comment: >
  
  I'm not going to, this is definitely more fair.
context: Every couple is different and they should decide between themselves the financial responsibilities. 
  You do you, I hope you find someone who agrees with you. I think your financial distribution is reasonable, but the premise that all couples should do this is not. It also ignores things a person may value independent of their partners income. For example if you do percentage split on groceries, but she does all the cooking is that fair? Should she charge you a rate for cooking? How about child care? You could quantify these things in dollars but it's going to get complicated. >
  
  This point is useful.  Value can be calculated in various ways, and it is up to partners to choose the calculation that works for them.
  Others might find more happiness in equality or in contribution according to use, for example. >
  
  Exactly >
  
  Couples should come up with whatever financial arrangement suits them best. >
  
  There are some excellent counterpoints in the comments, but OP seems entirely unwilling to entertain them. Which defeats the purpose of posting in this sub. >
  
  Exactly. They decide to engage in pedantry of the examples being used to highlight other factors, rather than discussing the merits of the points being made.  Bad faith post, it should get removed soon >
  
  if you are looking for what is fair, you cannot just consider what you make. you have to consider what you cost. if you are going to eat all the bread, you should pay for all the bread. if you like the heat at 72 and she likes it at 68 then you need to pay the difference in the winter and she needs to pay the difference in the summer. if you want to live in a very nice apartment that costs 40k/year and she wants to live in a home that has a mortgage of 25k/year then you need to take into account that your preferences shouldn't cost her all her income. 
  if you end up in the expensive apartment instead of the home you have not only increased her daily obligations, even at a proportional(to income) payment but also you have increased her cost of opportunity by screwing her chances at investing in a home. 
  in every sexual relationship, one party values sex more than the other. in this case, sex is a kind of currency where one party that doesn't like sex so much agrees to a sexual relationship because they value your strength or maybe your company's insurance plan (or whatever). 
  no, 50/50 isn't fair. neither is income proportional payments. fair is extremely complex. ultimately fair can only be what you both agree to, often after extensive discussion. >
  
  “ if you like the heat at 72 and she likes it at 68 then you need to pay the difference in the winter and she needs to pay the difference in the summer“ this is getting TOOO deep into it. That’s like saying if she uses more toilet paper she should pay for the difference in prices of groceries. Or if I use the tv more I should pay for the differences. It should never be that deep. That’s really EXTREME >
  
  it is the idea that you should be paying attention to not exactly the items mentioned. the greater the cost and the greater the disparity of use the more important it is to come to an agreement beforehand. these are examples to help you understand. i hope you are here to have your mind changed. >
  
  Well, that’s why I said “specifically” financially. It’s extremely hard to quantify every single thing that goes on in a relationship ya know? It’s hard to put a Number sign on daily chores, who cooks, who cleans, things of that manner are extremely hard to quantify. That’s why ideally this post was meant to focus more on the bills and the financial side of things. >
  
  
  That’s why ideally this post was meant to focus more on the bills and the financial side of things.
  
  the only difference between the bills and the cleanup is one is outsourced and the other is insourced. think to yourself: how much would i be willing to pay someone else to do these chores for me so i could play or earn more money? everything has a cost and a benefit everything in a relationship is economy even when the price is not clear. nothing is easy at first, in the long run some things never graduate past super difficult.
  i have been in a single monogamous relationship for 18+ years. i can tell you that what you want doesn't work much better than 50/50. in my relationship, we started out with separate bank accounts but over time we developed relationship specialist roles where each of us took the jobs that we did best or liked best. eventually, because i was the one that managed finances we got a joint account which i draw from to pay the cards and other expenses; now everything goes into that account. my spouse simply runs through the expenses sometimes to make sure i am doing my job and not blowing our savings.
  we are no longer concerned with who is paying what proportion because we are both happy with the distribution of the workload and the benefits we derive from each other. when it comes to new stuff or emergencies we renegotiate our roles until we find a new balance that we are both happy with. sometimes that means arguing and even hurt feelings because of bad assumptions.
  again, it is not as simple as dividing costs by income, that cannot work. >
  
  “Ultimately fair can only be what you both agreed to” 
  That’s a very true statement and I can get behind that 
  With that being said, to answer your question I don’t know how both parties can encounter that issue of rent and mortgaging without having a serious discussion before they both move into one place. Your statement implies that one party settled for something that they did not want, and it almost makes it seem like they didn’t have a choice. Sorry. That’s just a point that I don’t know what you mean >
  
  ever to do something with a date that you didn't really want to do in hopes you'd get lucky? same principle. 
  not everything will work out for you the way you want it to work out and in the end you or your partner settle on almost everything, including the place you live. when i say settle i mean compromise, when one partner settles for something they don't love, it is usually the case that the other partner provides an incentive in some other way. on the balance, both partners can be happy with the arrangement. >
  
  So if one person works 60 hours a week to make $60k  a year and the other works a part time job for $15k a year, you think it’s fair that the first person pay 80% of the bills? >
  
  If that’s the person you choose to be with, then yes. 
  If I’m making 80% more than my partner why wouldn’t I want my partner to NOT struggle? >
  
  No one is necessarily struggling though. Why is it more fair that two people pay different amounts for the same benefit than people pay based on how much they work for the same benefit? >
  
  Income disparity. I make more. Why should my partner have less while I have more? Especially if we are living in the same household? >
  
  What are you sacrificing, or have you already sacraficed to make more? If the answer is nothing, then sure.  But what if that's not the case? Is it still fair? >
  
  I sacrificed my time to make more. So any and all sacrifices have already been made. We are both walking into a situation where the facts are the facts I make what I make and my partner makes what they make. >
  
  If it is a continuing sacrafice, one that they aren't making. but could.  Should you not get the extra wages for your extra sacrafice?
  Let's change it, let's say you both make 100k in 40 hour weeks.  You decide to do 80 weeks for more spending money. Now you have 200k/year.  Neither of you are worried about money at all.  Why should you give extra? >
  
  No, I kinda feel like if you go into any relationship with the mindset 
  “if I do this, then I deserve that”
  Then it’s doomed from the start. 
  In this Fictitious example we are assuming both parties walked into this knowing what each was bringing to the table >
  
  But isn’t your whole point just the inverse of that? You’ve been saying, basically,
  “I don’t make as much, so I shouldn’t pay half”. 
  Why doesn’t that mindset doom the relationship but the above does? >
  
  Seeing as how you're clearly unwilling to accept any angle regarding finances and only want to argue those points, I'll focus on the relationship aspect.
  All human relationships are predicated on compromise, boundaries, expectations, etc. This isn't a debatable statement, it's a fact.
  It is irrelevant what you think couples should do. The discussion of finances and how much one person pays over another is one singular aspect of the many aspects of sharing your life with another person. 
  So in a lot of cases finances may be very important to one or both people or it may be unimportant to both. But many other aspects of their lives and relationships could be significantly more important. Maybe one person really wants something that the other person doesn't care as much about and has to basically give up something in order to give their partner what they want. And likewise maybe to be "fair", they ask for something reciprocal in return.
  The entire act of negotiation and compromise within a relationship determines what is and is not fair. Not only do you not get to determine that your prescription for finances is fair for everyone else, you can't even determine it as fair for your own relationship unless tou demand that anyone who dates you follows your perspective on it. 
  You may date someone who doesn't agree with it. At that point you can decide to either compromise and do it differently or basically fight with them and try to force them (don't do this - this is manipulative and wrong), or you break up with them. Ultimately you don't get to choose anything about how the other person acts unless you do something immoral by basically forcing them to.
  So ultimately you have to decide for yourself, is this issue really that important for relationships? If not, then I'd say your claim that this is how relationships should be is a weak one. If that doesn't change your mind then you weren't willing to have it changed in the first place and think this issue is very very important. And honestly I'd be curious to know why if so. >
  
  OP, not everybody or every relationship even wants to keep track of who is paying what and keep separate financials.
  Like, for me personally, I find the idea of having separate finances in a committed, married relationship really weird. If I've already committed my life to a person, and have effectively signed up to have our assets split evenly post marriage, the idea of trying to financialize the bills to our separate accounts instead of just pooling our money and paying stuff is weird, and it's also weird to think that I and the person I am literally committed to the rest for the rest of my life might have different ability to purchase or enjoy luxuries because we wanted to keep finances separate.
  Now, other people might be totally different and splitting finances works great for them, but proposing a one-size-fits-all financial policy is very, very silly. >
  
  oP didn’t specify married. You combining money with someone you’ve only been dating for 4 months? >
  
  It doesn't matter for my point if there are some relationships where you don't mingle finances, as long as there are others where you do. >
  
  50/50 is a percentage though. It is 50%. So if they each pay 50%, then they are splitting their bills by a percentage.
  
  So for a $300 bill I would pay $213 She would pay the remainder of $87
  To me THAT is more “fair” That is more “equal”
  
  But it isn't equal. It's equitable. >
  
  I think you are dramatically over simplifying the dynamics of having shared finances. I agree that splitting 50/50 is not what makes the most sense, but just splitting costs by income doesn't make much more sense.
  There needs to be a much more specific conversation about what expenses are shared, what are proportional and what is your own spend.
  Splitting a phone bill 50/50 where each has one line makes complete sense. For something like rent, it may make sense to look at income proportionally, for groceries it may be different depending on who eats what and how much.
  It also depends on the people and their motivations for spending and saving in the relationship. If I make more and am choosing nicer things or fancier options, I certainly could pay more for that preference. If I make less but want the same, while my partner is comfortable with a less expensive option, why should they have to pay for both the more expensive and a higher share. >
  
  So I definitely have to say that I really believe communication is key in any relationship. But I’m not sure what you are saying here….. could you give me an example of “ if I make more and am choosing nicer things or fancier options I could pay more for that preference” 
  What fancier option? Like fancier dining? Fancier furniture? What do you mean? >
  
  We are both buying new phones, i buy a 20 year old nokia stupidphone while my SO buys the new iphone 420. Price should be split not only according to income but also cost of the phone.
  Arguably splitting costs in this situation doesnt make much sense in the first place, so a better example: I get a plain soup in the restaurant while my SO gets kaviar with truffle. Price should be split not only according to income but also cost of the meal. >
  
  Wow, is this a relationship or application for government assistance. No need to be so calculating >
  
  Fr my wife and I just lump all our money together and plan together. I’ve never understood how couples keep financials separate and don’t fight about it >
  
  I can change your view: 100 is 150% more then 40.  71% more would only be 68.4.
  You make 71% of the total income. >
  
  Ummm I’m not sure what you are saying here. 
  The total household income in the example is $140k 
  I make $100k
  My salary is 71% of the total household income. 
  My partners is 29% of the total household income >
  
  Yes, but you said you make 71% MORE than your partner, in the hypothetical. That is an incorrect statement. 
  71% more than your partner’s 40K would be 68.4K as per the comment. >
  
  ackchyually its 71.4% not 71% >
  
  I believe rounding was an acceptable assumption. >
  
  Why is it a terrible idea “in most cases”? It may not be what you would choose, but it works for many. My husband and I do keep separate accounts, but we combine our earnings into one budget. We have done this successfully for 20 years. I spent about 5 of those years as a stay at home mom and many more I have worked part time. I have taken on much more of the childcare responsibilities, everything from the everyday feeding and whatnot to the countless other things like parent teacher conferences, signing them up for sports, keeping track of birthday parties, shopping for school supplies, etc. I also do a much larger share of housework. I understand this wouldn’t work everyone, but it’s worked great for us. We always consult each other about any large purchases or new expenses, otherwise we buy what we want within our means. It’s sounds exhausting and rather business-like to try to split things up by percentages, and would never work for a stay at home parent anyway. (Or even a parent like me that works part-time, and takes care of things like grocery shopping, yard work, and doing laundry during work hours, so that my husband and kids and I can relax and go have fun on evenings and weekends.) I would be appalled if my husband felt like I didn’t deserve “access to all of his earnings” just because most of the work I do is unpaid. We are a unit, a family, not business partners. >
  
  This 100%. There are countless factors as to how you ended up in the income disparity that should be considered, which is why couples should decide this stuff for themselves. 
  If you were a stay at home mom and sacrificed building your career for our family, it’s obvious that you would contribute less financially. If you fucked around partying and working dead end jobs while I went to school and worked my way up the ladder, you ought to be bringing something non-financial to the table to justify why our relationship isn’t me just being your sugar daddy. 
  The only major thing I disagree with is that you really are business partners when you think about it. The vacations you can afford, neighborhood you can afford to live in, cars you can afford, activities you can put your kids in, college assistance you can provide your kids, retirement, etc are all things that very much matter. Couples HAVE to be on the same page financially for a relationship to work. Or it’s the number one listed cause of divorce. So you sort of are business partners in that sense. >
  
  
  To me THAT is more “fair” That is more “equal”
  
  Fair and equal and different concepts. By definition what you have described is “fair” but “not equal”.  You cannot be both. >
  
  I think it's unfair to the person who makes more money. What if the lower earning partner wants to work less hours, doesn't want to pursue a high paying job? If the pair isn't married, (their money not being all together), or planning to be long-term, it's only fair if they split 50-50 >
  
  Agree. Usually the higher earner has made choices or sacrifices to get there that the other may not have done. If you are becoming a long term unit, it makes sense to work together toward common goals. But if you are only dating short term, the poorer person is just benefiting from the richer one’s generosity unless they are providing something back in return (more housework for example). >
  
  Egh I think couples are capable of working out themselves what works for them. Some couples pool their money together some keep it separate. Some may view that if they are paying for more of something then it is 'more' theirs and vice versa. Many probably make similar enough incomes (or large enough) to simply not care about the difference. >
  
  Dating someone does not imply the obligation to subsidize their livelihood beyond what they normally pay for themselves.
  If you split rent in proportion to income, then your argument supposes that your partner has a right to access your wealth to finance their housing, but they don’t. If you both lived separately, they wouldn’t have the right to take your money to pay their rent. Living in the same residence doesn’t change that principle. A person does not have the right to your money simply because it’s more than what they have. >
  
  Regardless of whether it's fair or not, your math is wrong somewhere.
  If you're making 71% more, you should be paying 63% of the bills:
  Your partner makes $X, then you make X+71% = 1.71 * X. The percentage you pay is 1.71 * X / (X + 1.71 * X) (your part divided by the total) = 1.71/2.71 = 63%.
  For you to pay 71% of the bills, you need to make 71% of the total income, not 71% more than your partner. Otherwise, once you make double what she does, you'd need to pay her money as well. So for you to pay 71% you'd need to earn roughly 145% more than her.
  Going back to the CMV:
  This being said, the true answer is that it really depends on each couple. My grandparents worked it out where grandma held all money they both made and then she gave grandpa money when he needed it. It was considered as one income, together. Of course those were different times and they were already married.
  I earn over twice what my girlfriend does, and we definitely don't do 50/50 splits for exactly the same reason you mentioned. I feel it wouldn't be fair to her. When the gap was smaller we'd do 50/50, but it has widened a bit. However, she doesn't want us to split it with the mathematically "correct" percentage (based on income), as then she'd feel she pays too little, so it would actually be unfair from her POV.
  So for now, until either of our salaries increases, we agreed on 60/40-ish, rounding up or down depending on the sum (e.g. if the split is 875 on her /1325 on me, we do 900/1300 because she wants to and feels comfortable paying that).
  And we only do these 60/40 splits for major stuff such as rent and utilities. My car is my car and I pay everything on it except for gas when we go on vacation, and then we split gas 50/50. Same with groceries and ordering food: 50/50. If groceries are expensive I ask if she wants a different split or what she'd be comfortable spending, but we don't deviate much.
  So I'd say unless both people earn a lot of money as compared to the expenses, whoever has the higher salary an obligation to propose this system, but some freedom needs to be allowed to the lower-earning partner to propose changes so that both partners feel they contribute fairly, regardless of actual mathematical splits.
  So it's not really opposing the entirety of your view, but I'd argue that it's never that black and white. Financials, especially as part of romantic relationships, whether we like it or not, definitely have an emotional component to them that needs to be taken into account. And we haven't even gotten into whether one partner contributes more in terms of chores, if kids are involved, etc. that can further skew the computation.
  The key is communication, not a mathematical formula. >
  
  It depends on what you buy.
  Suppose you make 100k a year, and she makes 0k a year, and does household chores. She might well not have the money to pay any bills, and you could choose to support that because having a live in sexy maid is fun.
  Or suppose you earn 200k and she earns 40k, but want to save your money. You might agree to live a lifestyle that a 40k person earns, and avoid expensive purchases, and split it 50/50.
  Suppose you earn 100k and she earns 40k, and she wants to get expensive stuff you don't want. She can spend her money on that, and you don't need to contribute 50%.
  There's a reason this is important. You need to communicate and negotiate these things, and lots of people over or under spend. There's lots of different ways to do things. >
  
  Here's one thing that hasn't been mentioned already: divorce. 
  In many parts of the world, a divorce forces assets that were accumulated during the relationship to be split 50/50. 
  So no matter what you think of as fair or equal while in the marriage, in the unfortunate case of splitting, the most fair thing to do would've been to initially split the cost of everything 50/50.
  Now that's out of the way, I believe in laziness. Splitting bills 50/50 is easy. >
  
  I find your idea silly. If you chose to live with someone as a partner it's only fair you combine your earnings into a single budget and pay any outgoings out of it. But in saying this in YOUR household you can do whatever >
  
  That can cause psychological and relationship problems. Because then every time you get a new shiny toy, every time you do an expensive activity alone, you are taking money away from the partnership. Every time you want to do something for yourself you are per default doing a bad thing and need to defend yourself. You can never do things in the moment anymore. That's not healthy. >
  
  I believe that if two people decide to be together, they are one unit. One, inseparable unit.
  How do I decide how to split the bills between myself and myself? I don't. I have a certain amount of money, and it is spent where needed.
  The family has a certain amount of money, and it is spent where needed. >
  
  At what point do you establish that level of trust/unity though. You’ve been dating for only 3 months? The first date? The wedding day? >
  
  at the point you decide to share anything, IMO. Otherwise, just remain two different people and you pay yours, I pay mine, and for insignificant expenses like a dinner date or movie tickets, 50/50, or decide however they want. >
  
  What about the person earning more pays 100% of the bills until their remaining income matches the other, then you split 50/50. That way you each have exactly the same amount of money left over after the bills are paid. That seems to maximize the fairness the way you're describing it.
  So in your example, if you had 80k worth of bills over the year, the person earning 100k would pay the first 60k of bills, then each person would pay 10k, leaving them with 30k to spare each. >
  
  Curious to hear OPs response. I agree that this method is (at least in spirit) what OP describes in both the post and comments. >
  
  So before I married my wife this is exactly what we did. I kept a spreadsheet and broke out a general percentage of our normal bills and she paid me each month for it to split the burden evenly, not just split the bill evenly. Now that we are married this is not really an issue since we have a joint account. If we did not we would continue to split the burden. 
  From my understand this is not really all that uncommon, at least from the reading I did at the time where it was a common recommendation as well as talking to friends who also have done this. So I would challenge the assertion you are making that it is not normalized already. 
  Outside of finances however, relationships should absolutely be an even split of effort. Chores should be as even as possible, effort to plan dates should be even, choices around where to live, groceries to buy, furniture to get, etc. >
  
  Is work effort split evenly? Because if we are splitting chores evenly (let’s say 20 hrs/week each), but I work 50 hours and you work 30 hours, you have 20 hrs more per week in free time. I am working 70 hours total and you are working 50 hrs total. >
  
  I’m with you. My husband makes double my salary. We both benefit from most of the things we buy, but $200 hits me a lot different than him. >
  
  If you aren't committed to spending the rest of your life together you should divide joint expenses evenly. If you are in  committed relationship you shouldn't be dividing expenses at all. This percentage business makes no sense in any scenario. >
  
  What if you just put all the money in the bank, pay the bills and don't worry about percentages? >
  
  I generally agree, however life doesn't work like this, maybe she should learn the harsh way? >
  
  I think the contract needs to be constantly changing.
  My girlfriend will probably earn more than me for the next 2 years. So we discuss openly on what would make us both happy. >
  
  What if you don't know them? >
  
  What about paying by use? She watches Netflix all day, I don't so she pays. >
  
  Info: Are you talking about a room mate or a spouse? >
  
  not a proper cmv response, just correcting the wording here. While strictly speaking a proportional payment would be 71ish% of total household income, you don't "make 71% more than she does". that would be 40k +0.71*40k =68.4k
  ((100k-40k)/40k)*100% is 150% more than what she does. ie 40k + 1.5*40k = 100k >
  
  Life is not fair, combining resources with someone you love is >
  
  And how are you assigning this to be “fair”? Did you not make choices during or prior to the relationship that allowed you to make $100k while she only makes $40k? Maybe some of those choices were sacrifices that she didn’t make. Or maybe you work significantly more hours? So you have made sacrifices/choices that now benefit her (she gets to pay less), but what sacrifices/choices is she making for you? It could be that she does more of the housework if you live together. Or maybe she’s a more interesting person than you to be around. But what if she isn’t? Then you are the only one making sacrifices/choices that benefit the other and not the other way around, which is the definition of unfair. 
  Whatever the case might be, there are a lot of factors and the couple should decide for themselves what it “fair”. >
  
  What are your financial goals in this relation ship?
  If you share goals/constraints, there is no need to split anything up and calculate anything ...
  Then there is house work chores. Do you split those up evenly? Do you "pay" each other for getting dishes done or taking care of any pets, or doing laundry? >
  
  Well it gets a little more complex. In your scenario, what if the higher earner wants to live more frugally, but the lower earner pushes to live beyond their means, why is it fair to push a higher split of a larger bill that the higher earner did not want to have in the first place, just because they earn more? >
  
  I think whatever works for the couple if they communicate and can compromise. My husband and I have a shared joint account and it's our only account so every bit of money either of us gets drops into that one account. Bills are paid from that one account and anything extra we want to buy, we ask the other person if they would be okay with it or rather not spend the money. >
  
  I think couples should just pool all income together for everything and not worry about percentages or anything. Maybe give each other a small allowance for each week to spend on disagreeables. 
  But you know, that's just me. Everyone couple can decide for themselves how they want to handle their finances. >
  
  Ultimately, couples need to come to an arrangement that both are comfortable with. 
  What you're describing is certainly a reasonable guideline, but you have to accept that some people may prefer something different.  
  Some couples may prefer to settle on a monthly number and keep their finances largely separate. 
  Others may choose to simply merge their finances completely and never really consider who pays what percentage on groceries. 
  Some may insist on splitting things down the middle regardless of income disparity. Reasonable or not, some people don't want to look around the house and feel like its only 40% theirs. >
  
  I agree with the sentiment, especially as it encompasses a lot of other things that people usually do not actively consider. I understand all the people who say that it is personal decisions but I need to disagree with it to a certain extent. 
  It is usually a clear division between who earns more than the other. In traditional couples it usually is the man. Which also doesn't need to 🐻 the brunt of the impact of the couple decides to get children.
  If you already operate on a system that OP suggests there is less of a pickle when it comes e.g. to time spent on childcare between parents which most studies show is important for the kid and the relationship.
  In the end there can be another argument made from an egalitarian point of view. If you take for example investment / private savings for pension. 
  If the bills are split 50/50 the already less fortunate party has less money to spend on their personal savings. Which especially a problem with the other topics mentioned above.
  I think in the end it all can be grounded in the philosophy of equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. I would argue that a percentage division is more closely aligned with an equality of opportunity, as both parties can then still decide how they make use of the remaining percentages of their available income. >
  
  What about net worth?  Some people dont have high salaries but might have a lot in real estates, stocks, etc.  Wouldnt it be more fair to look at the whole picture? >
  
  
  I make 71% more than she does. 
  So I’ll pay 71% of the total bills and she will pay 29% of them. 
  
  So if you only make 20% more than she does, she ends up paying 80%?
  Math? >
  
  It's 100%/100%. Both parties must give their all to the relationship, or it won't work out. No half measures. Same with money  you give as much as you can, your partner gives as much they can or we just pool our money together, and if you are sitting and counting how much you put in, then you are already on the wrong track. >
  
  Not every couple’s finances are the same. They should do whatever is best for their relationship. 50/50 works for my partner and I because we literally make the exact same salary. Another couple may have another ratio that works best for them. That’s their business. >
  
  Ok, so let's say that you and your partner have a shared Netflix account that you barely use. How is it fair or equal that you pay 71% of that? Let's say your partner works from home, how is it fair or equal that you pay 71% of the electricity bill? Or let's say you go to the gym every day and shower there whereas your partner showers at home every day, how is it fair or equal that you pay 71% of the water bill? Let's say that you have a WWE Network subscription that your partner couldn't care less about - maybe even hates it - how is it fair or equal that you only pay 71% of that?
  There's no general rule on how couples should pay bills. It always just depends on your circumstances and what you've agreed to do. >
  
  Why does it have to turn into such a mission?? If you’re in a relationship where step 1 of date night is grade 4 math for an hour - you’re in a situationship, not relationship. If you’re ordering beyond your personal means - pay beyond your means. 🤷🏻‍♀️
  In my head it makes sense to pay for what you order/consume…. That’s if bill rules need to be discussed prior to >
  
  All relationships are different... What might work for you won't work for others >
  
  If I am going for drinks/restaurant with my friends, I don't ask for everyone else rates to know how to split the bill, everyone pay for their stuff we split fair and square or whoever take the full amount because feels like it.
  All works for me as long as it doesn't becomes a chore.
  Technically for your question 50% is a percentage and it's equal. In your opinion it should be equitable for others it should be proportional.
  Similar to the restaurant bill, as long as it doesn't become a chore and it works for the relationship it is alright.
  On the far scale of things I would avoid the sugar daddy/mama relationship and even if one was obscenely rich I would want the other partner be financially invested however poor they would be. >
  
  Why make it so hard - just throw 70% of each of your salaries into a joint account, 10% into a joint Vanguard account, and then you each get to keep the balance 20% to spend on whatever you want. 
  Male life simple people - you then just pay everything out of the joint account. >
  
  I disagree. Money isn’t as important as the relationship (obvious depends how long you’ve been together and other extenuating circumstances). Me and my wife, form the moment we bought a house together just had all our money go into the one account, both wages go in, we pull out what we want when we want. No percentages, no 50/50 it’s just our money, our expenses. >
  
  
  So say I’m living with someone and she makes $40K/ year and I make $100K/ year
  We get a bill in the mail and it’s $300 I pay $150 and she pays $150
  Except that $150 for me is not going to hurt me as much as it’s going to hurt her financially. It’s not really fair.
  Instead: We need to normalize doing relationships by Percentages? (Of course I’m talking SPECIFICALLY about the financial aspect of things, bills, dates, etc etc)
  That’s a lot more fair! For example (it’s going to get a little mathy)
  
  Mathematical fairness isn't necessarily the best approach for all couples though. For some people, feeling financially independent from their spouse/partner, is much more important than having a lower individual bill.
  They don't want their partner or spouse to what amounts to subsidizing their use of the couple's jointly used resources (e.g. rent, energy costs, insurances etc.) They prefer to equally contribute to the household, given that they also equally consume its resources. >
  
  Minor point here: If you make 71% more, then if we are doing it by percentages you would actually pay 1.71/2.71 = 63% and she would pay 1/2.71 = 37% >
  
  Excuse! You are being sexist against women. You think we women can't afford it? >
  
  I mostly agree but who can be bothered doing all that maths and then updating it each year with pay changes. It's just not realistic the maths alone would ruin half the fun in doing alot of things that involve spending money.
  The ideal system is to keep basically the principles that you have described in mind and then try to ball park it without adding too much stress about money or too much focus on who is paying more or less.
  The partner who earns less might pay for a smaller cost like dinner then the partner who earns more might pay a larger bill like the electricity bill. >
  
  My partner and I do this. We have a joint account which we each put 75% of our wages into.
  That pays all bills, food, car related costs, holidays, joint savings account etc.
  Leaving us with 25% of our own money to spend or save as we wish.
  Keeps us happy >
  
  My wife and I deposit all of our income into one account. We pay our bills from that. She generally spends the leftovers >
  
  First, different people have different ways of feeling comfortable when it comes to this so let them do them. Second, it’s stupid to calculate everything by percentage because it’s exhausting to use a calculator every time you’re going out for dinner and such. Third, that would create a serious unbalance in the power dynamics of a relationship. What if you get married and you put 79% of the down payment for a house? How would you split it afterwards in case of a divorce? It will be a mess and for sure it will be split 50-50 by the court. Would that be fair? Obviously not because you’ve contributed more. Also, you might end up paying alimony in some countries/states because why the fuck not - “yOu MaKe MoRe” type of stupid logic🙄 yeah Karen, I make more because I hustled and I try my best every day I’m working, not because some company decided to gift me a huge salary due to the color of my eyes 🙄
  P.S. coming from a woman so, statistically speaking, I’m part of the demographic at the receiving end of alimony. I still find it stupid and not fair so fuck ‘em hoes! >
  
  50/50 split is fine as long as they live based on the means of the lower earner.
  You cannot want to move from a 1k to a 3k a month house then expect the lower earner to cover 50% of that.
  I earn more than my partner. We both work similar hours but he is on less money. We split things as close to 50/50 as we can but I end up putting more into joint savings that benefit both of us - e.g. travel money, going out for food, etc. With our joint savings we don't look at who put in what, its just our savings pot, but we also can't take money out of the savings pot for whatever we want- its discussed beforehand.
  People should just do whatever works for them, and they can even trial a few different things until they find something that works. There's no blanket rule. >
  
  That sounds awfully complicated. Can you tell me why putting both incomes into a joint account and paying everything from that wouldn't work better? And if you want to have some independent spending for both parties, then you could pay X amount from that joint account to their personal accounts. So regardless of their income, they would have the same personal spending. 
  I'm assuming here that both put the full effort on the work to earn money and the housework. Of course if one side is working much harder than the other, then the above may not be fair for that. >
  
  OP this is exactly how we do it and I agree it feels more fair and equal. >
  
  Why should you split at all? My wife and I have 1 bank account and I don't care we don't earn the same amount. >
  
  If you eat half the food, you pay for half of it. If you use half of the hot water, you pay half of it. If you use half of the heating, you pay half of it. >
  
  I don't think there should be a hard and fast rule. What ever works for the couple should not be judged.
  There's lots of ways to offset "percentage".  For instance maybe the main bread winner pays for all living expenses and then they go in 50/50 after that.  Maybe the main bread winner pays for most things and then other just does special occasions.
  The important thing here is what each person feels is equitable and fair, and it has nothing to do with rules. >
  
  Understand to an extent but there's a bit more nuance to the the situation. 
  Imagine the 100k per year person is the one doing the vast majority or the saving/investing for the family. Then already they've got a lot more of their income going towards the family ect. 
  It would always come down to individual situations and how lots of other things have been calculated. 
  Do agree though that just 50/50 all the time isn't usually suitable. >
  
  The broke person should spend less or only buy things they can afford . >
  
  I'd say it depends on a few factors. If the disparity between incomes is huge then splitting by percentage seems reasonable. Also, what kind of lifestyle are you living. Is it one matching his higher wage or her lower wage? If you're living according to her means then splitting by half is reasonable as that's what she'd be paying if you were on equal income. If you're living above her means then percentage makes more sense.   
  But at the end of the day it's up to the couple to decide. Generally the people I get into long term relationships with are on similar income to me so it makes sense to just go 50/50. >
  
  Just writing to say your math is incorrect. If you make 71% more than what she does, you mean to say that you would pay 100 × 171 / 271 = 63.09% of the bill for it to be equal. >
  
  My wife and I share an account. These threads always blow my mind. >
  
  May I ask why you don’t have a joint account?  Both paychecks go into it an everything is paid from it.
  * I’ve never had a joint account or been married so im probably missing something >
  
  Or the FAMILY makes $140,000 a year and the family must pay all bills. Unless there is some type of misbehavior (gambling or shopping addict, abuse, infidelity, etc.). Income should go into a joint account. If you want to agree on a monthly "fun fund" for each person to spend however they want, that's fine. But your first responsibility is to the family. >
  
  But what if my clothes are bigger so they take more water to wash? Should I pay more?! Actually OP I agree with you. All of these “what ifs” that others are putting are kind of ridiculous. It’s also about convenience for both parties. For example say I make 3x my partners salary and I want to move into a more expensive apartment. My partner can’t afford the 50% so should we not move to my ideal place because of this? Where if I’m ok paying 80% because it doesn’t hurt me as much? >
  
  We have an excel doc that does this for us currently, it's definetly a great system! We just type on our incomes, it checks those amounts to what we have decided are things we should both contribute to, and tells us how much each of us should pay to run the home. For example, we share diaper costs based on that percentage, but I pay for my own pharmacy costs, etc. >
  
  I don't think being nit picky enough to count every dollar, figure out the percentage of income that varies from year to year in order to make sure everything is split fairly etc is very common in romantic relationships. I think disagreement over what common property to buy ,one partner spending significant amounts of joint money without prior discussion etc is a much more common cause of relationship issues vs disagreement over what kind of expense sharing system would be fair. If my partner insists on buying a couch from the 70s because she loves the print but I don't like it, won't use it etc because it isn't comfortable should I still feel obligated to split the cost? There's plenty of scenarios like this a couple will have to work out. Both financial issues and household workload distribution are reasons why I argue that romantic partners living apart or in separate parts of the house should be normalized more. >
  
  The only rule is for a couple to make up their own and agree on them, and be willing to revisit. >
  
  I think that splitting your bills proportional to your income is likely to be significantly more fair than splitting 50/50 for the vast majority of couples. 
  But this doesn’t follow in all circumstances, for example if one partner has a very low income for whatever reason and is barely covering costs then the higher earning partner should expect to contribute more than their percentage income split to maintain the lifestyle standard you want together as a couple. Or if someone has no income but has a large amount of wealth that they live off obviously you expect that person to contribute. 
  As all the other comments have noted there are loads of circumstances that you might want to account for in your couple finances, but lots of people want an easy way to split money that is mostly fair and not nitpick about who uses more or less of whatever. I think a proportional to income split is the fairest starting point for couples, who can then account for other factors and add as much complexity to it as they consider worth it for them. >
  
  
  I make 71% more than she does.
  
  You don't. You earn 71% of the total income but 150% more than her >
  
  My wife and I share bank accounts. As such there is no split. Therefore we never split bills. I think this is superior to splitting bills every time. >
  
  One of my collegues split like this: the husband makes more he pays every bill, the wife pays for the food. It works perfectly for them, technically there is no "clear" split in the bills.
  The couple has to find what works. IF what you're saying is that they don't need to split all expenses down the middle, then yes. >
  
  Is this really a thing? 
  Like do men today try to start families with the expectation that she has to pay half the bills?
  If so there’s no mystery as to why there’s so many incels.