My boyfriend wants to split bills 50/50 — I think he's being tight-fisted
Money troubles breed resentment in a relationship – especially when one partner thinks they're getting a raw deal.
Chloe, a 27-year-old from London, is on the business end of this imbalance, struggling to work out the best way to split bills with her boyfriend who makes more money than she does.
While she thinks it should be based on their incomes, he believes it's only right to go right down the middle. So who's right?
In this week's Metro's Money Problem, personal finance journalist and consumer champion, Sarah Davidson, offers her perspective.
If you've got a money problem you'd like Sarah to look into, fill in this online form or email sarah.davidson@metro.co.uk, providing as much detail about your situation as possible.
No issue is too big or small, and all submissions will be treated with the strictest confidence.
I've been with my boyfriend for three years and we rarely ever fight, but are currently at an aggravating stalemate about money.
Although he makes £60,000 a year and I make £39,000, we both put the same amount towards rent (£900 each a month) and bills (normally around £300 each a month) which I think is unfair.
That £1,200 eats into my disposable income way more than it does for him, so by the time I've paid for travel and food and everything else, there's so little wiggle room to save.
I suggested splitting things proportionally based on our incomes – 40/60 instead of 50/50 – but he dismissed it outright, saying he's not rich either so why should he 'help me out'. He's not normally tight-fisted or mean with money, and it's making me question whether I'm being greedy. I need a voice of reason to tell me the truth.
Dear Chloe,
As someone who lived in London for almost 20 years, I really, really feel your pain.
Your question gets to the very heart of the financial nightmare facing your generation – both you and your boyfriend are on seriously decent salaries, but after paying your rent, living and travel costs there's essentially nothing left at the end of the month to save.
Make no mistake, we're building a very serious social timebomb here. Those in their 20s and 30s today will have been unable to put away enough to fund their retirements. To make matters harder, it's likely they won't own their own place outright so they'll still need to fork out rent or mortgage repayments each month on top.
The full state pension is currently just shy of £12,000 a year. Try paying your current rent and bills on that.
What this shows is just how vital it is that you and your peers do start saving as much money as possible as early as possible. That you have recognised this in your 20s does you credit.
Now, to your personal conundrum – should your boyfriend pay more towards rent and bills than you because he earns more?
Your logic says yes: in theory, it would mean you can both save the same proportion of your income towards a house deposit if you want to buy together or for your retirement.
His logic argues no: it's his salary and even though it might be more than yours, it's not like he's got bucketloads left over at the end of the month either.
So let's look at the maths. His take home pay is around £3,700 a month. Yours is around £2,650.
After rent and bills, he's left with £2,500 and you've got £1,450. Typical London commuting travel costs come in around £315 a month each and food might be around £250 each. This leaves him with around £1,935 a month to spend or save and you with £885.
You'll both also have to cover other expenses such as eating out and socialising, presents for family, other travel costs, clothes, electricals and more, which can really add up.
I can see why you're frustrated. But you're thinking about the fact he has more spare cash and could afford to pay more of the rent and bills. He's thinking about the fact that you and he both live in the same flat, use the same lights in the same rooms, cook dinner together on the same hob, both shower and wash up.
You and he use the flat 50/50 and that's why you split the cost of it 50/50.
Think of it like you're out for dinner: your boyfriend orders steak and red wine while you have a side salad and tap water, yet he demands you split the bill 50/50 – fair? No.
Relationships and money are really complicated and someone normally ends up worse off. That's just the way it is. Managing it means compromising, and that's something only you and he can agree on.
To help you, maybe have a think about things like this.
It's unlikely that you and he will want to make a decision about splitting the rent based on 'what if we get married, have kids or divorce years from now'. But you can and probably should have a conversation about what you want to save for. If it's something you both want to do together for both of your benefits – such as buying a house together – maybe agreeing to save the same amount each month might boost what you're putting away.
If it's general saving for yourself, I'm afraid it's probably not your boyfriend's responsibility to support your living expenses so you can build up a nest egg for a future that might not include him.
In summary – I think your boyfriend's right on this one. More Trending
If you want to save more (which I applaud) then you have few options: get a better paying job, move somewhere less expensive, or cut back on your other spending.
It's not fair. But nor is life.
Sarah Davidson is an award-winning financial editor and head of research at WPB .
View More »
Got a money worry or dilemma? Email sarah.davidson@metro.co.uk
MORE: We would never have got together if our partners hadn't died
MORE: Map reveals UK areas with highest rates of erectile dysfunction
MORE: I'm desperate to lose my virginity but have a panic attack whenever I come close
Your free newsletter guide to the best London has on offer, from drinks deals to restaurant reviews.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
an hour ago
- Metro
Oil prices - what will happen if Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz?
Global oil prices are surging. It is the clearest signal yet that instability in the Middle East will spill over, after Israel's bombardments on Iran – bolstered by US airstrikes on three nuclear sites – entered a second week. A third of the world's oil is derived from the region, with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, the UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar being the biggest fossil fuel suppliers, so any disruption will, of course, shake up the market. Fears are also rising that the Islamic Regime could follow through on their promise to close the Strait of Hormuz – the most strategic oil chokepoint in the world. And if things get uglier, security experts have told Metro that the oil could jump from the current price of $78.96 per barrel to as much as $120 in a 'worst-case scenario'. What is striking – and somewhat ironic – is that just 24 hours after the US hit Iran's nuclear assets, Washington is now urging China to pressure Iran to keep the 103-mile stretch of ocean open… Oil prices surged to a five-month high as investors wait to see if Iran would retaliate against the US attacks on its nuclear sites. A barrel of Brent crude oil – the benchmark price – jumped by around 1.53% to $78.19 a barrel as of around 7.15 CEST, while WTI rose 1.48% to $74.93 a barrel. It is worth remembering that this is around the average price for 2024, but with Israel's war only escalating, this may not be the end of it. No oil sites have actually been struck in Iran, so the market is calmer than expected. That said, if the Islamic Regime's Supreme National Security Council does approve of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the oil price will jump even higher. Yet for now, there is 'no hint of disruption', said Javier Blas, Bloomberg's energy and commodities columnist. He said: 'Multiple oil tankers crossing the Strait of Hormuz this morning, both in and outbound. Not even a hint of disruption. 'Oil loading across multiple ports in the Persian Gulf appears normal. If anything, export rates over the last week are higher than earlier in June.' Closing the Strait of Hormuz would have 'the most profound impact' on the global oil price and the stock market since the Iraq War. Jason Pack, fellow at Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and host of the Disorder Podcast, told Metro that it would be 'such a committal step' for Iran that it would indicate which way the war is going. He said: 'There are many reasons why the Iranians would not want to close it. For one, they would not be able to make any money from their oil. 'Their allies, particularly China, would not want that. China is dependent on Iranian oil and their economy is already suffering.' Closing the Strait of Hormuz also does not happen automatically – there is no barrier or another contraption to physically stop the passing of ships. More Trending Instead, Pack explained that Iran would plant underwater mines or attack a tanker, for example, to signal it. This would also force insurance premiums for vessels to 'go through the roof.' He added: 'This would then cause oil to have to be taken on pipelines and trucks to the Mediterranean, and that would cause tremendous delays, and a lot of oil will not be produced as there are not enough storage facilities. 'So there would be a huge price hit and the markets would go crazy.' Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Is it safe to travel to Qatar? Latest after cancelled Doha flights from UK MORE: Is it safe to travel to Turkey? Latest Foreign Office tourist advice after US strikes on Iran MORE: El Al airline announces rescue flights from Israel to London
Metro
8 hours ago
- Metro
My boyfriend wants to split bills 50/50 — I think he's being tight-fisted
Money troubles breed resentment in a relationship – especially when one partner thinks they're getting a raw deal. Chloe, a 27-year-old from London, is on the business end of this imbalance, struggling to work out the best way to split bills with her boyfriend who makes more money than she does. While she thinks it should be based on their incomes, he believes it's only right to go right down the middle. So who's right? In this week's Metro's Money Problem, personal finance journalist and consumer champion, Sarah Davidson, offers her perspective. If you've got a money problem you'd like Sarah to look into, fill in this online form or email providing as much detail about your situation as possible. No issue is too big or small, and all submissions will be treated with the strictest confidence. I've been with my boyfriend for three years and we rarely ever fight, but are currently at an aggravating stalemate about money. Although he makes £60,000 a year and I make £39,000, we both put the same amount towards rent (£900 each a month) and bills (normally around £300 each a month) which I think is unfair. That £1,200 eats into my disposable income way more than it does for him, so by the time I've paid for travel and food and everything else, there's so little wiggle room to save. I suggested splitting things proportionally based on our incomes – 40/60 instead of 50/50 – but he dismissed it outright, saying he's not rich either so why should he 'help me out'. He's not normally tight-fisted or mean with money, and it's making me question whether I'm being greedy. I need a voice of reason to tell me the truth. Dear Chloe, As someone who lived in London for almost 20 years, I really, really feel your pain. Your question gets to the very heart of the financial nightmare facing your generation – both you and your boyfriend are on seriously decent salaries, but after paying your rent, living and travel costs there's essentially nothing left at the end of the month to save. Make no mistake, we're building a very serious social timebomb here. Those in their 20s and 30s today will have been unable to put away enough to fund their retirements. To make matters harder, it's likely they won't own their own place outright so they'll still need to fork out rent or mortgage repayments each month on top. The full state pension is currently just shy of £12,000 a year. Try paying your current rent and bills on that. What this shows is just how vital it is that you and your peers do start saving as much money as possible as early as possible. That you have recognised this in your 20s does you credit. Now, to your personal conundrum – should your boyfriend pay more towards rent and bills than you because he earns more? Your logic says yes: in theory, it would mean you can both save the same proportion of your income towards a house deposit if you want to buy together or for your retirement. His logic argues no: it's his salary and even though it might be more than yours, it's not like he's got bucketloads left over at the end of the month either. So let's look at the maths. His take home pay is around £3,700 a month. Yours is around £2,650. After rent and bills, he's left with £2,500 and you've got £1,450. Typical London commuting travel costs come in around £315 a month each and food might be around £250 each. This leaves him with around £1,935 a month to spend or save and you with £885. You'll both also have to cover other expenses such as eating out and socialising, presents for family, other travel costs, clothes, electricals and more, which can really add up. I can see why you're frustrated. But you're thinking about the fact he has more spare cash and could afford to pay more of the rent and bills. He's thinking about the fact that you and he both live in the same flat, use the same lights in the same rooms, cook dinner together on the same hob, both shower and wash up. You and he use the flat 50/50 and that's why you split the cost of it 50/50. Think of it like you're out for dinner: your boyfriend orders steak and red wine while you have a side salad and tap water, yet he demands you split the bill 50/50 – fair? No. Relationships and money are really complicated and someone normally ends up worse off. That's just the way it is. Managing it means compromising, and that's something only you and he can agree on. To help you, maybe have a think about things like this. It's unlikely that you and he will want to make a decision about splitting the rent based on 'what if we get married, have kids or divorce years from now'. But you can and probably should have a conversation about what you want to save for. If it's something you both want to do together for both of your benefits – such as buying a house together – maybe agreeing to save the same amount each month might boost what you're putting away. If it's general saving for yourself, I'm afraid it's probably not your boyfriend's responsibility to support your living expenses so you can build up a nest egg for a future that might not include him. In summary – I think your boyfriend's right on this one. More Trending If you want to save more (which I applaud) then you have few options: get a better paying job, move somewhere less expensive, or cut back on your other spending. It's not fair. But nor is life. Sarah Davidson is an award-winning financial editor and head of research at WPB . View More » Got a money worry or dilemma? Email MORE: We would never have got together if our partners hadn't died MORE: Map reveals UK areas with highest rates of erectile dysfunction MORE: I'm desperate to lose my virginity but have a panic attack whenever I come close Your free newsletter guide to the best London has on offer, from drinks deals to restaurant reviews.
Metro
a day ago
- Metro
Why Iran closing this 103-mile stretch of ocean could be catastrophic
As fighting between Israel and Iran is boiling over with the US now involved, the most strategic oil chokepoint in the world – the Strait of Hormuz – is in the spotlight. Concerns have been raised about just how disruptive the war could be for the steady flow of Gulf oil shipments to Europe, the US and Asia. All eyes are on the Strait of Hormuz after Iran's parliament voted to approve the closure today. The decision still needs to be rubber-stamped by the country's Supreme National Security Council. Adam Lakhani, security director at International SOS, warned that shutting it could cause a bigger market turmoil than the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Covid-19. He told Metro that the price of oil could jump from the current $71.77 to as much as $120 per barrel in a 'worst-case scenario'. 'Iran has a very well-established naval base in the city of Bandar Abbas and it has a strong naval capability,' Lakhani explained. 'So whether they decide to pull that lever… is something we are concerned about and are watching very closely.' About a fifth of the world's oil is transited through the shipping lane, which splits Iran on one side and Oman and the UAE on the other, and links the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea in the Indian Ocean. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Tankers collecting from various ports on the Persian Gulf must go through Hormuz. The strait – between 35 to 60 miles wide – has been at the heart of regional tensions for decades, but the threat from Iran to shut it has only escalated the fears. Islamic Revolutionary Guard commander Sardar Esmail Kowsari told local media that closing Hormuz 'is under consideration, and Iran will make the best decision with determination.' He said: 'Our hands are wide open when it comes to punishing the enemy, and the military response was only part of our overall response.' As a major chokepoint, the operation of Hormuz is critical to global energy security. The inability of any oil to transit – even temporarily – can create substantial supply delays and raise shipping costs, increasing world energy prices. Although most chokepoints can be bypassed by using other routes, which often add significantly to transit time, some have no alternatives. Lakhani stressed that Kowsari's threat 'should be taken seriously', judging by the US repositioning of the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier along with several support tankers to bolster the military in the region. Iran's threat to shut Homruz comes as a vessel crashed into two ships sailing nearby, 22 nautical miles east of Khor Fakkan in the UAE. The Emirati national guard said it evacuated 24 people from an oil tanker after the collision. The crude oil tanker, ADALYNN, was bound for Egypt's Suez Canal when the crash in the Gulf of Oman happened. More Trending British maritime security firm Ambrey has said the cause of the incident is 'not security-related'. Naval sources cited by Reuters warned that electronic interference with commercial ship navigation systems has surged in recent days around the strait and the wider Gulf, which is having an impact on vessels. Maritime ship experts say shipowners are increasingly wary of using the waterway, with some ships having tightened security and others canceling routes there. The Strait of Hormuz vote today comes after the US administration announced that is warplanes had dropped 'bunker buster' bombs on three key nuclear sites. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Is Donald Trump gambling his popularity and presidency with strikes on Iran? MORE: London to Dubai BA flight turns back 90 minutes from landing after Iran strikes MORE: UK prepares flights to help British nationals escape Israel after US bombs Iran
