comment: >
  
  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.
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.