The more that time passes, the more likely you are to see a society re-evaluate its norms and conventions.
And while recent years have seen these revisions center around serious matters of human rights, we’re also seeing smaller discussions involve anything from tipping to dating etiquette .
But in the latter case, discussions regarding who should pay for what aren’t limited to that period before a couple officially enters a relationship. As one Twitter thread reveals, it’s easy to fall into an arrangement that’s much less fair than it sounds when you’re actually living together.
RELATED STORIES
In what would become a pretty viral tweet, one user named Keshav Kant outlined the difference between an equal split in financial responsbility within a relationship and an equitable one.
Namely, that the idea of partners paying the exact same amount each for rent and other bills is not usually equitable because they rarely make the same amount of money.
As Kant put it, “If you make 3x what your partner does, you should pay more because you can. Do a 2:1 split, and cover 70% of the bills.”
And while many commenters were surprised to learn that this isn’t how it always works in a realtionship, another user had an alternative option if Kant’s suggestion doesn’t seem fair either.
For them, it may be worth a try for those in a relationship to agree on a certain percentage of their income to contribute to rent and other bills.
Because while just splitting that responsibility 50/50 can leave one partner almost wiped out while the other remains stable, this can feel equal while still adjusting for the wage differences.
Kant’s tweet led another user to wonder why couples don’t just pool everything together like their grandparents did.
However, others commenters started pointing out that this system makes it more difficult for partners to disentangle their finances should a breakup occur.
Worse yet, the concept of making everything “our money” can potentially leave someone without a financial way out if that relationship happens to become unsafe.
Others also pointed out that women didn’t have the laws in place protecting their financial freedoms in decades past. For instance, women didn’t have the legal right to obtain credit cards independently in the United States until 1974.
And even if there isn’t a big difference in income between partners, there are other ways to keep things equitable.
For instance, one woman said that her boyfriend pays over 2/3 of the rent but she in turn pays for the utilities as well as the insurance on their home.
She also mentioned that he doesn’t pay his own phone bill and that her car payments amount to more than his does so an adjustment like that only seems right.
And while Kant’s tweet about realtionships generated some interesting discussion, they also said that this adjustable financial system also applies to friend groups.
As another user further explained, it’s even more unlikely that each member of that group is going to be in the same financial situation.
So if they’re planning a trip or a night out that one of them will genuinely have trouble affording, their other friends know to ensure that person will be covered.
Because as they pointed out, it’s very easy for a person to suddenly find themselves with unexpected financial struggles so any member of that group could potentially need this help.
And those who make these sorts of agreements can often remember times when they couldn’t afford to take part in something fun.
And as another user pointed out, those who aren’t willing to help in this way shouldn’t be surprised when that friend in need can’t come.
As they put it, “I’m not going. I can’t afford y’all lifestyle. I’m not trying to live outside my means.”
