This is what my wife and I were doing when we first moved to NYC from Europe.Riggerjack wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:33 pmOnce again, it falls on me to be different. When I met my wife, she had transitioned from long haul trucker to local courier, making decent, but less money than I. As is my habit, I then made this worse, by talking her into taking an entry level position where I work. The pay was so bad, she got an unscheduled raise when minimum wage went higher than she was getting paid...
So, we split the bills to match take home pay. My take home at that time was about 3x hers,so I covered a 75/25% split to start. As she got raises, we just transitioned to pooling funds, and spending as normal.
This allows all the pay from OT/call outs to go to the working partner, and no oppressive costs for the lower earner. Still not totally fair, but more fair. Now, she makes what i do, to the penny, and the funds are pooled. But when money is scarce, having it more scarce for one partner is adding stress where none needs to be.
I made a decent NYC salary, she made a decent Italian salary.
If we had split 50/50 she (very frugal person) would have been able to save very very little.
My wife offered to split 50/50, but I decided that we would pay rent (largest expense by a mile) based on income, and the rest of the bills 50/50
Now we moved back to italy, and even if there's still a difference in salary, we can both easily afford to pay most expenses 50/50 (I pay slightly more as I always pick up the bill the few times we eat out, most of the groceries etc) so that's what we do now.
My negativity about the article is that she DEMANDS/EXPECTS him to pay more, which is not the standard agreement.
To me, ithe issue is in the attidude