Even financial split...

[Balance]

Prior to sharing an apartment with my GF we discussed the financial arrangements.

I felt that a 60her/40me split was fair. My rationale was that she gets child support and that if it were just she and I creating expenses I would be fine with 50/50.

About 6 months in she began complaining about the arrangement. Her perspective was, "If you want to be his father you need to act like it and that includes sharing the expenses."

I agreed for the sake of the peace. It isn't that much more money.

So the questions are;

Was this a fair arrangement in the first place or was it in my favor?

Does her having pushed back into the role of "just a boyfriend" invalidate her original logic?

Thanks.

PS: For the full background see my intro post.

 

[akmom]

In my opinion, family should care for each other and share the household - not nickel-and-dime each other. Is she your roommate or your girlfriend?

Typically roommates with children divide rent according to how much space each takes; bedrooms are a good indicator, and also roughly correlate with utility usage. But that is a business arrangement, often in writing with the landlord. That is not a couple's arrangement. If you're a couple, then you're pooling your expenses and not worrying about how much you have left over versus her.

And what role you take in her son's rearing is irrelevant. Are you asking if you should get a discount on rent because she won't let you parent him the way you want? Do you really think that's a reasonable question?

 

[cybele]

Honestly, if I had a boyfriend who said to me "Honey, I want us to live together as a family, but you pay 60% and I pay 40% because you get child support payments" chances are he wouldn't be my boyfriend much longer, because I would assume he would be staying with me in order to skimp out on financial responsibilities and have me cover it instead.

You're both using the house, you are both using the utilities, you have both made yourselves responsible for a child, you are both adults and I assume you both earn money? Then you have the responsibility to split the money evenly or pool it together.

 

[Balance]

Thank you. My rationale was strictly based on consumption.

 

[bssage]

I keep having visions of you and your lady negotiating like "Pickers" or "Pawn Stars"

You: "Im thinking 90/ 10 sounds right"
Her : " I'm sorry just cant do it. I just have to much invested with the paint and new windows. I could probably go 30/70"
You "Lets flip a coin. Heads its 50/50: tails its 60/40"

I wrote and deleted a bunch of stuff. The more I thought about it the more complicated it became. So if she buys a gallon of 2% and you dont drink milk. Do you still pay 40% of that? If you get a 6 pack of beer that you both share. Is her cost reduced to 50%? If you are home at different times are the utilities rates adjusted for that?

I really wouldn't know how you could make assumptions on a 60/40 split. Roommates at least my experience is different. I would buy what I wanted to eat and he would buy what he wanted ( actually we mostly bought beer). Utilities were included in the rent. Roomate is just a different animal not a "comparable" situation.

What if one of your financial situations change? Do you run a tab for the 60% or 40% that has been lost. What if the home needs a new roof? Who uses more of the roof? Is that something you only use 40% of. I just see an extreme amount of opportunity for ummm conversations. And not the good kind that end in sex.

Since CT has no Common Law. My guess would be that neither of your savings or retirements are in jeopardy of changing hands in case of a separation.

I do understand the desire if you are both established in you employment and make similar incomes. To want it equitably split. I just: especially if you plan on being a long term partner: How this would be successful.

I do however see how this conversation could tie back to your earlier thread and how much say you have when it comes to her boy.

 

[cybele]

Thank you. My rationale was strictly based on consumption.

How can you judge that though? As in, because he is her son she has to pay more? Because if that is the case then you have entirely missed the point of starting a live-in relationship with someone with a child and it wouldn't surprise me if she has expected you to take a back seat if you have that attitude towards it.

Based on consumption of the two of you, I don't see how you could judge that. Do you list phone calls and duration of calls? Keep tabs on who turns light switches on? Have a checklist for who eats how many slices of bread?

 

[Balance]

So the consensus is that the arrangement is fair now.

Thanks.

 

[Testing]

Prior to sharing an apartment with my GF we discussed the financial arrangements.

I felt that a 60her/40me split was fair. My rationale was that she gets child support and that if it were just she and I creating expenses I would be fine with 50/50.

About 6 months in she began complaining about the arrangement. Her perspective was, "If you want to be his father you need to act like it and that includes sharing the expenses."

I agreed for the sake of the peace. It isn't that much more money.

So the questions are;

Was this a fair arrangement in the first place or was it in my favor?

Does her having pushed back into the role of "just a boyfriend" invalidate her original logic?

Thanks.

PS: For the full background see my intro post.

So, the ex-husband should pick up the slack with his child support, which is for the sole purpose of supporting his children?

Of course the original split of expenses was in your favor.

You ARE "just a boyfriend". You are not married and you are not a father. If you want to be one (stepfather), you need to step into the role, and that includes marrying his mother.

 

[Testing]

cybele:Honestly, if I had a boyfriend who said to me "Honey, I want us to live together as a family, but you pay 60% and I pay 40% because you get child support payments" chances are he wouldn't be my boyfriend much longer,

This made me laugh.

You're both using the house, you are both using the utilities, you have both made yourselves responsible for a child, you are both adults and I assume you both earn money? Then you have the responsibility to split the money evenly or pool it together.

Yes, but I am definitely not in favor of shacking up, particularly when there is a child involved. I think that is a terrible thing to do to a child.

I remember what one teen relative said to me, "I had at least six "dads" and I never could remember who was there during this stretch of time."

Poor kid.

 

[cybele]

That doesn't mean every child of a blended family has multiple 'parents' my niece's 'stepdad' (they are not married) has held that role in her life for 17 years, she is now 25.

 

[NancyM]

I too would have felt a little hurt if my boyfriend told me I have to pay more rent because I have a child. Oh my goodness, it would tell me a lot about you, and what our future together may be like.

I think it should be an even split rent wise. Her child support payments shouldn't be considered income because it's issued to support the child not the household.

I'm not sure what you mean by consumption but isn't your gf buying food, and her child's needs out of the child support payments...if she has to pay more rent isn't that like her having to pay twice for her child??

Most financial applications allow a parent to omit child support as income, they may have to write it down under "other types of money received" , but it usually isn't counted as house hold income.

As far as the IRS goes, child support payments are neither deductible by the payor nor taxable to the payee.

So I don't think it's fair to make her pay more rent based on the fact that she receives child support from her child's father to help support the child. Sheesh!

 

[Balance]

So the consensus is that the arrangement is fair now.

Thanks.

Once again, I appreciate the feedback everyone. I asked with an open mind and I got my answer within hours after my first post. I agree, it is a fair agreement as it stands.

For the record, my original position was made out of ignorance and not from selfishness. We're it I wouldn't have agreed to a change of the original agreements I did.

Again, thanks. I won't be following this thread further and I look forward to getting to know you better in other threads.

 

[bssage]

Once again, I appreciate the feedback everyone. I asked with an open mind and I got my answer within hours after my first post. I agree, it is a fair agreement as it stands.

For the record, my original position was made out of ignorance and not from selfishness. We're it I wouldn't have agreed to a change of the original agreements I did.

Again, thanks. I won't be following this thread further and I look forward to getting to know you better in other threads.

Fair enough. That not a complicated concept to understand.

 

[singledad]

You ARE "just a boyfriend". You are not married and you are not a father. If you want to be one (stepfather), you need to step into the role, and that includes marrying his mother.

Sorry, but I don't see how commitment requires a piece of paper in order to exist...

I have a very close friend whose mother married 5 times. Her longest "marriage" lasted about 2 years... But hey, a least she married them and didn't just shack up, right?

 

[ikon99]

Sorry, but I don't see how commitment requires a piece of paper in order to exist...

I have a very close friend whose mother married 5 times. Her longest "marriage" lasted about 2 years... But hey, a least she married them and didn't just shack up, right?

I agree here. I have been "the boyfriend" for 2 years and we all live under the same roof. I'm not their step father but assumed the role on day one. The BM, my GF handed me the reigns and has been guiding me ever since. I feel I am a great "surrogate dad" My GF and I will be married in 5 months, this will help solidify our new family.

But I digress. The OP was regards to splitting finances. IMHO one should not have to contribute more simply b/c they get child support. No one is getting rich on child support. Well... except Katie Holms. I'll bet a grown man will eat more and strain more resources than two kids.

 

[akmom]

I hear a lot of people write off the idea of marriage as a "piece of paper." The "piece of paper" secures a lot of legal rights and is a responsible move for a couple who is actually committed. Some people make it sound like some colossal inconvenience. My husband and I did four sessions of premarital counseling (which I consider a great start), had a low-key ceremony with close friends and family, and have enjoyed seven years of marriage. We are able to combine insurance policies, are entitled to each other's inheritance, and have automatic deference in many situations due to our legally recognized union. It's kind of a package deal, and the "piece of paper" isn't a big part of it. I haven't even looked at the thing since I changed my name. Why do people get so hung up on the meaninglessness of the paper?

People get college degrees that come with a "piece of paper" too, and while one may be able to succeed without them (or fail with them), I wouldn't say they are meaningless. I don't think marriage is meaningless either.

 

[singledad]

I hear a lot of people write off the idea of marriage as a "piece of paper." The "piece of paper" secures a lot of legal rights and is a responsible move for a couple who is actually committed. Some people make it sound like some colossal inconvenience. My husband and I did four sessions of premarital counseling (which I consider a great start), had a low-key ceremony with close friends and family, and have enjoyed seven years of marriage. We are able to combine insurance policies, are entitled to each other's inheritance, and have automatic deference in many situations due to our legally recognized union. It's kind of a package deal, and the "piece of paper" isn't a big part of it. I haven't even looked at the thing since I changed my name. Why do people get so hung up on the meaninglessness of the paper?

People get college degrees that come with a "piece of paper" too, and while one may be able to succeed without them (or fail with them), I wouldn't say they are meaningless. I don't think marriage is meaningless either.

Perhaps because here, once you've lived together for a certain amount of time (I'm not sure how long), you are considered to be legally married - with all the legal benefits of marriage, including shared insurance, joint mortgages, access to inheritance, etc. The only thing you don't have is a pre-nup.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not against marriage. I think its a beautiful symbol of love and commitment, which is why I got married to my DD's mom. We were married for almost 6 years, and in those 6 years I never regretted taking that step for even a second. Also, the ability to have a pre-nup has certain legal benefits, such as securing assets when one partner embarks on a risky business venture.

I just don't buy the belief that a relationship somehow lacks commitment if the two people in question aren't married, or that marriage necessarily involves commitment. It really is just a piece of paper, which has exactly as much value as the people whose names are on it believes it to have. It is clear that yours have a lot of value for you, and I am happy for you that it does .

My friend's mother obviously didn't value (any of) hers very highly.

 

[akmom]

I see your points. I must note, however, that not all states have common law marriage. Mine does not, and I'm not very knowledgeable on it, but do you mean to say that if you have someone living with you for a sufficient time, then the home you own (with a mortgage) then automatically becomes their home too and the mortgage their financial responsibility also? I should also note that prenuptial agreements are not a prerequisite for marriage, and I do not have one. In fact, our officiant would not perform weddings for people with prenups, because they were what he called "a plan to fail."

 

[cybele]

We have same rights for defactos too, and pre-nups are not legally binding in Australia, so that gets ruled out too, haha.

Dita and Violet now get defacto benefits (we don't have a time period law, if an adult couple co-habitates, they're considered defacto), since Dita turned 18.

 

[Mom2all]

I'm "shacked up". I don't mind it a bit. I hear it from my Grandma... who's to embarrassed to say "boyfriend" when introducing my Sean to people. I hear it from my Dad who loves him like a son... and I hear from him... ( He's Catholic and wants an absolution he can't get while "shacked up") I will marry the man... because he wants it and I do love him and want him happy. BUT.. I also use the word "meaningless" while describing that marriage document. It is to me. Not to him and so I will do it for that reason. You see.. I was married before. I really thought that it would be forever and all that.. promised before God, family and friends and all that. Six years later.. we parted and went on our merry ways. So the promise to live until death do us part was a lie... and on a piece of paper that didn't make us honor it one bit more that without. I say meaningless only because that paper had nothing to do with our success or lack there of. I am more committed to Sean and our life together than I have ever been with anyone. I love him more than anyone. I will stick with him through all things and no doubt about it... He's my other half. The commitment we have means more than any paper or blessing the preacher or the state gives. He is mine, and I am his and that means more than a legal document. SO perhaps.. thats what people mean by meaningless.