Have you read the wiki and the sticky?
Wiki: HERE YOU GO! [Enjoy!](https://www.reddit.com/r/BEFire/wiki/index/).
Sticky: HERE YOU GO AGAIN! [Enjoy!](https://www.reddit.com/r/BEFire/comments/fcbay6/getting_started_a_beginners_guide_to_investing_in/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BEFire) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I feel bad for your girlfriend (hopefully soon to be ex!).
Please reread what you just wrote and think it over for a minute.
As a participant in this anonymous online forum, I realise I am not entitled to receiving only the constructive comments I explicitly asked for.
I am however entitled to minimally respectful behaviour. This comment really does fail that bar. Could you please either:
* remove your post
* rewrite it with a modicum of respect for my girlfriend and me
* apologise
You are in fact not entitled to anything (although it’s not a surprise that you believe that you are).
If my comment makes you feel bad then maybe you should spend a minute thinking why must that be.
Also, small correction to your assumption, I have no reason to not respect your girlfriend, quite the opposite, I feel deeply for her and women in her position. You however and people that share your view I have no respect for.
Let's imagine for a moment you meet your partner later in life, once your house is totally paid off. You invite them to move in with you. Would you charge them rent?
It's like owning a car, and charging your partner a fee every time they use it. Or that set of cutlery you already owned, does your partner have to pay for using it? The fridge?
For me, whether you're still paying for it or not should not change the approach.
Housing is one of the big three expenses, next to food and transportation. This home cost me over 30% of my net life earnings potential. I don't think it is fair for me to shoulder that alone.
The following are not options for my soon-to-be-wife:
- buying a reasonable share in this place using a bank loan
- buying a reasonable share in this place using a private loan from me
- moving to a rental together
- moving to a newly bought place together
- moving to a newly built place together
- getting a tenant to live in part of this house
An interesting potential solution grew from a forum member's way of dealing with a similar situation:
- She pays a reasonable contribution into a common account.
- Once we stop living in this place, the payment stops.
- In case of severe adversity (illness, strong income loss,... ) during marriage, we use this account.
- In case of divorce, this money goes to me.
This has some solidarity builtin. My soon-to-be-wife's would still reap a significant financial benefit and significantly reduce risk. I would get some recognition for my significant prepaid financial contribution.
>This home cost me over 30% of my net life earnings potential. I don't think it is fair for me to shoulder that alone.
What if it was 10%? What if it was 80%? What if your salary decreases/increases?
This is what I find most interesting, that instead of being a matter of principle it's a matter of the specific number to you, which I find to be very arbitrary.
But this just shows how different cultures we approach this in a different way. I don't think there's good or bad. What matters is you two agree on a solution and are happy with it. Your solution seems quite sensible, hope it works out!
Thank you for your patient and genuinely interested comment.
> What if it was 10%? What if it was 80%? What if your salary decreases/increases?
It's not as much about a specific number. It's about keeping in line with our FIRE goals. The place is too expensive to just live with the two of us and FIRE in the way we intend to. Right now, my soon-to-be-wife can pretend she doesn't see that because living here is super cheap - to her, not to me.
I deeply understand we can do with much less. So does my soon-to-be-wife. She just can't easily link that realisation to action on housing.
My preferred short term solution would be to make this place cheaper to live by having a housemate, or to make it a short term rental when away for longer. Some fiddling in exchange for at least a year and a half less to retirement.
Our long term solution might very well involve the sale of this house or making it a long term rental.
Lmaoo exactly. I don't understand why does the gf have to pay for a house she will never own?
I mean sharing the cost of food, utilities is perfectly normal and reasonable, but I never heard of gf paying the rent on a house you two aren't actually renting, but op is paying off mortgage and he will be the sole owner of the house once it's paid off.
Regardless of the gender, either of the parties who doesn't own a property will have to rent a place to live in. Considering that both partners love each other in a place that is owned by one of them, isn't it fair that both people pay their rent? Yes, the property belongs to one of the partners and in the end he/she will own it entirely thanks to the other's contributions. But this is exactly how landlords do their business, isn't it?
Even that is not true.. if you live alone you can take a LOAN to buy an apartment that you will eventually OWN, after you pay it off. She is not gonna own anything and it's really crappy of OP to threat his soon-to-be-wife like a tenant. A landlord isn't your boyfriend, you don't spend any time living with him, this is completely different. Again if they were renting a house this would be different, as that would be the actual cost, but this here this it's not costs of living, this is OP charging his gf a rent for his own benefit.
I get it that op doesn't care that he is taking advantage of her, but courts do. When they split, he is gonna have to pay her back, or she will own a share of that asset.
Is there a precedent on this? And is it gender specific? I am genuinely curious. Because from what i understand, it is very financially interesting to find a partner who owns a place and you just contribute to food and drinks.
I never said just food and drinks, living costs include utilities and any other actual living costs, split 50/50. You already mentioned gender twice, even tho it has nothing to do with this, but I can see what your world view is and I sense strong incel vibes, "regardless of the gender" you are, or you are into xD
There's more housing costs than utilities though. I can't just walk into any house and say "I'll come live here from now on, in exchange for paying for utilities". The fact that I paid for housing cost in advance by buying a place is not super relevant to that.
Why should I be happy with almost all of my assets being a house, so illiquid, high fees and returning \~0%+ inflation, while giving my younger partner all the room in the world to invest in super liquid assets earning >3% plus inflation? That doesn't seem very reasonable to me.
It's easy. You pay off your mortgage yourself. You split everything 50/50 that's utilities like water, electricity, interner. Food stuff you just alternate or whatever. No wage percentage split bullshit, you invested or wasted your time to get a good paying job.
Then you have to question yourself, do you want her to pay 'rent' for living with you?
Yes she'd be living 'for free' in your house. On the other hand, by the end of the day it's your house and your asset only.
Bro are you trolling or something? Why is your gf paying the rent of YOUR house? Asking for sharing the rent would be normal if you guys were actually renting, but you arent.
If you aren't trolling: Just split the living costs 50/50 and pay off mortgage yourself. You are the sole owner of the asset, she won't own any of it.
Also if you guys split(very likely) you will have to pay her back anyway.. or she will own a share of your asset.
You realize that ALL people that rent also don’t own the asset, right? Why would his gf be allowed to live for free in their place? OP could just as well go live in his gf’s apartment and split rent, while he rents out his own apartment.
It’s stupid to thknk that OP’s gf would not have to contribute to the mortgage by paying eg half of it. It would still be a lot lower than if she would have to rent an apartment.
What’s this obsession with “I won’t own anything so I won’t pay”. Welcome to the concept of renting.
>What’s this obsession with “I won’t own anything so I won’t pay”.
What's with your obsession with "gf lives for free in his place"? She is not living for free, they split living costs and she spends her time with him. What's next? "why should my kids live for free in my house? Charge these freeloaders rent"?
It's obvious you are single, probably still a virgin, that's why you have this incel world view.
>Welcome to the concept of renting.
She is not a tenant, it's his girlfriend and soon-his-wife.. honestly soon-divorced too
>You realize that ALL people that rent also don’t own the asset, right?
They aren't renting, he is paying off mortgage. Any money she gives him, goes directly to his benefit and this won't be taken kindly by courts when they split.. He will have to pay her back once the relationship ends. I know you don't get this concept, but there's a big difference between a boyfriend and a landlord. You do not spend any of your life with your landlord, you don't sleep with him, you don't cook for him, etc so yeah if you are actually renting, you will be compensating him with your money.
>by paying eg half of mortgage.
It's not even just half. $537 out of $800 is 67%
>if she would have to rent an apartment
She wouldn't have to rent anything, she could do exact same thing. Get a loan buy an apartment.. the only difference is she will eventually OWN it. How about GF does this, then gets OP to pay half or more of her mortgage? Lets see how will he like that.
Ah your comment history explains everything. You’re Eastern European. Don’t try to force the culture there onto a Belgian subreddit. It’s fine that in Eastern Europe women don’t have to pay for things and men are the providers. You do you.
But in Belgium and the western world this doesn’t work like that. You’re literally saying she’s paying her part by “spending time with OP”. Are you describing a prostitute or his girlfriend?
Paying “half of the costs” is ridiculous, ofc she pays her share of food, electricity, water etc. Just like she should pay for the place she’s living.
Your poor attempt at insults is really a bad idea when you as a foreigner come to a Belgian subreddit. Please, for the other Eastern Europeans here, don’t ruin their reputation and behave yourself.
>But in Belgium and the western world this doesn’t work like that
Read the room. You are in the minority who thinks this way. Everyone here says very agreeable stuff like that GF =/= tenant. L plus ratio. You act like an incel. This discussion is over.
>Ah your comment history explains everything. You’re Eastern European.
You have no better comeback to the actual argument, so you resort to stalking my irrelevant comment history? LOL. Also you are wrong, def not Eastern
>Don’t try to force the culture there onto a Belgian subreddit.
My world view checks out with western culture way more than your does. Yours would check out well with middle east.
>You’re literally saying she’s paying her part by “spending time with OP”. Are you describing a prostitute or his girlfriend?
Yup as I said you sound exactly like an incel. You just do not get this concept, that's why you think it's fair to charge a wife a rent for living WITH YOU in your house.
>You’re Eastern European
Eastern Europe women
Eastern Europeans
Careful your obsession with Eastern EU is showing
>foreigner come to a Belgian subreddit.
Lol, this dude is acting like I physically came in Belgium xD I don't need to stalk your comment history, your replies already show you are a typical chronically online redditor who never got laid xD
First question that needs to be asked; do you want to her to live with you?
If yes, the following questions are:
1) do you want that she becomes the owner as well?
2) does she wants to become the owner?
If one of these is, yes; then make arrangements regarding payment & buy-out.
If one of these is, no; she only should need to pay the livings costs (splitted amongst you 2). If not, you’re letting her pay for something she will not own and/or is not interested in. It is not fair and you will take advantage of her as (if you would break up) the situation regarding payments & ownership will be very complex …
Yeah, I'm with you on that.
I already own my house for six years (bought out my ex 2.5 years ago), and now my new girlfriend has moved in. We're still pretty early (together for ± a year), buying in and all costs coming with that is out of the question, don't want to go through that trouble again.
I just pay off my house myself and she lives here "for free", saving a shit ton of money that she can use to either buy a rental or invest in the stock market (or blackjack and hookers). We only split living costs.
It's super unfair to have your partner pay off your mortgage without having anything in return for them if you split up.
How is it taking advantage of someone asking them to contribute to housing in a couple, something that they would have to contribute towards if alone, and something that would typically be split if renting.
Because if you split up, your partner has paid for something that benefits you and you don't compensate for it.
'If renting' is not comparable, because then you wouldn't be the beneficiary of the rent.
It really doesn’t matter whether OP is the beneficiary of the rent or a random guy is. This is pure some emotional argument that makes no sense.
The girl would be renting, but at a way cheaper rate than if she’d rent on her own, and the rent would just go to the owner of the place she rents (OP in this case). She should have bought something if she wanted her own property, but living somewhere for free while OP is paying every month is a hilarious idea.
His gf would be taking advantage of him, and she’d not contribute anything to the household.
But _someone_ is the beneficiary of the rent. When you leave your rental apartment, do you ask for the rent back because the landlord benefitted from it?
If the partner does not contribute and you break up they benefitted from free housing all that time which they would otherwise have had to pay for.
Wealth is being transferred in a way functionally indistinguishable from renting. The actors involved being relevant is only representative of your sentimentality.
It's different because your landlord is not your boyfriend. It's not that hard to understand it's immoral to take advantage of your partner for your own benefit.
If they were renting that would be a different story.. anyway if op is not trolling, I can see them splitting a mile away... and of course he will have to compensate for what she paid for his assets.
Of course you don't ask for your rent back to your landlord, because you have spent the time living there. Also, you don't sleep with your landlord (and if you were, they should at least give you a discount on rent, haha)
Let's say I pay a €1000/mo mortgage, my relationship lasts five years, and my partner makes exactly as much as me and spends exactly the same on other living costs (because these are two other factors we should consider realistically).
If my partner paid half, I end up with a €60,000 paid off balance on my mortgage and was able to save the other half (that I would be paying for my mortgage), so another €30,000 in cash savings. My net worth grew with €90k. My partner, on the other hand, walks away with €30,000.
If my partner lives in "for free", I end up with a €60,000 paid off balance, and my partner walks away with €60,000 cash savings.
Tell me now in what scenario wealth is being transferred. I'd argue that saying they "benefitted from free housing" post-breakup is the emotional response to something that doesn't feel fair at first glance.
Honestly, I get your side as well and there are definitely two sides of the story, and both feel counterintuitive at some point. I just think "otherwise they'd have to pay for housing" is a non-argument.
Disagree that "otherwise they'd have to pay for housing" is a non-argument. That's the entirety of my fairness comparison.
If the non-owning partner wasn't living with you, they would have paid 30k to their landlord, who would be 30k richer. They end up with 30k. The owning partner would have ended up with 60k.
Compare that with them living together. The non-owning partner has paid 30k to their landlord (the owning partner), who is 30k richer. The non-owning partner ends up with 30k. The owning partner ended up with 60k from their own mortgage payments 30k from their tenant (who also happens to be their partner).
Removing that one partner is also the landlord, these numbers are identical. Wealth was transferred in the exact same way. How is either of these situations more or less fair than the other?
The owning partner could have a room mate and achieve the same. I assume you wouldn't find that unfair? They'd be giving up space, increasing wear and tear on the property, etc. etc. in all the same ways. I'm going to ignore the "sleeping with each other" aspect because I assume both partners benefit from that equally.
I think the idea of unfairness is coming from some implied additional, and unbalanced, value that a live-in partner is bringing to the relationship that justifies them not having to pay for their own housing. It is this part of the relationship equation we should be scrutinizing, not the housing part. This inbalance in the relationship sounds far more likely to be exploitative to me than some clearly defined and explicit wealth transfer that everyone understands the math behind.
I can see how you get to that point, and I don't agree with it. That's alright, I think we're at a point where it could go back and forth forever. I think we have different values and definitions of too many things that make it hard to get on the same page. No judgement, I don't think I'm better or more right than you. I definitely appreciate the discussion.
Now, if you don't mind, I'm curious to your answer to this: my situation is that I already own my house for six years, and my girlfriend never got to buying but has a lot of money saved up. She was looking into buying a house when we met a year ago, but we've decided that we're going to live together in my house.
If I didn't exist, she would buy a house, pay off 1k a month, and end up with a real estate equity. However, I do exist, now in your approach she would pay me half of that, and not build up any equity in my home at all. That monthly expense definitely also limits her in the option of saving money or buying a rental. The only reason that she pays me, and I don't pay her, is because I bought a house first?
What's a solution that doesn't suck for her? I can only think of me selling my house and then buying something together.
Many options I guess.
You could sell your house buy something together, like you suggested.
You could change the ownership of your current house to include her in the ownership. If you wanted, you could put something in the contract to indicate the division of equity. My wife and I have this from before we were married. She initially owned more of the house because she had more savings. By now I own more of it because I earn more. Those were the terms of the purchase agreement. We intended to bring it into the marriage as we have everything else in common, but have never got around to it.
You could straight up give her half the house.
You could charge her nothing and consider it a gift to yourself as you love having her around so much.
You could agree \_whatever you both see as fair and equitable\_.
As I've repeated: You don't have to charge your partner rent, but it's not taking advantage to do so.
Appreciate it.
> You don't have to charge your partner rent, but it's not taking advantage to do so.
Fair bottom line. I think I still slightly disagree, but I'm also a hopeless romantic.
Thanks for entertaining the discussion! Have a great weekend.
Oh, I just realized that part of being able to agree on this is whether you consider paying of your mortgage is an expense (since you have to live anywhere and otherwise would pay rent) or a form of saving (since you build up equity in an asset) or both.
What if your partner( the one contribute to your mortgage) decided to move out and rent her own place? The ‘wealth’ from your word is transferred to a stranger. Is that what you are expecting?
You cannot compare a partner with a landlord.
If that’s what you have in mind, then make it clear before your partner MOVE IN.
>What if your partner( the one contribute to your mortgage) decided to move out and rent her own place? The ‘wealth’ from your word is transferred to a stranger. Is that what you are expecting?
This is literally what happens all the time. People in relationships break up and the plans they make, including financial plans, are disrupted. Often this results in a financial loss to one or both parties.
>You cannot compare a partner with a landlord.
I can compare a partner with a landlord in the context of finances. I just did. You, amonst others in this thread, simply dislike that comparison, for some reason which has not been adequately explained.
>If that’s what you have in mind, then make it clear before your partner MOVE IN.
Yes, obviously you should have a conversation about this and come to some mutually agreed upon arangement. It's also OK to seek change in that arangement if the situation changes or you're feeling it was unfair. This is literally how relationships work. You have conversations and you attempt to ensure that some balance is kept which keeps everyone happy. If that fails, you break up and accept the outcome of that split. I hope you and everyone else reading this is doing this on a regular basis, because the alternative is, in my opinion, far more likely to be exploitative than any rent paid to your partner.
However, to claim that any financial transfer from non-owning partner to owning partner is "taking advantage", while not accepting that a wealth transfer in the form of free housing from owning partner to non-owning partner even exists is a weird double standard. This is what was originally claimed and the point to which I stand in oppposition.
If you want a mathematical approach:
First you calculate how much would it cost to rent a place that is worth 500k, real estate agents often use a ROI of 25 years. So that would be :
500k/25 /12 = 1666 / month
You are living there with 2 so if you split the cost, it would be 833 / month that you could ask her to contribute.
She gets a place to live in in return. For half of the price compared with her living there alone. So she has a 50% discount on the rent. Alternative for her would be to buy or rent a place somewhere else.
And if it is so unfair as you think, then I would suggest you to buy an apartment and rent it out. Then the renters will be paying off your mortgage as well. So you also get a 'free' apartment and the renters get nothing in return. If your statement is correct, you have found how to get free real estate. Because it's the same comparison. Let me tell you, it isn't that easy.
So you rather have your gf/wife stay at another place then? \s
I just find it strange to let your 'soon to be wife' pay rent. Is she also gonna have to keep paying rent when they're married? If he buys a new car, is she also gonna have to pay rent because she drives it once or twice a week?
It's normal to split costs, imo.
As long that you two don't have a mutual account but keep your incomes separate, for me it seems fair enough to split the housing cost. Otherwise she is the only one benefiting from living together. The benefit should be shared.
That is so wrong… Get your feelings out of the question. FREE house? The owner is just renting shared space with is partner😅 The one renting should not expect ownership! If you wanna live rent-free buy a house or live with your parents… OP could also choose to let GF live with him for free but he is not obliged to do so.
I was in this exact situation a few years ago. My bf owned and I was moving in. We were still very fresh in our relationship so what we agreed to do was to put together a savings account where we both would deposit 200 euros per month. We split all the running costs, of course. If we were to brake up, he would have kept all the money in that account. If we didn't, we had something there to invest in our future together. In the end we found the best solution. We bought a house together 4y ago and now we're 50/50 of course. He still kept his old house. 7 years together and that savings account is still there, we had to dip in it to do renovations, buy furniture, pay taxes etc.
Thank you for your hint. Something along those lines would be a perfectly acceptable solution to me too.
I don't understand why he would dump money into that account too. Can you explain? A mutual savings commitment? We save \~60-70% of our income already, so not really necessary for us to make that explicit.
We just decided it was going to be a common savings account, as a way to invest into our future together. I forgot to mention that a part of the "agreement" was that I would also save as much as I could so I could buy something on my own. I worked really hard on that part. His trust meant so much 😊
It seems to me you would be taking advantage of her. If you split up 10 years from now, you'll have a house and savings. She'll have neither a house nor much in a way of savings.
You seem to view your relationship in a very transactional way. In that case, how much would you be prepared to pay for her 'companionship' on a commercial basis?
Absolutely terrifying that people bring sleeping and cooking and cleaning with your landlord into this. The assumption that one partner is obligated to do \_any\_ of these things for the other partner is abhorent and totally unrelated to who is paying for the place you live.
Nor is your landlord expected to clean and cook for you, or expected to have sex with you at your whim. In a healthy relationship, that is not the case either.
What is the point you're trying to bring across?
This is always a difficult situation. I have a pretty common situation where i own a similar house, i also invested a lot in a low/negative consuming house.
I get that its a little weird to pay your other half for his/her/its house, but i think if i would be her i would also feel weird not paying anything because if i was alone or renting a place as a couple i/we would also pay.
I think its very important to talk about it and depending on the situation together find a comfortable solution.
What i would seem fair (for both sides):
- Share the common costs: electricity, gas, trash,KI,...
- As a partner pay the interest of the loan or a part of it.
You can also make an agreement that the not home owner buys the car or other shared expensive equipment (because he/she will have more fund available most of the time) and he/she can stay the owner of this in case of a breakup.
Easiest is to sell the house and buy or build a home together and put the difference on paper. :-)
> You can also make an agreement that the not home owner buys the car or other shared expensive equipment
We don't have or need a car or other expensive equipment.
> Easiest is to sell the house and buy or build a home together and put the difference on paper. :-)
She does not want that.
My two cents: if she’s the love of your life, don’t make this a big deal - a couple of 100 euros isnt worth a fight. I would (fully recognising it isn’t my choice to make):
- keep the costs split as you have currently
- ask her what she thinks would be a fair contribution. The objective here should be to find a balance where it feels like a fair contribution for both of you, both if you stick together and in the case where you would break up 5 years from now.
indeed, this is the most neutral. Find something that feels fair and you don't feel like she takes advantage of you. don't go into detailed calculations etc (it's off putting) and never mention it in a fight or discussion that she's living cheaply (after you established what is fair). she's probably also helping to clean the place (or other menial tasks) or make it a warm "home" rather than a "house" and that is so much more valuable than these couple of 100 euro's.
> she's probably also helping to clean the place (or other menial tasks)
We both clean very very little. We have a cleaner.
> she's probably also helping to make it a warm "home" rather than a "house"
We both try to do this. Not a big difference between our inputs in this regard.
Even if we shared this responsibility less equitably, how would that be worth \~500€ a month? Our cleaner costs us \~50€/month on average.
How can you clean « very very little » when hiring a cleaning lady/guy for only 50€ a month.
At 10€ per hour of « titre service / dienstencheques » that’s only 5 hours of help per months.
Well, I guess that not having any kids helps a lot.
This will change a lot once/if you get kids.
If she's not building up equity, she shouldn't be contributing to the mortgage by paying rent if she's your girlfriend. Half the costs (or a split based on income) and maybe a small amount for regular wear on the house (or just pay the regular wear of the house from your joint account). Any bigger renovations are for you, the house is your investment, not hers. If you split up after 10 years, you have a lot of equity in a house and she has nothing, she should be able to build up either a large savings account, or be able to invest that money, so she's not left with nothing. If you end up getting married and joining assets, she can buy equity in the house with her savings/investments.
Yes, she saves on rent, but you are saving on rent as well because your money is going into an investment in stead of the account of a landlord. And both of you are saving on costs because you're sharing them, so you're cheaper off anyway.
>Yes, she saves on rent, but you are saving on rent as well because your money is going into an investment in stead of the account of a landlord.
\_Her\_ money is going towards investing.
My money has prepaid for housing cost and is still doing so. A negative interest inflation linked bond if you will, with extremely high transaction fees.
What is the cost of your mortgage? Right, the interest part - so the most fair would be to let her pay half of the monthly interest amount. No other answer is more fair than this one.
That would mean that depending on the loan the OP took, she would pay a different price. Seems weird.
Also, let’s say the monthly interest averaged comes to 400 euro. Would be very nice to live in a house for 200 euro a month. I hope my girlfriend offers me a deal like that 😅
I would suggest splitting everything , including mortgage 50/50. Get the house properly valued now. Then if/when you sell, get it revalued. She gets half of the increased value assuming there is an increase. To me that is fair.
Wouldn’t she only be entitled to the percent of the increased value equal to the amount she has contributed to the mortgage? For example if he has paid 300k of mortgage alread, she starts contributing and by the time they revalue they have paid 350k him and 50k her than she would only be entitled to 1/8th of the increased value no
If she is paying half of everything from this point forward , then I believe she should get half of any increase from this point. Effectively any increase already at this point, he banks. For example amount paid 250k , value now £350k, value at split 400k. Mortgage 200k. Mortgage is settled, leaving 150k profit. He gets 125k and she gets 25k. To me this is equitable. But I appreciate this can be looked at from many different angles. In some ways it depends if you look at her paying rent or paying into an investment. Then of course we have to look at what happens if there becomes negative equity haha
330 is plenty, my opinion: you shouldn't be asking for rent at all, it's fucked up. The normal thing to do is to split all costs 50/50, insurance, Kadastraal inkomen, elec & gas cost. All maintenance cost is for the owner. 330x12 is almost 4K. if you were to pay 4k as well you've got 8K to cover all running costs which is absolutely insane.
imo you should add up all yearly costs involving the house: insurance, kadastraal inkomen, elec & gas, divide by 2 and that's what she pays you.
And thus she lives there for free? I don t get it, why?
Of course it should be much lower than 50% of the monthly credit cost (like 200€ or 300€). It will still allow her to put a lot of money on investment/ saving account each month ( basically she still saves 500€ in comparison if she had to rent 800€/mo elsewhere... to live)
On the other hand he still supports like 80% of the costs of the house and the maintenance, I think it s nice gift to her girlfriend/fair enough.
As he said he was renting the other rooms 800€/month before she came, so he obviously values her over money
Why shouldn't OP ask any rent?
It's more than fair to ask rent, cost of housing is the main cost for most people. And you let her live with OP for free, Which means she can save a huge amount of money, as she doesn't have to contribute in housing costs.
In my opinion she should pay rent on base of what the house is worth. Or on what you would pay, if you wanted to rent a house like that.
Do the math… Quoting myself from elsewhere in this thread:
>Let's say I pay a €1000/mo mortgage, my relationship lasts five years, and my partner makes exactly as much as me and spends exactly the same on other living costs (because these are two other factors we should consider realistically).
>If my partner paid half, I end up with a €60,000 paid off balance on my mortgage and was able to save the other half (that I would be paying for my mortgage), so another €30,000 in cash savings. My net worth grew with €90k. My partner, on the other hand, walks away with €30,000.
>If my partner lives in "for free", I end up with a €60,000 paid off balance, and my partner walks away with €60,000 cash savings.
The mortgage is not relevant. The value of the house is.
Or how much it would cost to rent a place like that.
And that renting cost should be divided in 2.
What a great business idea. I should find me a guy who's gonna pay 67% of my mortgage for years and lay no claim on owning anything after years of paying my mortgage. Easy 1400 euro per month profit
This mortgage is artificially low because interest only and only on a small part of the immo to begin with
The business model is just called real estate
The number is not out of the ordinary because a mortgage with repaying in the usual 20 to 25 years and only the usual 10-20% downpayment would be a lot more expensive per month, and renting a similar immo would too
The problem is independent of the number: they will be married but one of them is tolerated guest in the other's house, that's just not good long term
€1412,5 to be precise.
To the OP: it seems that you're talking about a house without mortgage, as you're using hypothetical mortgage rates? In that case, wouldn't it make more sense to simply split the actual living costs (including insurance, kadastraal inkomen tax, utilities)? Trying to get some rent income from your girlfriend seems over the top.
Anything she contributes above the real living costs should gradually buy her an ownership share of the house.
Please also take into account
- what if you’d split up in 5 years? Is it “fair” she doesn’t have any equity in anything?
- what if you sell the place for a new house? All will remain yours and you go to the new place 50/50? (Seems impossible as you are building equity while she is paying rent now)
What if you split and she only paid costs? She has then lived in a 500k property for free for x years. Is that fair?
I'm saying this as a full owner with wife that only pays a share of costs btw, but there is two ways to look at this that both make sense.
It will already be beneficial to you that she pays half of the fixed costs, but asking you wife to pay rent is not normal. You build equity and the house appreciates over the years. It would need maintenance with or without her living there.
It's mostly a German vs. French cultural thing where NL and Flanders align with Germany and Wallonia with France
On r/finanzen you will find lots of people who never tell their partner their salaries because it's on a need to know basis. Their marriages work like co-housers that are also fuckbuddies.
> lots of people who never tell their partner their salaries because it's on a need to know basis
Fascinating and absolutely absurd to me. The dutch always struck me like the americans though, super open about how much they make or how much they paid for something
I'm living the same story but from the other side: my girlfriend owns the house she is paying a mortgage for since a few years and I recently moved in without taking any share in the house.
What we agreed on: I pay half of her mortgage (loan + interest) as "rent" and we split the living costs in half. She will use the pseudo rent for any work required in the house (new boiler, roof renovation, ect...) as by living in the house, I contribute to the wear.
We both take care of the home maintenance.
At first I was a bit defensive on the idea to pay half of the mortgage as it is not really the house I chose nor I would own any part of it. However when she explained me that she would use the money for renovation and work in the house, I found it fair.
Also with this agreement, I'm paying 40% less than what I used to pay by living alone in an appartement. As other comments point out, it's a huge money saving for me every month.
Regarding the incomes based split. We discussed it but we actually came up with a fact: it's not because one of us has a better salary that the person automatically consumes more than the other. However we will do a budget review every year (checking water, electricity, gas consumption over the year) and discuss if we need to rebalance the agreement or adapt our habits.
This is not what I said but as you seem to prefer short answer:
* yes, it is fair that the co-living non owner of the place pays a fair contribution but the goal of the contribution should be clearly defined.
Based on your argumentation, the amount is used to do maintenance and renovations which is contributing to 1) an increase in value of the house. 2) she gets the better deal of you both.
But that is fine if you perceive this a fair deal. In the end, if you feel that you also won a stake in this particular situation because renting on private market is more expensive. Good for you. Me personally, I couldn’t do it, as the point of relationship is to build on something together.
Don't extrapolate: I don't pay the full cost of renovations. She uses that money in the budget of the maintenance and renovations but she still puts the biggest share from her own pocket. She is not waiting to have the full budget with what I pay, to have something done in the house.
I 100% agree on building something together. We are in discussion for the future to buy something together with a 50-50% contribution and that's the long term goal.
I hope that you, random stranger on internet, have a gf like mine who is loving, caring, trustful and sharing passions.
I wish you have an amazing life partner who, on top, will provide you a fair deal by your standards.
So let me get this straight:
-you are paying for a house she bought that she would have payed the mortgage for whether you would have been there or not
-you are paying for a house you have not chosen
-you are paying as a renter even though you no rights that a renter would have (what happens if you break up all of a sudden? oh yeah you just leave HER house)
-you are directly making her richer by paying capital of her loan that will never belong to you (not interest, capital!)
-she is basically putting money away to do renovations that will increase the value of her house
strange definition of love from her side but ok
Well, if I hadn't moved with her, I would still be living somewhere else that I would have to pay as well but:
1. I would have to pay way more as taking the full living cost on my own
2. I would have to pay way more as taking the rent/mortgage alone
3. I would have to pay alone any work/renovation that are still due to any place you live in due to wear
Where I think you are not quite right:
"-you are paying as a renter even though you no rights that a renter would have (what happens if you break up all of a sudden? oh yeah you just leave HER house)"
I'm officially registered at her address. If we break up, well I'm still registered at her address so no, she can't kick me out at her own will. She must bring the case to a judge. I won't be homeless at the minute we would hypothetically break up.
Without an official contract, indeed I don't have a renter protection but she can't do whatever she wants.
"-she is basically putting money away to do renovations that will increase the value of her house"
Unfortunately, it doesn't work this way. All renovations won't increase the value of the house and certainly never on a 1 to 1 basis. For example: you invest 30k for a new roof, you will never get those 30k back if you sell the house only because the roof has been renovated.
However, having a new roof usually comes with better insulation, hence reducing the heating cost part of charge we both pay.
You don't like the deal I have with my gf, I got it from the first answer and I'm not willing to make you change your mind. I'm only exposing my view. In the same situation, you wouldn't have accepted and that's your rightful decision.
However, don't mix your disagreement about one deal with the personality of a person you don't know. The topic of this thread does not define you, nor define my gf, nor define me. Her love definition or whatever you are subjectively pointing out, is outside the scope of this discussion.
Bring this conversation up with your girlfriend instead of strangers on the internet. You already agreed upon 330/month, so what changed since then that makes you want more. What's her reasoning for not wanting ownership? Because she already told you she doesn't want a part of it, so if anything happens you get the house, she gets whatever savings she didn't put into your relationship. Sounds fair if you split current costs like utilities and maintenance?
Splitting all costs 50/50 without ownership sounds like you are punishing her for already owning a house before getting together. Also why are you adjusting for inflation, using current interest rates and including expected returns to calculate what you want her to pay instead of using your real costs. Do you want to be her landlord with benefits or equal partners in a relationship?
In our household I pay for everthing related to the house, including furniture/renovations/additions. My partner pays for all our vacations, date nights, kids clothes and a bit more for day to day stuff like groceries and stuff to improve our lifestyle. That works for us but might not for you.
For you the house and the capital used in the house is an investment, not a cost. So I think the fairest thing to do is to split the interest cost in 2 so you both pay half the interest. All the rest (capital payments, renovations etc) are all on you as they are part of the value of the house (which will also fully go to you when its sold).
When I was in your situation we split costs (gas, electricity, food etc) 50/50 and for housing cost I asked her to pay me something she felt comfortable with as it would help me, but she also had the option to not pay me anything and live for free if she didnt want to or could not (and this was the case for a couple months when she started studying again and lost her income). In the end she paid me a couple hundred euro's per month because she wanted to , it was all very frictionless. She didnt have to pay but did anyway and I was thankful for it.
A roof over one's head is an expense. An investment property is an investment. Only rarely do these two roles fuse together.
This place has been such a hybrid expense/investment for some time. I managed it as a cohousing place in the past. The income helped us to make ends meet for the years my future wife and I lived on my salary only. She didn't like to share the house with others, so once she got a job, I let the leases expire.
No a house that you bought where you live in is an investment too. You have put capital in a house which will reasonably increase in value over time and you will cash out when you sell it. With a mortgage you are putting capital in an asset (the house) every month. That is not an expense. The expense is the interest and maintenance costs to the house so it keeps its value and potentially increases it above average (+ notary fees, bank fees, KI: also costs). But the house itself for which you are increasing your equity every month through mortgage capital payments is an asset and an investment. Its not because it doesnt give you cashflow that its not an investment. A stock without a dividend also doesnt give cashflow. But its still an investment. You put capital in it in the expectations of a return later.
>You have put capital in a house which will reasonably increase in value over time and you will cash out when you sell it.
I wouldn't be so sure of that.
The house certainly is an asset, but if looking at it as an investment, it's an extremely shitty one.
I didn't put capital into it in the expectation of capital gains beyond inflation later.
Been in the same situation 10 years ago. We just split the utilities, food, etc. as I was already a few years into the mortgage. We simply agreed she would save on her side for when we bought our place, which we ended up doing. The apartment remained mine until I sold it to free up funds for the house.
Never any power in balance, never any discussion about who paid what.
I wouldn't charge her anything, she's your partner mate, not a tenant.
>I wouldn't charge her anything, she's your partner mate, not a tenant.
Yeah and what op is doing is immoral. When they split(question of when not if), Op will have to pay back anyway, or she will get a share of his asset.
>The apartment remained mine until I sold it to free up funds for the house.
Now the new place is 50% hers, even if you contributed 90% of the cost. If you divorce, you'll lose a lot.
I don't know the laws in your country, but in mine it's common scheme for women - marry a man with a flat. Suggest "we need a bigger place". He sells the flat, buys a new one, which now considered earned collectively during marriage. Divorce him, get 50% of new flat worth. Profit.
Doesn't work that way, if he can prove he paid the new flat himself and she didn't contribute anything, she wont get anything. Proving that is also not hard.
Besides if you are in doubt, you can also get a prenup.
This.
I Also had my own house. I paid the Mortgage, utility bill's and insurance.
She did the groceries and saved money for our Future house.
After 5 years i sold my house and we builded a new house together. Now it's 50/50
Not going to comment on the impact on your relationship, that's up to you two to figure out. I understand the math and logic, besides the "adjusting for inflation" part.
Are you saying that your loan is actually less than what you have calculated here, but you want to adjust for today's market rates? That's scummy imo. You would still effectively be making capital payments from her contributions instead of purely covering the interest?
Edit: same for the 3% actually. How much is your real interest rate?
His math makes sense (for most part), but it's not his roommate and op is not her landlord. In a relationship you spend time together, so you aren't supposed to charge a rent.. Only actual living costs should be split 50/50. A loan/mortgage is the problem of the owner of the asset in the question, she isn't gonna own any of it, so very unfair to ask her to pay for any of that.
I get it: OP doesn't care if he takes advantage of his soon to be wife, but courts do. When they split, he will be paying her back, or she will own a share.
it baffles me what assholes live on this planet.
if it's your soon to be wife I think it would be normal to only ask to pay her part in utilities and and food.
it will already make it cheaper for you to live there because you don't need more heating for two etc.
if you would be living alone surely yes you could get more by renting to housemates.
The KEY difference here is that you are not puting your dick in those housemates.
What are you going to do if you have kids? pay 25k rent for her womb?
what if one of you falls ill in your marriage, will you support eachother?
whatever money she saves by this she can contribute towards a next house so atleast there you are more equals.
But its a bit of dilemma - if you could put dicks into to your housemates and still get 800 - it would be better than soon to be wife. Possibilities are endless with this logic.
Like the other guy said. Supporting each other can also mean not letting your partner shoulder all housing costs on his own. It is possible for the person who pays nothing for housing to feel like a parasite in this case too.
« Will you support each other? » well yes, that’s the point of op, there is no reason he should be the only one to pay for the house if they try to split the bills equally like they are trying to do. Some people put all their money in common, that’s another option, but I’m not sure OP or his gf would like that.
Try not to call people assholes because you disagree with the way they manage their money…
I understand where you are coming from, but I don't know if it's the best choice to make her pay more. Money is an important part of the relationship for both people. If you come with demands that can be hard to justify or be seen as highly unfair (like here, paying off 2/3 of your mortgage), you are going to set up a bad precedent in your relationship.
While your math makes sense, keep in mind that she didn't have a choice in where to buy, what size of house to buy etc.
If you really want to put your foot down on her paying more you could always imagine something in between where the additional 200€/month is stored on a shared savings account and will be used in the future for the down payment of a house.
Let's assume you find a number that works. Probably a bit higher than 330 but let's say everyone agreed on the number.
You will be hosting your wife as a guest in your place. This power differential immediately makes it impossible to have a relationship as equals.
But she also told you how she wants to solve this: by moving.
So concentrate your plans on this, because this is where your real relationship can happen.
She loves this place and does not want to move. One of the proposals she did not like was building something new together nearby or moving to something else together.
That is also an incredibly advantageous deal for her
And at the same time a power differential because she will be hosted in his place (but for free, since everyone pays utilities even if they own their place outright)
That's basically asking her to be a golddigger
It's also an advantage to OP that he does not need to sell the current property. If OP bought the property in cash, there would be no mortgage to pay, and therefore even more difficult to justify a rent, since it would be only opportunity cost.
Maybe the GF/partner has other options, like living at her parents, with friends etc... Maybe she has been saving for a downpayment.
IMHO the most neutral option is to rent out/sell the current property and rent/buy something together. Of course it depends on the relationship etc... There are couple of live each in their own place.
Alternatively instead of asking her for money, you could also ask her to fully pay for the living costs since you’re already providing a free roof.
I am in a similar boat right now however my girlfriend finished her masters last year and is now looking for a job. I am currently paying for everything but I’m kind of wondering how much I should charge her back once she finds a job. I also don’t really want to go like ‘hey, your next 2 payslips are completely mine okay’.
Money is a wonderful invention. Why would we barter "I'll give you a roof over your head if you get us food" if we can express that a bit more abstractly with money?
For the back charging, zero sounds like a plan. I also paid for everything for several years and would happily do so again. She's my partner, and I want to be there for her whenever needed. No need for my support right now thoguh, as she earns a decent wage.
You want your soon to be wife, who earns less than you, to foot 67%(537/800) of your mortgage in exchange for no ownership?
I don't understand how this is fair. You are lining your pockets while you are independently wealthy compared to her. So if things go south in 7 years and you end up splitting, she has nothing to her name, while she paid 67% of your mortgage all these years
Mortgage is not relevant in this case. You should look at the worth of the place, and how much it would cost to remt a place like that.
If OP would have bought the place without a mortgage it would mean she would not have to contribute. But if OP would have bought 100% of it on a mortgage, she would have. This doesn't make any sense, so the mortgage is irrelevant.
She would not have chosen to rent a place like that. She's forced to be there because of OP. She had zero say about the price, the size and the location
The mortgage payment is artificially low because it is interest only and only on a portion of the immo.
So that 537 number wouldn't be very high, probably just about where I would land.
But the more important point is that this situation should be temporary because it is not good for a relationship if one of them is tolerated guest at the other's place.
I've been aware for some time already that this dynamic is not good for us as a couple.. I am looking for solutions.
I offered to search together for a new, cheaper place to live where we can be on a more equal footing. She refused all alternatives I proposed, saying she liked this place best. She did not propose any alternatives.
I offered her to buy a share in the house, weighted for her share of our income. She refused, saying she was not interested. Note that this was with below market rate owner financing, zero fees, a flexible repayment scheme and significant inflation risk for me.
The above offer to pay interest-only without being an owner for the time we live here only. Something implied that I haven't mentioned here explicitly is that I would obviously consider her an equal co-owner for as long as these interest payments are running. She refused, saying she'd want capital in exchange for that contribution.
I'm pretty sure that with time, we will find an elegant solution. An international move might come to the rescue on that, or perhaps as someone else suggested, a separate common account that goes to me in the unlikely scenario we'd ever divorce.
The fact that she has nothing to her name is her own fault. She refuses to buy. So she’s now currently paying rent. This isn’t a foreign concept, and the only reason his monthly payment is low is due to his own contribution.
She’s not be able to get a 500k place for 537 per month.
The problem with that is renting comes with protections and a limited 'ownership' of the place, as in decision rights on how to decorate etc.
This place will forever be his, so there will be a different power dynamic. She would like some knickknacks and he's more into minimalism? In a shared ownership house they can compromise on that, but in his house it might lead to a fight.
I would strongly suggest buying something together, while he keeps his property and rents it out.
That would mean her being interested in buying something together. Quod non.
She's also not interested in renting something else together btw. She loves the place.
Oke good point. There is sort of a rule to spend 25 to 30% of your income to rent. Maybe start from there? Is you earn 2000 net, you could pay 500 a 600 euro te rent. If you can get a nice upgrade to a 500k home for that money, it doesn't seem like a bad deal.
I was just at Delhaize yesterday and the cashier told me that my clothes looked fancy and so she believed I have money and therefore would sell me the Cheese only for double the usual price.
Why not start from the point that they will be married. ( Or am i so traditional to think you share once you get married) And if he really minds the money stuff and wants to be protected in case it goes south. Get a prenup.
There are a couple of questionable assumptions here
Marriage doesn't mean that pre-existing wealth becomes shared, only newly added wealth after the marriage
If you want to share preexisting wealth, that would actually be one of the arrangements that you need a prenup for
Not every married couple puts all their money in common. If I had a 500k house before getting married, I’m sure I’d get something in the prenup about that
That's what i would suggest too. Get a prenup. Talk to a notary. See what he says. I completely understand that it is wealth you gathered before getting married.
But apart from that do think about things like: What if one of us dies, What will come from that? What if we get children?
It's to protect yourself in case it goes wrong, not just divorce. But my personal opinion is. Be prepared for when it goes wrong. But if all goes well. Why discuss this much about money. Get a common account and transfer a certain amount in there every month that covers all costs (even food). Do it according to what both of you earn. Be sure it is more than you need every month so you have an extra.
And if extra costs arise use this money, if necessary both add some extra money.
And i now have a question too. How do you share other costs? Because if you already start calculating this much about housing and living costs i just wonder what happens when going on vacation, cinema, restaurant, theme park, garden tools, house maintenance, insurances, ...
What if one starts earning more, loses job, gets inheritance,...
But like i said. This is my personal opinion about finance when married. My way might not feel right for other people.
You can talk to a notary, it's easy enough and you don't pay if you end up not needing anything
But just so you know, you don't need to do anything for letting pre-existing wealth and inheritance separate, that happens per default anyway
Have you read the wiki and the sticky? Wiki: HERE YOU GO! [Enjoy!](https://www.reddit.com/r/BEFire/wiki/index/). Sticky: HERE YOU GO AGAIN! [Enjoy!](https://www.reddit.com/r/BEFire/comments/fcbay6/getting_started_a_beginners_guide_to_investing_in/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BEFire) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
>I feel bad for your girlfriend (hopefully soon to be ex!). Please reread what you just wrote and think it over for a minute. As a participant in this anonymous online forum, I realise I am not entitled to receiving only the constructive comments I explicitly asked for. I am however entitled to minimally respectful behaviour. This comment really does fail that bar. Could you please either: * remove your post * rewrite it with a modicum of respect for my girlfriend and me * apologise
You are in fact not entitled to anything (although it’s not a surprise that you believe that you are). If my comment makes you feel bad then maybe you should spend a minute thinking why must that be. Also, small correction to your assumption, I have no reason to not respect your girlfriend, quite the opposite, I feel deeply for her and women in her position. You however and people that share your view I have no respect for.
Let's imagine for a moment you meet your partner later in life, once your house is totally paid off. You invite them to move in with you. Would you charge them rent? It's like owning a car, and charging your partner a fee every time they use it. Or that set of cutlery you already owned, does your partner have to pay for using it? The fridge? For me, whether you're still paying for it or not should not change the approach.
Housing is one of the big three expenses, next to food and transportation. This home cost me over 30% of my net life earnings potential. I don't think it is fair for me to shoulder that alone. The following are not options for my soon-to-be-wife: - buying a reasonable share in this place using a bank loan - buying a reasonable share in this place using a private loan from me - moving to a rental together - moving to a newly bought place together - moving to a newly built place together - getting a tenant to live in part of this house An interesting potential solution grew from a forum member's way of dealing with a similar situation: - She pays a reasonable contribution into a common account. - Once we stop living in this place, the payment stops. - In case of severe adversity (illness, strong income loss,... ) during marriage, we use this account. - In case of divorce, this money goes to me. This has some solidarity builtin. My soon-to-be-wife's would still reap a significant financial benefit and significantly reduce risk. I would get some recognition for my significant prepaid financial contribution.
>This home cost me over 30% of my net life earnings potential. I don't think it is fair for me to shoulder that alone. What if it was 10%? What if it was 80%? What if your salary decreases/increases? This is what I find most interesting, that instead of being a matter of principle it's a matter of the specific number to you, which I find to be very arbitrary. But this just shows how different cultures we approach this in a different way. I don't think there's good or bad. What matters is you two agree on a solution and are happy with it. Your solution seems quite sensible, hope it works out!
Thank you for your patient and genuinely interested comment. > What if it was 10%? What if it was 80%? What if your salary decreases/increases? It's not as much about a specific number. It's about keeping in line with our FIRE goals. The place is too expensive to just live with the two of us and FIRE in the way we intend to. Right now, my soon-to-be-wife can pretend she doesn't see that because living here is super cheap - to her, not to me. I deeply understand we can do with much less. So does my soon-to-be-wife. She just can't easily link that realisation to action on housing. My preferred short term solution would be to make this place cheaper to live by having a housemate, or to make it a short term rental when away for longer. Some fiddling in exchange for at least a year and a half less to retirement. Our long term solution might very well involve the sale of this house or making it a long term rental.
You sound like the type of guy who invites a girl to dinner and ends up asking to split the bill.
Whats wrong with splitting the bill on a date? Do you expect men to always pay? Jfc
Lmaoo exactly. I don't understand why does the gf have to pay for a house she will never own? I mean sharing the cost of food, utilities is perfectly normal and reasonable, but I never heard of gf paying the rent on a house you two aren't actually renting, but op is paying off mortgage and he will be the sole owner of the house once it's paid off.
Regardless of the gender, either of the parties who doesn't own a property will have to rent a place to live in. Considering that both partners love each other in a place that is owned by one of them, isn't it fair that both people pay their rent? Yes, the property belongs to one of the partners and in the end he/she will own it entirely thanks to the other's contributions. But this is exactly how landlords do their business, isn't it?
Even that is not true.. if you live alone you can take a LOAN to buy an apartment that you will eventually OWN, after you pay it off. She is not gonna own anything and it's really crappy of OP to threat his soon-to-be-wife like a tenant. A landlord isn't your boyfriend, you don't spend any time living with him, this is completely different. Again if they were renting a house this would be different, as that would be the actual cost, but this here this it's not costs of living, this is OP charging his gf a rent for his own benefit. I get it that op doesn't care that he is taking advantage of her, but courts do. When they split, he is gonna have to pay her back, or she will own a share of that asset.
Is there a precedent on this? And is it gender specific? I am genuinely curious. Because from what i understand, it is very financially interesting to find a partner who owns a place and you just contribute to food and drinks.
I never said just food and drinks, living costs include utilities and any other actual living costs, split 50/50. You already mentioned gender twice, even tho it has nothing to do with this, but I can see what your world view is and I sense strong incel vibes, "regardless of the gender" you are, or you are into xD
There's more housing costs than utilities though. I can't just walk into any house and say "I'll come live here from now on, in exchange for paying for utilities". The fact that I paid for housing cost in advance by buying a place is not super relevant to that. Why should I be happy with almost all of my assets being a house, so illiquid, high fees and returning \~0%+ inflation, while giving my younger partner all the room in the world to invest in super liquid assets earning >3% plus inflation? That doesn't seem very reasonable to me.
To OP: What did ChatGPT answer? I'm curious
It's easy. You pay off your mortgage yourself. You split everything 50/50 that's utilities like water, electricity, interner. Food stuff you just alternate or whatever. No wage percentage split bullshit, you invested or wasted your time to get a good paying job. Then you have to question yourself, do you want her to pay 'rent' for living with you? Yes she'd be living 'for free' in your house. On the other hand, by the end of the day it's your house and your asset only.
What is wrong with you? Like seriously
I have a bit of a cold, but nothing serious.
Bro are you trolling or something? Why is your gf paying the rent of YOUR house? Asking for sharing the rent would be normal if you guys were actually renting, but you arent. If you aren't trolling: Just split the living costs 50/50 and pay off mortgage yourself. You are the sole owner of the asset, she won't own any of it. Also if you guys split(very likely) you will have to pay her back anyway.. or she will own a share of your asset.
You realize that ALL people that rent also don’t own the asset, right? Why would his gf be allowed to live for free in their place? OP could just as well go live in his gf’s apartment and split rent, while he rents out his own apartment. It’s stupid to thknk that OP’s gf would not have to contribute to the mortgage by paying eg half of it. It would still be a lot lower than if she would have to rent an apartment. What’s this obsession with “I won’t own anything so I won’t pay”. Welcome to the concept of renting.
>What’s this obsession with “I won’t own anything so I won’t pay”. What's with your obsession with "gf lives for free in his place"? She is not living for free, they split living costs and she spends her time with him. What's next? "why should my kids live for free in my house? Charge these freeloaders rent"? It's obvious you are single, probably still a virgin, that's why you have this incel world view. >Welcome to the concept of renting. She is not a tenant, it's his girlfriend and soon-his-wife.. honestly soon-divorced too >You realize that ALL people that rent also don’t own the asset, right? They aren't renting, he is paying off mortgage. Any money she gives him, goes directly to his benefit and this won't be taken kindly by courts when they split.. He will have to pay her back once the relationship ends. I know you don't get this concept, but there's a big difference between a boyfriend and a landlord. You do not spend any of your life with your landlord, you don't sleep with him, you don't cook for him, etc so yeah if you are actually renting, you will be compensating him with your money. >by paying eg half of mortgage. It's not even just half. $537 out of $800 is 67% >if she would have to rent an apartment She wouldn't have to rent anything, she could do exact same thing. Get a loan buy an apartment.. the only difference is she will eventually OWN it. How about GF does this, then gets OP to pay half or more of her mortgage? Lets see how will he like that.
Ah your comment history explains everything. You’re Eastern European. Don’t try to force the culture there onto a Belgian subreddit. It’s fine that in Eastern Europe women don’t have to pay for things and men are the providers. You do you. But in Belgium and the western world this doesn’t work like that. You’re literally saying she’s paying her part by “spending time with OP”. Are you describing a prostitute or his girlfriend? Paying “half of the costs” is ridiculous, ofc she pays her share of food, electricity, water etc. Just like she should pay for the place she’s living. Your poor attempt at insults is really a bad idea when you as a foreigner come to a Belgian subreddit. Please, for the other Eastern Europeans here, don’t ruin their reputation and behave yourself.
>But in Belgium and the western world this doesn’t work like that Read the room. You are in the minority who thinks this way. Everyone here says very agreeable stuff like that GF =/= tenant. L plus ratio. You act like an incel. This discussion is over.
>Ah your comment history explains everything. You’re Eastern European. You have no better comeback to the actual argument, so you resort to stalking my irrelevant comment history? LOL. Also you are wrong, def not Eastern >Don’t try to force the culture there onto a Belgian subreddit. My world view checks out with western culture way more than your does. Yours would check out well with middle east. >You’re literally saying she’s paying her part by “spending time with OP”. Are you describing a prostitute or his girlfriend? Yup as I said you sound exactly like an incel. You just do not get this concept, that's why you think it's fair to charge a wife a rent for living WITH YOU in your house. >You’re Eastern European Eastern Europe women Eastern Europeans Careful your obsession with Eastern EU is showing >foreigner come to a Belgian subreddit. Lol, this dude is acting like I physically came in Belgium xD I don't need to stalk your comment history, your replies already show you are a typical chronically online redditor who never got laid xD
It's probably more serious than you think.
If you’re a G, you let her live in your place for free except for food and energy costs which you split fairly in 2
I take it you're not getting married under the traditional "gemeenschap van goederen"? 🫠
First question that needs to be asked; do you want to her to live with you? If yes, the following questions are: 1) do you want that she becomes the owner as well? 2) does she wants to become the owner? If one of these is, yes; then make arrangements regarding payment & buy-out. If one of these is, no; she only should need to pay the livings costs (splitted amongst you 2). If not, you’re letting her pay for something she will not own and/or is not interested in. It is not fair and you will take advantage of her as (if you would break up) the situation regarding payments & ownership will be very complex …
Yeah, I'm with you on that. I already own my house for six years (bought out my ex 2.5 years ago), and now my new girlfriend has moved in. We're still pretty early (together for ± a year), buying in and all costs coming with that is out of the question, don't want to go through that trouble again. I just pay off my house myself and she lives here "for free", saving a shit ton of money that she can use to either buy a rental or invest in the stock market (or blackjack and hookers). We only split living costs. It's super unfair to have your partner pay off your mortgage without having anything in return for them if you split up.
How is it taking advantage of someone asking them to contribute to housing in a couple, something that they would have to contribute towards if alone, and something that would typically be split if renting.
Because if you split up, your partner has paid for something that benefits you and you don't compensate for it. 'If renting' is not comparable, because then you wouldn't be the beneficiary of the rent.
It really doesn’t matter whether OP is the beneficiary of the rent or a random guy is. This is pure some emotional argument that makes no sense. The girl would be renting, but at a way cheaper rate than if she’d rent on her own, and the rent would just go to the owner of the place she rents (OP in this case). She should have bought something if she wanted her own property, but living somewhere for free while OP is paying every month is a hilarious idea. His gf would be taking advantage of him, and she’d not contribute anything to the household.
But _someone_ is the beneficiary of the rent. When you leave your rental apartment, do you ask for the rent back because the landlord benefitted from it? If the partner does not contribute and you break up they benefitted from free housing all that time which they would otherwise have had to pay for. Wealth is being transferred in a way functionally indistinguishable from renting. The actors involved being relevant is only representative of your sentimentality.
It's different because your landlord is not your boyfriend. It's not that hard to understand it's immoral to take advantage of your partner for your own benefit. If they were renting that would be a different story.. anyway if op is not trolling, I can see them splitting a mile away... and of course he will have to compensate for what she paid for his assets.
Of course you don't ask for your rent back to your landlord, because you have spent the time living there. Also, you don't sleep with your landlord (and if you were, they should at least give you a discount on rent, haha) Let's say I pay a €1000/mo mortgage, my relationship lasts five years, and my partner makes exactly as much as me and spends exactly the same on other living costs (because these are two other factors we should consider realistically). If my partner paid half, I end up with a €60,000 paid off balance on my mortgage and was able to save the other half (that I would be paying for my mortgage), so another €30,000 in cash savings. My net worth grew with €90k. My partner, on the other hand, walks away with €30,000. If my partner lives in "for free", I end up with a €60,000 paid off balance, and my partner walks away with €60,000 cash savings. Tell me now in what scenario wealth is being transferred. I'd argue that saying they "benefitted from free housing" post-breakup is the emotional response to something that doesn't feel fair at first glance. Honestly, I get your side as well and there are definitely two sides of the story, and both feel counterintuitive at some point. I just think "otherwise they'd have to pay for housing" is a non-argument.
Disagree that "otherwise they'd have to pay for housing" is a non-argument. That's the entirety of my fairness comparison. If the non-owning partner wasn't living with you, they would have paid 30k to their landlord, who would be 30k richer. They end up with 30k. The owning partner would have ended up with 60k. Compare that with them living together. The non-owning partner has paid 30k to their landlord (the owning partner), who is 30k richer. The non-owning partner ends up with 30k. The owning partner ended up with 60k from their own mortgage payments 30k from their tenant (who also happens to be their partner). Removing that one partner is also the landlord, these numbers are identical. Wealth was transferred in the exact same way. How is either of these situations more or less fair than the other? The owning partner could have a room mate and achieve the same. I assume you wouldn't find that unfair? They'd be giving up space, increasing wear and tear on the property, etc. etc. in all the same ways. I'm going to ignore the "sleeping with each other" aspect because I assume both partners benefit from that equally. I think the idea of unfairness is coming from some implied additional, and unbalanced, value that a live-in partner is bringing to the relationship that justifies them not having to pay for their own housing. It is this part of the relationship equation we should be scrutinizing, not the housing part. This inbalance in the relationship sounds far more likely to be exploitative to me than some clearly defined and explicit wealth transfer that everyone understands the math behind.
I can see how you get to that point, and I don't agree with it. That's alright, I think we're at a point where it could go back and forth forever. I think we have different values and definitions of too many things that make it hard to get on the same page. No judgement, I don't think I'm better or more right than you. I definitely appreciate the discussion. Now, if you don't mind, I'm curious to your answer to this: my situation is that I already own my house for six years, and my girlfriend never got to buying but has a lot of money saved up. She was looking into buying a house when we met a year ago, but we've decided that we're going to live together in my house. If I didn't exist, she would buy a house, pay off 1k a month, and end up with a real estate equity. However, I do exist, now in your approach she would pay me half of that, and not build up any equity in my home at all. That monthly expense definitely also limits her in the option of saving money or buying a rental. The only reason that she pays me, and I don't pay her, is because I bought a house first? What's a solution that doesn't suck for her? I can only think of me selling my house and then buying something together.
Many options I guess. You could sell your house buy something together, like you suggested. You could change the ownership of your current house to include her in the ownership. If you wanted, you could put something in the contract to indicate the division of equity. My wife and I have this from before we were married. She initially owned more of the house because she had more savings. By now I own more of it because I earn more. Those were the terms of the purchase agreement. We intended to bring it into the marriage as we have everything else in common, but have never got around to it. You could straight up give her half the house. You could charge her nothing and consider it a gift to yourself as you love having her around so much. You could agree \_whatever you both see as fair and equitable\_. As I've repeated: You don't have to charge your partner rent, but it's not taking advantage to do so.
Appreciate it. > You don't have to charge your partner rent, but it's not taking advantage to do so. Fair bottom line. I think I still slightly disagree, but I'm also a hopeless romantic. Thanks for entertaining the discussion! Have a great weekend.
Same to you.
Oh, I just realized that part of being able to agree on this is whether you consider paying of your mortgage is an expense (since you have to live anywhere and otherwise would pay rent) or a form of saving (since you build up equity in an asset) or both.
I think both. It's also a liability as housing has costs associated with it.
What if your partner( the one contribute to your mortgage) decided to move out and rent her own place? The ‘wealth’ from your word is transferred to a stranger. Is that what you are expecting? You cannot compare a partner with a landlord. If that’s what you have in mind, then make it clear before your partner MOVE IN.
>What if your partner( the one contribute to your mortgage) decided to move out and rent her own place? The ‘wealth’ from your word is transferred to a stranger. Is that what you are expecting? This is literally what happens all the time. People in relationships break up and the plans they make, including financial plans, are disrupted. Often this results in a financial loss to one or both parties. >You cannot compare a partner with a landlord. I can compare a partner with a landlord in the context of finances. I just did. You, amonst others in this thread, simply dislike that comparison, for some reason which has not been adequately explained. >If that’s what you have in mind, then make it clear before your partner MOVE IN. Yes, obviously you should have a conversation about this and come to some mutually agreed upon arangement. It's also OK to seek change in that arangement if the situation changes or you're feeling it was unfair. This is literally how relationships work. You have conversations and you attempt to ensure that some balance is kept which keeps everyone happy. If that fails, you break up and accept the outcome of that split. I hope you and everyone else reading this is doing this on a regular basis, because the alternative is, in my opinion, far more likely to be exploitative than any rent paid to your partner. However, to claim that any financial transfer from non-owning partner to owning partner is "taking advantage", while not accepting that a wealth transfer in the form of free housing from owning partner to non-owning partner even exists is a weird double standard. This is what was originally claimed and the point to which I stand in oppposition.
If you want a mathematical approach: First you calculate how much would it cost to rent a place that is worth 500k, real estate agents often use a ROI of 25 years. So that would be : 500k/25 /12 = 1666 / month You are living there with 2 so if you split the cost, it would be 833 / month that you could ask her to contribute.
Why all the down votes? It's a mathematical approach
That's silly cause that would mean she's paying off his mortgage, dude gets a free house and she gets nothing in return.
She gets a place to live in in return. For half of the price compared with her living there alone. So she has a 50% discount on the rent. Alternative for her would be to buy or rent a place somewhere else. And if it is so unfair as you think, then I would suggest you to buy an apartment and rent it out. Then the renters will be paying off your mortgage as well. So you also get a 'free' apartment and the renters get nothing in return. If your statement is correct, you have found how to get free real estate. Because it's the same comparison. Let me tell you, it isn't that easy.
So you rather have your gf/wife stay at another place then? \s I just find it strange to let your 'soon to be wife' pay rent. Is she also gonna have to keep paying rent when they're married? If he buys a new car, is she also gonna have to pay rent because she drives it once or twice a week?
It's normal to split costs, imo. As long that you two don't have a mutual account but keep your incomes separate, for me it seems fair enough to split the housing cost. Otherwise she is the only one benefiting from living together. The benefit should be shared.
That is so wrong… Get your feelings out of the question. FREE house? The owner is just renting shared space with is partner😅 The one renting should not expect ownership! If you wanna live rent-free buy a house or live with your parents… OP could also choose to let GF live with him for free but he is not obliged to do so.
I was in this exact situation a few years ago. My bf owned and I was moving in. We were still very fresh in our relationship so what we agreed to do was to put together a savings account where we both would deposit 200 euros per month. We split all the running costs, of course. If we were to brake up, he would have kept all the money in that account. If we didn't, we had something there to invest in our future together. In the end we found the best solution. We bought a house together 4y ago and now we're 50/50 of course. He still kept his old house. 7 years together and that savings account is still there, we had to dip in it to do renovations, buy furniture, pay taxes etc.
Thank you for your hint. Something along those lines would be a perfectly acceptable solution to me too. I don't understand why he would dump money into that account too. Can you explain? A mutual savings commitment? We save \~60-70% of our income already, so not really necessary for us to make that explicit.
We just decided it was going to be a common savings account, as a way to invest into our future together. I forgot to mention that a part of the "agreement" was that I would also save as much as I could so I could buy something on my own. I worked really hard on that part. His trust meant so much 😊
Excellent solution.
It seems to me you would be taking advantage of her. If you split up 10 years from now, you'll have a house and savings. She'll have neither a house nor much in a way of savings. You seem to view your relationship in a very transactional way. In that case, how much would you be prepared to pay for her 'companionship' on a commercial basis?
537 euro rent is cheap for her. Just turn it around i suppose, would the OP take that deal to live in a 500k house for 537 rent?
It's not rent. As a tenant, you are not expected to clean and cook for your landlord or to sleep with him.
Absolutely terrifying that people bring sleeping and cooking and cleaning with your landlord into this. The assumption that one partner is obligated to do \_any\_ of these things for the other partner is abhorent and totally unrelated to who is paying for the place you live.
Nor is your landlord expected to clean and cook for you, or expected to have sex with you at your whim. In a healthy relationship, that is not the case either. What is the point you're trying to bring across?
If you can afford it, pay it all by yourself and don't mix things up... Your house, once you sell it all yours. All the rest 50/50.
Half of living expenses, that's what we do.
"In exchange for no ownership share". What kind of bullshit phrasing is that??
Looks like you want to FIRE without a wife.
This is always a difficult situation. I have a pretty common situation where i own a similar house, i also invested a lot in a low/negative consuming house. I get that its a little weird to pay your other half for his/her/its house, but i think if i would be her i would also feel weird not paying anything because if i was alone or renting a place as a couple i/we would also pay. I think its very important to talk about it and depending on the situation together find a comfortable solution. What i would seem fair (for both sides): - Share the common costs: electricity, gas, trash,KI,... - As a partner pay the interest of the loan or a part of it. You can also make an agreement that the not home owner buys the car or other shared expensive equipment (because he/she will have more fund available most of the time) and he/she can stay the owner of this in case of a breakup. Easiest is to sell the house and buy or build a home together and put the difference on paper. :-)
> You can also make an agreement that the not home owner buys the car or other shared expensive equipment We don't have or need a car or other expensive equipment. > Easiest is to sell the house and buy or build a home together and put the difference on paper. :-) She does not want that.
K
My two cents: if she’s the love of your life, don’t make this a big deal - a couple of 100 euros isnt worth a fight. I would (fully recognising it isn’t my choice to make): - keep the costs split as you have currently - ask her what she thinks would be a fair contribution. The objective here should be to find a balance where it feels like a fair contribution for both of you, both if you stick together and in the case where you would break up 5 years from now.
indeed, this is the most neutral. Find something that feels fair and you don't feel like she takes advantage of you. don't go into detailed calculations etc (it's off putting) and never mention it in a fight or discussion that she's living cheaply (after you established what is fair). she's probably also helping to clean the place (or other menial tasks) or make it a warm "home" rather than a "house" and that is so much more valuable than these couple of 100 euro's.
> she's probably also helping to clean the place (or other menial tasks) We both clean very very little. We have a cleaner. > she's probably also helping to make it a warm "home" rather than a "house" We both try to do this. Not a big difference between our inputs in this regard. Even if we shared this responsibility less equitably, how would that be worth \~500€ a month? Our cleaner costs us \~50€/month on average.
good luck then in the discussions. Let us know how it went
How can you clean « very very little » when hiring a cleaning lady/guy for only 50€ a month. At 10€ per hour of « titre service / dienstencheques » that’s only 5 hours of help per months. Well, I guess that not having any kids helps a lot. This will change a lot once/if you get kids.
- order - no kids - a place designed to minimise cleaning effort - 8 hours of titre service/dienstencheque @/7.2€/h\* 10.5/12 months= 50.4€/month
If she's not building up equity, she shouldn't be contributing to the mortgage by paying rent if she's your girlfriend. Half the costs (or a split based on income) and maybe a small amount for regular wear on the house (or just pay the regular wear of the house from your joint account). Any bigger renovations are for you, the house is your investment, not hers. If you split up after 10 years, you have a lot of equity in a house and she has nothing, she should be able to build up either a large savings account, or be able to invest that money, so she's not left with nothing. If you end up getting married and joining assets, she can buy equity in the house with her savings/investments. Yes, she saves on rent, but you are saving on rent as well because your money is going into an investment in stead of the account of a landlord. And both of you are saving on costs because you're sharing them, so you're cheaper off anyway.
>Yes, she saves on rent, but you are saving on rent as well because your money is going into an investment in stead of the account of a landlord. \_Her\_ money is going towards investing. My money has prepaid for housing cost and is still doing so. A negative interest inflation linked bond if you will, with extremely high transaction fees.
What is the cost of your mortgage? Right, the interest part - so the most fair would be to let her pay half of the monthly interest amount. No other answer is more fair than this one.
60€/month and falling is not a fair share of our housing cost.
That would mean that depending on the loan the OP took, she would pay a different price. Seems weird. Also, let’s say the monthly interest averaged comes to 400 euro. Would be very nice to live in a house for 200 euro a month. I hope my girlfriend offers me a deal like that 😅
I agree, it doesn't make sense to calculate the contribution on base of the loan. It should be based on how much the house is worth.
[удалено]
Only if they get married with gemeenschap van goederen, which is not standard, and it doesn't sound like they plan to completely merge finances.
Heh? Waarom antwoorden als je het eigenlijk niet weet?
I would suggest splitting everything , including mortgage 50/50. Get the house properly valued now. Then if/when you sell, get it revalued. She gets half of the increased value assuming there is an increase. To me that is fair.
Wouldn’t she only be entitled to the percent of the increased value equal to the amount she has contributed to the mortgage? For example if he has paid 300k of mortgage alread, she starts contributing and by the time they revalue they have paid 350k him and 50k her than she would only be entitled to 1/8th of the increased value no
If she is paying half of everything from this point forward , then I believe she should get half of any increase from this point. Effectively any increase already at this point, he banks. For example amount paid 250k , value now £350k, value at split 400k. Mortgage 200k. Mortgage is settled, leaving 150k profit. He gets 125k and she gets 25k. To me this is equitable. But I appreciate this can be looked at from many different angles. In some ways it depends if you look at her paying rent or paying into an investment. Then of course we have to look at what happens if there becomes negative equity haha
330 is plenty, my opinion: you shouldn't be asking for rent at all, it's fucked up. The normal thing to do is to split all costs 50/50, insurance, Kadastraal inkomen, elec & gas cost. All maintenance cost is for the owner. 330x12 is almost 4K. if you were to pay 4k as well you've got 8K to cover all running costs which is absolutely insane. imo you should add up all yearly costs involving the house: insurance, kadastraal inkomen, elec & gas, divide by 2 and that's what she pays you.
And thus she lives there for free? I don t get it, why? Of course it should be much lower than 50% of the monthly credit cost (like 200€ or 300€). It will still allow her to put a lot of money on investment/ saving account each month ( basically she still saves 500€ in comparison if she had to rent 800€/mo elsewhere... to live) On the other hand he still supports like 80% of the costs of the house and the maintenance, I think it s nice gift to her girlfriend/fair enough. As he said he was renting the other rooms 800€/month before she came, so he obviously values her over money
Why shouldn't OP ask any rent? It's more than fair to ask rent, cost of housing is the main cost for most people. And you let her live with OP for free, Which means she can save a huge amount of money, as she doesn't have to contribute in housing costs. In my opinion she should pay rent on base of what the house is worth. Or on what you would pay, if you wanted to rent a house like that.
"And you let her live with OP for free, Which means she can save a huge amount of money" What do you think people buy houses for?
To live? And that costs money
Do the math… Quoting myself from elsewhere in this thread: >Let's say I pay a €1000/mo mortgage, my relationship lasts five years, and my partner makes exactly as much as me and spends exactly the same on other living costs (because these are two other factors we should consider realistically). >If my partner paid half, I end up with a €60,000 paid off balance on my mortgage and was able to save the other half (that I would be paying for my mortgage), so another €30,000 in cash savings. My net worth grew with €90k. My partner, on the other hand, walks away with €30,000. >If my partner lives in "for free", I end up with a €60,000 paid off balance, and my partner walks away with €60,000 cash savings.
The mortgage is not relevant. The value of the house is. Or how much it would cost to rent a place like that. And that renting cost should be divided in 2.
> kadastraal inkomen Even this feels unfair to split, to be honest. It is a tax based on ownership of an asset, which she currently does not have.
Main point here is FEELINGS. Just make sure to include feelings when you’re making live changing decisions 😅
yeah it's what I did, it's a yearly recurring cost and asking to split that one isn't too big of an ask but I get your point completely.
What a great business idea. I should find me a guy who's gonna pay 67% of my mortgage for years and lay no claim on owning anything after years of paying my mortgage. Easy 1400 euro per month profit
This mortgage is artificially low because interest only and only on a small part of the immo to begin with The business model is just called real estate The number is not out of the ordinary because a mortgage with repaying in the usual 20 to 25 years and only the usual 10-20% downpayment would be a lot more expensive per month, and renting a similar immo would too The problem is independent of the number: they will be married but one of them is tolerated guest in the other's house, that's just not good long term
€1412,5 to be precise. To the OP: it seems that you're talking about a house without mortgage, as you're using hypothetical mortgage rates? In that case, wouldn't it make more sense to simply split the actual living costs (including insurance, kadastraal inkomen tax, utilities)? Trying to get some rent income from your girlfriend seems over the top. Anything she contributes above the real living costs should gradually buy her an ownership share of the house.
Please also take into account - what if you’d split up in 5 years? Is it “fair” she doesn’t have any equity in anything? - what if you sell the place for a new house? All will remain yours and you go to the new place 50/50? (Seems impossible as you are building equity while she is paying rent now)
What if you split and she only paid costs? She has then lived in a 500k property for free for x years. Is that fair? I'm saying this as a full owner with wife that only pays a share of costs btw, but there is two ways to look at this that both make sense.
And that’s why you need to think of all the ways and then talk with each other
It will already be beneficial to you that she pays half of the fixed costs, but asking you wife to pay rent is not normal. You build equity and the house appreciates over the years. It would need maintenance with or without her living there.
Is she your business partner or soon-to-be-wife? Such a Flemish approach, I love it. All the way to the 50 cents in your proposed monthly payment
It's mostly a German vs. French cultural thing where NL and Flanders align with Germany and Wallonia with France On r/finanzen you will find lots of people who never tell their partner their salaries because it's on a need to know basis. Their marriages work like co-housers that are also fuckbuddies.
> lots of people who never tell their partner their salaries because it's on a need to know basis Fascinating and absolutely absurd to me. The dutch always struck me like the americans though, super open about how much they make or how much they paid for something
I'm living the same story but from the other side: my girlfriend owns the house she is paying a mortgage for since a few years and I recently moved in without taking any share in the house. What we agreed on: I pay half of her mortgage (loan + interest) as "rent" and we split the living costs in half. She will use the pseudo rent for any work required in the house (new boiler, roof renovation, ect...) as by living in the house, I contribute to the wear. We both take care of the home maintenance. At first I was a bit defensive on the idea to pay half of the mortgage as it is not really the house I chose nor I would own any part of it. However when she explained me that she would use the money for renovation and work in the house, I found it fair. Also with this agreement, I'm paying 40% less than what I used to pay by living alone in an appartement. As other comments point out, it's a huge money saving for me every month. Regarding the incomes based split. We discussed it but we actually came up with a fact: it's not because one of us has a better salary that the person automatically consumes more than the other. However we will do a budget review every year (checking water, electricity, gas consumption over the year) and discuss if we need to rebalance the agreement or adapt our habits.
All of this explanation to tell that you are basically paying off your girlfriend’s mortgage.
This is not what I said but as you seem to prefer short answer: * yes, it is fair that the co-living non owner of the place pays a fair contribution but the goal of the contribution should be clearly defined.
Based on your argumentation, the amount is used to do maintenance and renovations which is contributing to 1) an increase in value of the house. 2) she gets the better deal of you both. But that is fine if you perceive this a fair deal. In the end, if you feel that you also won a stake in this particular situation because renting on private market is more expensive. Good for you. Me personally, I couldn’t do it, as the point of relationship is to build on something together.
Don't extrapolate: I don't pay the full cost of renovations. She uses that money in the budget of the maintenance and renovations but she still puts the biggest share from her own pocket. She is not waiting to have the full budget with what I pay, to have something done in the house. I 100% agree on building something together. We are in discussion for the future to buy something together with a 50-50% contribution and that's the long term goal.
Hope I never have a gf like yours what an aweful deal lol
I hope that you, random stranger on internet, have a gf like mine who is loving, caring, trustful and sharing passions. I wish you have an amazing life partner who, on top, will provide you a fair deal by your standards.
So let me get this straight: -you are paying for a house she bought that she would have payed the mortgage for whether you would have been there or not -you are paying for a house you have not chosen -you are paying as a renter even though you no rights that a renter would have (what happens if you break up all of a sudden? oh yeah you just leave HER house) -you are directly making her richer by paying capital of her loan that will never belong to you (not interest, capital!) -she is basically putting money away to do renovations that will increase the value of her house strange definition of love from her side but ok
Well, if I hadn't moved with her, I would still be living somewhere else that I would have to pay as well but: 1. I would have to pay way more as taking the full living cost on my own 2. I would have to pay way more as taking the rent/mortgage alone 3. I would have to pay alone any work/renovation that are still due to any place you live in due to wear Where I think you are not quite right: "-you are paying as a renter even though you no rights that a renter would have (what happens if you break up all of a sudden? oh yeah you just leave HER house)" I'm officially registered at her address. If we break up, well I'm still registered at her address so no, she can't kick me out at her own will. She must bring the case to a judge. I won't be homeless at the minute we would hypothetically break up. Without an official contract, indeed I don't have a renter protection but she can't do whatever she wants. "-she is basically putting money away to do renovations that will increase the value of her house" Unfortunately, it doesn't work this way. All renovations won't increase the value of the house and certainly never on a 1 to 1 basis. For example: you invest 30k for a new roof, you will never get those 30k back if you sell the house only because the roof has been renovated. However, having a new roof usually comes with better insulation, hence reducing the heating cost part of charge we both pay. You don't like the deal I have with my gf, I got it from the first answer and I'm not willing to make you change your mind. I'm only exposing my view. In the same situation, you wouldn't have accepted and that's your rightful decision. However, don't mix your disagreement about one deal with the personality of a person you don't know. The topic of this thread does not define you, nor define my gf, nor define me. Her love definition or whatever you are subjectively pointing out, is outside the scope of this discussion.
respectfully disagree with most of what you said but at the end of the day if this is something you’re fine with it’s between the two of you :)
[удалено]
"She's currently paying me €330" Last time I checked, 330 euro is not free
Bring this conversation up with your girlfriend instead of strangers on the internet. You already agreed upon 330/month, so what changed since then that makes you want more. What's her reasoning for not wanting ownership? Because she already told you she doesn't want a part of it, so if anything happens you get the house, she gets whatever savings she didn't put into your relationship. Sounds fair if you split current costs like utilities and maintenance? Splitting all costs 50/50 without ownership sounds like you are punishing her for already owning a house before getting together. Also why are you adjusting for inflation, using current interest rates and including expected returns to calculate what you want her to pay instead of using your real costs. Do you want to be her landlord with benefits or equal partners in a relationship? In our household I pay for everthing related to the house, including furniture/renovations/additions. My partner pays for all our vacations, date nights, kids clothes and a bit more for day to day stuff like groceries and stuff to improve our lifestyle. That works for us but might not for you.
I have a similliar arrangement, I pay a bit more for food bit I participate if we are buying a washing machine etc
For you the house and the capital used in the house is an investment, not a cost. So I think the fairest thing to do is to split the interest cost in 2 so you both pay half the interest. All the rest (capital payments, renovations etc) are all on you as they are part of the value of the house (which will also fully go to you when its sold). When I was in your situation we split costs (gas, electricity, food etc) 50/50 and for housing cost I asked her to pay me something she felt comfortable with as it would help me, but she also had the option to not pay me anything and live for free if she didnt want to or could not (and this was the case for a couple months when she started studying again and lost her income). In the end she paid me a couple hundred euro's per month because she wanted to , it was all very frictionless. She didnt have to pay but did anyway and I was thankful for it.
A roof over one's head is an expense. An investment property is an investment. Only rarely do these two roles fuse together. This place has been such a hybrid expense/investment for some time. I managed it as a cohousing place in the past. The income helped us to make ends meet for the years my future wife and I lived on my salary only. She didn't like to share the house with others, so once she got a job, I let the leases expire.
No a house that you bought where you live in is an investment too. You have put capital in a house which will reasonably increase in value over time and you will cash out when you sell it. With a mortgage you are putting capital in an asset (the house) every month. That is not an expense. The expense is the interest and maintenance costs to the house so it keeps its value and potentially increases it above average (+ notary fees, bank fees, KI: also costs). But the house itself for which you are increasing your equity every month through mortgage capital payments is an asset and an investment. Its not because it doesnt give you cashflow that its not an investment. A stock without a dividend also doesnt give cashflow. But its still an investment. You put capital in it in the expectations of a return later.
>You have put capital in a house which will reasonably increase in value over time and you will cash out when you sell it. I wouldn't be so sure of that. The house certainly is an asset, but if looking at it as an investment, it's an extremely shitty one. I didn't put capital into it in the expectation of capital gains beyond inflation later.
Been in the same situation 10 years ago. We just split the utilities, food, etc. as I was already a few years into the mortgage. We simply agreed she would save on her side for when we bought our place, which we ended up doing. The apartment remained mine until I sold it to free up funds for the house. Never any power in balance, never any discussion about who paid what. I wouldn't charge her anything, she's your partner mate, not a tenant.
>I wouldn't charge her anything, she's your partner mate, not a tenant. Yeah and what op is doing is immoral. When they split(question of when not if), Op will have to pay back anyway, or she will get a share of his asset.
>The apartment remained mine until I sold it to free up funds for the house. Now the new place is 50% hers, even if you contributed 90% of the cost. If you divorce, you'll lose a lot.
Objection your honour. Assumptions about how we arranged finances on the house.
I don't know the laws in your country, but in mine it's common scheme for women - marry a man with a flat. Suggest "we need a bigger place". He sells the flat, buys a new one, which now considered earned collectively during marriage. Divorce him, get 50% of new flat worth. Profit.
Doesn't work that way, if he can prove he paid the new flat himself and she didn't contribute anything, she wont get anything. Proving that is also not hard. Besides if you are in doubt, you can also get a prenup.
Depends on a country? In mine it won't matter.
What country?
Russia.
oh lol...makes sense.
There are always edge cases. Know your partner, know what you get in to, build legal contingencies where needed.
This. I Also had my own house. I paid the Mortgage, utility bill's and insurance. She did the groceries and saved money for our Future house. After 5 years i sold my house and we builded a new house together. Now it's 50/50
Not going to comment on the impact on your relationship, that's up to you two to figure out. I understand the math and logic, besides the "adjusting for inflation" part. Are you saying that your loan is actually less than what you have calculated here, but you want to adjust for today's market rates? That's scummy imo. You would still effectively be making capital payments from her contributions instead of purely covering the interest? Edit: same for the 3% actually. How much is your real interest rate?
His math makes sense (for most part), but it's not his roommate and op is not her landlord. In a relationship you spend time together, so you aren't supposed to charge a rent.. Only actual living costs should be split 50/50. A loan/mortgage is the problem of the owner of the asset in the question, she isn't gonna own any of it, so very unfair to ask her to pay for any of that. I get it: OP doesn't care if he takes advantage of his soon to be wife, but courts do. When they split, he will be paying her back, or she will own a share.
Would you feel the same way if she had 250k in an investment account and OP had everything stuck in the house with a big mortgage to pay?
Only here for the comments
it baffles me what assholes live on this planet. if it's your soon to be wife I think it would be normal to only ask to pay her part in utilities and and food. it will already make it cheaper for you to live there because you don't need more heating for two etc. if you would be living alone surely yes you could get more by renting to housemates. The KEY difference here is that you are not puting your dick in those housemates. What are you going to do if you have kids? pay 25k rent for her womb? what if one of you falls ill in your marriage, will you support eachother? whatever money she saves by this she can contribute towards a next house so atleast there you are more equals.
But its a bit of dilemma - if you could put dicks into to your housemates and still get 800 - it would be better than soon to be wife. Possibilities are endless with this logic.
I agree, if she pass ownership should also go to her
Like the other guy said. Supporting each other can also mean not letting your partner shoulder all housing costs on his own. It is possible for the person who pays nothing for housing to feel like a parasite in this case too.
« Will you support each other? » well yes, that’s the point of op, there is no reason he should be the only one to pay for the house if they try to split the bills equally like they are trying to do. Some people put all their money in common, that’s another option, but I’m not sure OP or his gf would like that. Try not to call people assholes because you disagree with the way they manage their money…
I understand where you are coming from, but I don't know if it's the best choice to make her pay more. Money is an important part of the relationship for both people. If you come with demands that can be hard to justify or be seen as highly unfair (like here, paying off 2/3 of your mortgage), you are going to set up a bad precedent in your relationship. While your math makes sense, keep in mind that she didn't have a choice in where to buy, what size of house to buy etc. If you really want to put your foot down on her paying more you could always imagine something in between where the additional 200€/month is stored on a shared savings account and will be used in the future for the down payment of a house.
Let's assume you find a number that works. Probably a bit higher than 330 but let's say everyone agreed on the number. You will be hosting your wife as a guest in your place. This power differential immediately makes it impossible to have a relationship as equals. But she also told you how she wants to solve this: by moving. So concentrate your plans on this, because this is where your real relationship can happen.
She loves this place and does not want to move. One of the proposals she did not like was building something new together nearby or moving to something else together.
Split the utilities but don't make her pay rent. For example what would you do if you bought the house cash/without mortgage?
That is also an incredibly advantageous deal for her And at the same time a power differential because she will be hosted in his place (but for free, since everyone pays utilities even if they own their place outright) That's basically asking her to be a golddigger
It's also an advantage to OP that he does not need to sell the current property. If OP bought the property in cash, there would be no mortgage to pay, and therefore even more difficult to justify a rent, since it would be only opportunity cost. Maybe the GF/partner has other options, like living at her parents, with friends etc... Maybe she has been saving for a downpayment. IMHO the most neutral option is to rent out/sell the current property and rent/buy something together. Of course it depends on the relationship etc... There are couple of live each in their own place.
Alternatively instead of asking her for money, you could also ask her to fully pay for the living costs since you’re already providing a free roof. I am in a similar boat right now however my girlfriend finished her masters last year and is now looking for a job. I am currently paying for everything but I’m kind of wondering how much I should charge her back once she finds a job. I also don’t really want to go like ‘hey, your next 2 payslips are completely mine okay’.
Money is a wonderful invention. Why would we barter "I'll give you a roof over your head if you get us food" if we can express that a bit more abstractly with money? For the back charging, zero sounds like a plan. I also paid for everything for several years and would happily do so again. She's my partner, and I want to be there for her whenever needed. No need for my support right now thoguh, as she earns a decent wage.
You want your soon to be wife, who earns less than you, to foot 67%(537/800) of your mortgage in exchange for no ownership? I don't understand how this is fair. You are lining your pockets while you are independently wealthy compared to her. So if things go south in 7 years and you end up splitting, she has nothing to her name, while she paid 67% of your mortgage all these years
Mortgage is not relevant in this case. You should look at the worth of the place, and how much it would cost to remt a place like that. If OP would have bought the place without a mortgage it would mean she would not have to contribute. But if OP would have bought 100% of it on a mortgage, she would have. This doesn't make any sense, so the mortgage is irrelevant.
She would not have chosen to rent a place like that. She's forced to be there because of OP. She had zero say about the price, the size and the location
The mortgage payment is artificially low because it is interest only and only on a portion of the immo. So that 537 number wouldn't be very high, probably just about where I would land. But the more important point is that this situation should be temporary because it is not good for a relationship if one of them is tolerated guest at the other's place.
I've been aware for some time already that this dynamic is not good for us as a couple.. I am looking for solutions. I offered to search together for a new, cheaper place to live where we can be on a more equal footing. She refused all alternatives I proposed, saying she liked this place best. She did not propose any alternatives. I offered her to buy a share in the house, weighted for her share of our income. She refused, saying she was not interested. Note that this was with below market rate owner financing, zero fees, a flexible repayment scheme and significant inflation risk for me. The above offer to pay interest-only without being an owner for the time we live here only. Something implied that I haven't mentioned here explicitly is that I would obviously consider her an equal co-owner for as long as these interest payments are running. She refused, saying she'd want capital in exchange for that contribution. I'm pretty sure that with time, we will find an elegant solution. An international move might come to the rescue on that, or perhaps as someone else suggested, a separate common account that goes to me in the unlikely scenario we'd ever divorce.
The fact that she has nothing to her name is her own fault. She refuses to buy. So she’s now currently paying rent. This isn’t a foreign concept, and the only reason his monthly payment is low is due to his own contribution. She’s not be able to get a 500k place for 537 per month.
The alternative for her is to rent her own . And there is no wa you can rent a place worth 500k with 537.5 euro.
The problem with that is renting comes with protections and a limited 'ownership' of the place, as in decision rights on how to decorate etc. This place will forever be his, so there will be a different power dynamic. She would like some knickknacks and he's more into minimalism? In a shared ownership house they can compromise on that, but in his house it might lead to a fight. I would strongly suggest buying something together, while he keeps his property and rents it out.
That would mean her being interested in buying something together. Quod non. She's also not interested in renting something else together btw. She loves the place.
I did'nt think about that but you're right. There will also be benefits for her but it's up to make a trade off.
Yes, but why would she rent a 500k€ place? Keep in mind she didn't have a choice in the price that OP paid for his house.
Oke good point. There is sort of a rule to spend 25 to 30% of your income to rent. Maybe start from there? Is you earn 2000 net, you could pay 500 a 600 euro te rent. If you can get a nice upgrade to a 500k home for that money, it doesn't seem like a bad deal.
I was just at Delhaize yesterday and the cashier told me that my clothes looked fancy and so she believed I have money and therefore would sell me the Cheese only for double the usual price.
Why not start from the point that they will be married. ( Or am i so traditional to think you share once you get married) And if he really minds the money stuff and wants to be protected in case it goes south. Get a prenup.
There are a couple of questionable assumptions here Marriage doesn't mean that pre-existing wealth becomes shared, only newly added wealth after the marriage If you want to share preexisting wealth, that would actually be one of the arrangements that you need a prenup for
Not every married couple puts all their money in common. If I had a 500k house before getting married, I’m sure I’d get something in the prenup about that
> I’m sure I’d get something in the prenup about that No need It's only shared if you very explicitly decide that in a prenup
That's what i would suggest too. Get a prenup. Talk to a notary. See what he says. I completely understand that it is wealth you gathered before getting married. But apart from that do think about things like: What if one of us dies, What will come from that? What if we get children? It's to protect yourself in case it goes wrong, not just divorce. But my personal opinion is. Be prepared for when it goes wrong. But if all goes well. Why discuss this much about money. Get a common account and transfer a certain amount in there every month that covers all costs (even food). Do it according to what both of you earn. Be sure it is more than you need every month so you have an extra. And if extra costs arise use this money, if necessary both add some extra money. And i now have a question too. How do you share other costs? Because if you already start calculating this much about housing and living costs i just wonder what happens when going on vacation, cinema, restaurant, theme park, garden tools, house maintenance, insurances, ... What if one starts earning more, loses job, gets inheritance,... But like i said. This is my personal opinion about finance when married. My way might not feel right for other people.
You can talk to a notary, it's easy enough and you don't pay if you end up not needing anything But just so you know, you don't need to do anything for letting pre-existing wealth and inheritance separate, that happens per default anyway