comment: >
  
  ackchyually its 71.4% not 71%
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.