, do you go? What if one person eats lunch out all the time and then can't afford to do a "joint" activity later? 

All of these go more smoothly if you have the conversation before it happens.


----------



## Bupp (Nov 13, 2009)

My gf is moving in with me in may.

It's a 50/50 split on rent/utilities/cable/internet/groceries.

If I owned my place and did not rent, I would still do 50/50 on utilities/cable/internet/groceries but would not expect her to pay 50% of the mortgage/property tax.

Instead I would ask that she pay the cost of renting a room in a comparable home/condo.


----------



## I'm Howard (Oct 13, 2010)

We always had a joint account, bills were paid out of it, Ours NOT His or Hers.

40 years later, still the same, today's couples aren't partners, just two peope sharing a space, roommates.i


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

financialnoob said:


> ...
> 
> I've read that the 50% thing isn't necessarily true for common-law. Once you're married, it's sort of a moot point anyways, but for long-term dating, you'd still be protected somewhat I believe. Not a lawyer mind you.


The law respecting common-law is constantly evolving. Historically (in most provinces I believe) common-law spouses had no claim on each other's property. Only child support. But there are new challenges to this all the time. Usually centering around the financial contributions of one spouse to a home owned by the other. There have been cases where couples lived common-law for 20 years or more, then split, and one spouse finds out she ends up with no share of the house she has been helping pay the mortgage on. (nor her ex's pension and savings)

If you are in rental and don't own significant assets split it anyway that is agreeable. But if you are a homeowner, or even have significant financial assets, see a lawyer about a cohabitation agreement.


----------



## houska (Feb 6, 2010)

My friends who are business analytics consultants (met at work) defined a baseline standard of living according to the incoming lifestyle of the lower income one. That gets split 50-50. The higher income one then pays all of the excess based on living more comfortable than that. It takes a certain kind of relationship (would be easy to game...) and a certain kind of brain rolleyes: they are in business analytics...), but works for them.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2011)

the-royal-mail said:


> One of them makes $7K per month and the other makes $3K per month. Assume the monthly household expenses to be $3K. The conventional wisdom seems to be they should simply split the expenses 50-50. But I feel this is flawed ... ?


Conventional wisdom says 50/50 ... we heard a lot of that as in "we've always put all the money into one account and shared it" ... neither of us agreed with that ... we did the percentage thing based on income for the mundane monthly expenses ... other items (cars, purses, computers, high heels, scotch, ... ) not so much.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

It's interesting to me that so many people do the 50-50 thing. I am just wondering of those, what the typical income proportions are. Are most people moving in with people who have similar income level?

Remember, the Orman recommendation is for couples with mismatched incomes, like 65-35. In these instances, the 35 would be losing a larger % of their income to shared expenses than the other person. Thus for them, 50-50 isn't really fair.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> Remember, the Orman recommendation is for couples with mismatched incomes, like 65-35. In these instances, the 35 would be losing a larger % of their income to shared expenses than the other person. Thus for them, 50-50 isn't really fair.


For me this means that each one saves 10% of gross income (RRSP, TFSA) and puts the balance after tax in a joint account that pays for all ongoing expenses. The tax amounts should be put aside in a separate account if deductions at source don't cover it.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> Thus for them, 50-50 isn't really fair.


If you want fair, don't move in together, and certainly don't get married. Relationships and rationality don't go hand-in-hand.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Sampson said:


> If you want fair, don't move in together, and certainly don't get married. Relationships and rationality don't go hand-in-hand.


+9


----------



## Helianthus (Oct 19, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> It's interesting to me that so many people do the 50-50 thing. I am just wondering of those, what the typical income proportions are. Are most people moving in with people who have similar income level?
> 
> Remember, the Orman recommendation is for couples with mismatched incomes, like 65-35. In these instances, the 35 would be losing a larger % of their income to shared expenses than the other person. Thus for them, 50-50 isn't really fair.


To reiterate an older post of mine, now that I am actually in said situation-- In my case, there is about a $20K income gap. I chose to lower my standard of living to that of my significant other. All housing / utilities gets split 50/50. Beyond that, I think I'm paying more than my "share". For groceries, meals out, etc., I'm usually footing the bill. I'm OK with that, as I do have quite a bit more "disposable" income. 

Now, had I wanted to live in an upscale condo, I would be more apt to agree to a skewed split.


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

the-royal-mail said:


> Remember, the Orman recommendation is for couples with mismatched incomes, like 65-35. In these instances, the 35 would be losing a larger % of their income to shared expenses than the other person. Thus for them, 50-50 isn't really fair.


I think part of it depends on *why* the discrepancy is there. Is the lower income person making less because they chose to work part time? Is the discrepancy likely to be long term or short term? For some people that doesn't make a difference. For me, I'd be uncomfortable footing more than half the bills if its so my wife can just work less (without a good reason). 

One of the common situations is where one partner is making less because they took time out of their career to take care of their children. To me a non 50-50 split makes sense there, but I am not in that situation.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Fair doesn't need to be equal, fair needs to be what both partners feel is equitiable to them in their situation.

My spouse and I have been together for 17 years, and have gone through many life scenarios.

First, he bought the condo, we were making similar incomes, I think his was a little more, and we just got engaged. He paid the mortgage, utilities, and all shelter expenses. I paid most groceries, and all the smaller stuff to live (linens, pots, kitchen stuff). We both bought the larger furniture. We had a roommate too, so I was actually paying more to get us started (he only had my camping equipment to use when he first moved in)

We had seperate accounts, but did open a main one to put savings for our wedding. We continued this with seperate accounts, with one joint. When my then fiance decided to become a consultant, we decided that we would bank his money to save for a down payment, and I would pay for everything. Our joint account, was primary funded by mean, and his funds stayed in the company (which I was 1/2 owner). We still had individual accounts . When the kids came, and there was only one income, we realized it was stupid to have 3 accounts all with minimum balances, so merged into one main one plus the business account. 

Though we've had different arrangement on who pays for what, we've always considered the money and assets both of ours, even when we weren't married. As a consultant, my partner would some times be without employment, so we learned to base everything on my income. Now, with much higher expenses (kids and mortgages), we use both of our incomes. 

The point is, there have been times where we were contrubiting hugely varying amounts for different goals, but we have always worked together financially to get where we are. My spouse now still handles the day to day expenses and bills, and I'm in charge of the longer term goals, savings, mortgages, investments, etc. It's never been 50-50, but has always worked for us. I think its more about having the conversations as a couple and getting on the same page. My page may be different than yours, but that doesn't matter as long as my husbands is on the same as mine.


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

Sampson said:


> If you want fair, don't move in together, and certainly don't get married. Relationships and rationality don't go hand-in-hand.


We have a bingo.



Plugging Along said:


> Fair doesn't need to be equal, fair needs to be what both partners feel is equitiable to them in their situation.
> 
> My spouse and I have been together for 17 years, and have gone through many life scenarios.
> 
> ...


Great post.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

When my husband and I got our first apartment 26 years ago I made $8 an hour part time and he was making $10.00 an hour .It took us 4 months to save to buy a car and with my husband only 18 the insurance bill was $2200 for 6 months on a $7200 used car.Needless to say we didn't have to worry about splitting our money as it took every dime we both had to pay the bills.

It is good to have the money talks before you move in and protect your assets but when it comes to building a life together it is important that you both feel equal. My best friend was in a relationship with a Plastic Surgeon so imagine the income difference as she made about $45,000 a year .When they took trips together he flew business class and she flew economy and she said she always felt like he placed himself much higher than her because of his income and status.

I definitely think the way Suze does it is fair but if one person makes $45,000 and the other makes $55,000 I do not think it would much of a difference.A minimum wage worker living with a professional person definitely would see a difference.

I lived with my husband for 2 years before we married because we could afford to pay for a wedding but the minute we moved into our first apartment we did everything as if we were married.I may be old fashion but don't move in with somebody until you are sure that's the person you want to spend your life with .There have been times in our marriages where my husband carried us financially and in later year I have been the one making the higher income.We joke that my husband is now a kept man but he says living with me for 26 years is punishment enough for anyone and he deserves to me compensated lol


----------



## LBCfan (Jan 13, 2011)

Living together isn't (or shouldn't be) a financial decision. If it happens, both of you are going to do the same, possibly expensive, things. Hopefully, between the two (I'm guessing here) of you, you can afford it. You pick a lifestyle and hope you can afford it. You don't have a lifestyle for her/him and a lesser lifestyle for the other her/him. You are partners.

The only caveat I can think of is that both buy and use your favorite method of contraception. That way, no one snookered you into a long-term relationship you weren't planning on. And, no, that didn't happen to me.


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

marina628 said:


> When my husband and I got our first apartment 26 years ago I made $8 an hour part time and he was making $10.00 an hour .It took us 4 months to save to buy a car and with my husband only 18 the insurance bill was $2200 for 6 months on a $7200 used car.Needless to say we didn't have to worry about splitting our money as it took every dime we both had to pay the bills.
> 
> It is good to have the money talks before you move in and protect your assets but when it comes to building a life together it is important that you both feel equal. My best friend was in a relationship with a Plastic Surgeon so imagine the income difference as she made about $45,000 a year .When they took trips together he flew business class and she flew economy and she said she always felt like he placed himself much higher than her because of his income and status.
> 
> ...


 26 years is a looooooooooong time. Kudos to both of you for being able to keep your sense of humour after all that time. Then again, marriage kind of forces one to develop a sense of humour.

I can't imagine a serious relationship where one person flies business class and the other flies economy.

For new couples moving in together, finances are important to discuss. But don't forget there are many parts to a relationship. As my wife likes to remind me when I piss her off, "I know where you sleep." Good luck to all you young couples moving in together. For the guys, remember to buy a big, comfy couch if you don't own one already. Trust me, it will come in handy


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

financialnoob said:


> I can't imagine a serious relationship where one person flies business class and the other flies economy...


We have one but DW only does that when there is only one business class seat available. It means more to her than me. And it is an upgrade with points.


----------



## Sustainable PF (Nov 5, 2010)

financialnoob said:


> I can't imagine a serious relationship where one person flies business class and the other flies economy.


Now that Mrs. SPF is pregnant, if we had to fly i'd have no issue with her flying in business class while I was in economy.


----------



## Dana (Nov 17, 2009)

Sustainable PF said:


> Now that Mrs. SPF is pregnant...


Congrats on your impending arrival


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Did Mr. and Mrs. SPF save sufficient tier 4 funds for the arrival of junior?


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

kcowan said:


> We have one but DW only does that when there is only one business class seat available. It means more to her than me. And it is an upgrade with points.


That's cool. I wasn't really thinking this morning when I posted. That one scenario Marina mentioned seemed outrageous, but there are plenty of good scenarios for that...



Sustainable PF said:


> Now that Mrs. SPF is pregnant, if we had to fly i'd have no issue with her flying in business class while I was in economy.


...Like this one. Congrats!


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

We know a couple that splits everything evening, and keeps a log on who owes for what, and they're married with a house. One is a spender, the other was a saver, and now, has become more of spender, but not quite as much as the first. 

They both like to travel, but they have said that if one can't afford it, then that person doesn't get to go, unless the other person wants to lend them the money.

It's not an arrangement that I would have, but my friend said this keeps them from fighting on what they can and can't spend their money on. I guess if you have a couple with different views on money, then splitting it, may make sense.


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

Plugging Along said:


> We know a couple that splits everything evening, and keeps a log on who owes for what, and they're married with a house. One is a spender, the other was a saver, and now, has become more of spender, but not quite as much as the first.
> 
> They both like to travel, but they have said that if one can't afford it, then that person doesn't get to go, unless the other person wants to lend them the money.
> 
> It's not an arrangement that I would have, but my friend said this keeps them from fighting on what they can and can't spend their money on. I guess if you have a couple with different views on money, then splitting it, may make sense.


At first I thought that was crazy, but that makes a ton of sense if they have such different approaches to money. Though I can't imagine marrying someone who was so different in terms of financial goals. Not suggesting it's the most important thing mind you, just an area that can cause a lot of issues.

Then again, love makes you do crazy things.


----------

