Food cost share
My partner and I are living together for 2.5 years. We agreed to pay all bills including mtg proportinate based on each of our incomes. I have 2 adult children living in their own,who come over once a week or every Two weeks for lunch/dinner. My younger son lived with us for 8 months and moved out with his girlfriend. My partner has a 14 & 12 year old and paying child support to his ex. Our ratio was 38% mine and 62% his. As my income went up my ration increased to 42%. I told him I don't think it is fair for me to pay more than 40% and referring to food only. Everything else, bills, mtg, home expenses will remain based on ratio. I told him I don't think it's fair for me to pay for his kids food more then 40% considering I am one person and it is 3 of them. We have them 50% of the time. Plus they have friends over at times too. I have raised and feed my children with no help at all and don't think it is fair to pay for someone else's children. He was not happy with me said: but we are a family. In my mind it is his and his x wife's responsibility not mine to feed those children. He was so upset he suggested we should each by our own food from now on. To me that is like being room mates and not partners. Am I mean by suggesting this? Any suggestions?
I dont think your being mean,
I dont think your being mean,, i think your point is valid! turn it back around and ask him would he feel the same in the reversed situation if you have 2 teens he was required to pay more for with an income increase ? you have raised and provided for your children without his help,, he can do the same ! stand your ground
Is it a huge amount of money
Is it a huge amount of money extra that you are paying? I wasn't one to quibble about that kind of stuff, personally - but my DH only has one kid who was there maybe 30%of the time, and he wasn't a big eater.
DH and I have compatible money habits, and I'd struggle with someone wanting everything to be "fair" down the percentage point. That being said, he should respect that you feel you are paying more than your fair share.
I always love how DH's act
I always love how DH's act like you're being petty when you bring up stuff like this...or when they say things designed to make you feel guilty and ashamed...like: "Really? You're upset over the few extra dollars a month that goes toward feeding my kids?!?!"
I mean...if it's so little money, if it's not a big deal...then it shouldn't be a big deal for them to pay it either, right? Doesn't that criticism go both directions? Surely when they had the kids they expected to pay for them 100%, right? So what changed? (They snagged them a sucker SM, that's what happened.)
OP - a couple additional questions. You split everything else based on income. Do you own the home together?? IE - is your name on the deed? Or is this his house that he's planning to leave to his kids...and you're now paying nearly half of the mortgage for a home that you don't own when you're 1 person and he brings 3 to the home? If you also own the home, then your split makes sense. If you don't...he should be paying 3/4 and you should be paying 1/4. You shouldn't be subsidizing the costs of providing a larger home to accommodate his kids unless you also own the home.
Also...why do you split utilities so nearly equally. Again, he brings 3 people, you bring 1 person. He should be covering more of that as well.
For now I'd call his bluff and start buying and preparing food for just myself. Assuming you also cook for everyone...stop doing that. He'll quickly realize your suggested split wasn't unreasonable at all and was actually quite generous.
If you adjust for actual time
If you adjust for actual time in the home... He has the equivalent of "2ish" people on the grocery bill.. and you have 1ish. We will consider that your kids and his friend's kids kind of cancel each other out. But, you could also look further as to whether his kids get a free lunch from school when they are with you as well.. which could somewhat reduce the number of meals that they are on the books for.
It seems that on the face of it based on USE... he would pay 2/3 and you would pay 1/3 of groceries. But, you had decided previously that you would each contribute to these costs based on income (is his income figured before or after CS?) What really is coming into play is that perhaps just flatly dividing by relative income isn't as fair to you as it appeared at first. Especially when you now have no kids living in the home at all.. and he has 2 part time kids there.
It seems that a more fair distribution of household costs would be 66.6% for him.. and 33.4% for you.. and this should apply to all expenses.. utilities.. housing etc... Yes.. he does have a CS obligation as well.. but these kids are 100% his.. that is not your problem to make up or subsidize this for him.
His kids are there 50% of the time.. some people could argue that the space in the home is set aside for them 100% of the time.. but you would still be better off paying 1/3 of the costs.. vs pushing him for 1/4.
Agree on all of this.
Agree on all of this.
I'd say if they own the home together than a split based on income makes total sense. They're both investing/contributing to an asset that they jointly own.
If she's not on the deed...then I think she should push for 1/4 of housing expenses or some reasonable "rent" that doesn't also cover homeowners insurance (on an asset she doesn't own), property taxes (that only he gets to deduct), etc. There's more to know here to know what's most equitable...if she owns the home home then she should contribute as nearly equally as possible. If not...well she wouldn't need a 3-bedroom home on her own and she shouldn't have to subsidize the larger asset purchase on behalf of her DH and his kids. Now should she pay for protection or taxes for that asset...as these things also only benefit them and not her.
Agree on all of this.
Agree on all of this.
I'd say if they own the home together than a split based on income makes total sense. They're both investing/contributing to an asset that they jointly own.
If she's not on the deed...then I think she should push for 1/4 of housing expenses or some reasonable "rent" that doesn't also cover homeowners insurance (on an asset she doesn't own), property taxes (that only he gets to deduct), etc. There's more to know here to know what's most equitable...if she owns the home then she should contribute as nearly equally as possible. If not...well she wouldn't need a 3-bedroom home on her own and she shouldn't have to subsidize the larger asset purchase on behalf of her DH and his kids. Nor should she pay for protection or taxes for that asset...as these things also only benefit them and not her.
I would suggest that he buy
I would suggest that he buy the groceries for the weeks that the kids are there and you buy the groceries for the weeks that they aren't.
That is assuming you are on a week on/week off schedule. But that would be the most fair way I can think to split it up and it makes reasonable sense, at least to me.
This is actually a fairly
This is actually a fairly equitable way of approaching it... assuming the cut off is when you are buying for the kid's visit.. not just when they are in residence.. (missing the big prep trip the day or so before they come..)
It is an odd schedule, 3 days
It is an odd schedule, 3 days 2 days 3 days or something like that so it works out we have them some days in the week and every other weekend. Thx for the suggestion it would be so much easier on a weekly basis
You are not being mean. You
You are not being mean. You are responsible for your own food costs and half of the food costs of your kids only. Him and his ex should be responsible for the food costs of their kids. The "We are a family" line is a way to manipulate you into opening up your wallet and him closing his. Don't fall for it. Don't stay with a cheap guy who guilts others into paying for his kids. It's very manipulative. You can do better.
Feeding teens is not cheap.
Feeding teens is not cheap. They eat more then adults, especially if growing. 12 & 14 - hell no, I wouldn't want to pay for their groceries either. When my son was in high school, my house was a favorite hang out spot. My DH would refer to DS & his friends as the ravenous horde. He wasn't wrong. We resorted to stickers on items for dinner - Do not eat.
He is being childish.
It is not your responsibility to feed his children from another woman.
When SD23 was younger and stayed with us during summers from college SO first offered to pitch in $50 a month extra for food. Except SD23 never left the house, ate every meal at home, and ate a ton of food in general. And took hour-long showers. Fortunately we tracked exprenses and we went through how much his darling offspring was costing us to house and feed, and it was $400 a month not $50. He agreed to pitch in the extra amount and that worked fine for us.
I do think that her DH may
I do think that her DH may view her complaint/desire to change from "42%" to "40" as somewhat petty... especially if he did not have any higher expectations on her contributions for her children when they are over.. even when one stayed there for months.
He may have thought that their initial way of splitting was "fair" and see her wanting to shave it as her being petty because she is making a deal over what he might consider small potatoes. Also, he may feel that he is generous with his money in other ways.. maybe he pays the tab a lot more than she does when they go out to eat.. or maybe he doesn't record every item he pays for in the home.. and kind of figures in the wash he is paying more than his fair share?
But, what he may be overlooking is that this isn't a typical household where the adults may split bills on a ratio of their salaries..with joint kids. When she does that.. she is in a way subsidizing his kids being there.. when the income variation was larger.. and her kids were using more resources.. perhaps this wasn't as big of a deal for her.. but NOW... it has morphed into a situation where she may be paying more than her fair share... that their original agreement may need to be revisited due to the change in custody/occupancy of the home.
As others have pointed out.. sometimes housing vs food/utillities might need different treatment. Some of these costs are fixed costs.. and some are variable depending on the amount of use.
But.. OP should also try to understand where her DH is coming from.. does he perceive himself as already paying a lot of things that she doesn't? It's worth a calm discussion about that. Maybe he doesn't feel like she should make a big deal since he didn't when her other child lived there? It's worth understanding where he is coming from too.
That maybe but setimes it is
That maybe but setimes it is the principle of it and not the amount. I refuse to pay any part of our Netflix account because SO still allows his SD23 to use it. Not about the amount of money because it's small but rather I refuse to pay one cent to support that obnoxious nut job. Told him if he wants to share that with his darling adult child go for it but it was his money only (like the other things he still pays for with her - cell phone, insurance, etc).
Food
DH will buy most of the food because he likes to eat VERY well. We are talking steaks and such. Several times a week. Munchkin SD14 and I will split one. But shes not one to eat too much. So, we dont keep track of that. I buy then he buys...
It seems like you are being fair. Let him try buying separately for a bit and see how he likes it. He wont.
Thank you all for the great
Thank you all for the great feedback. He is more upset about the fact that I am trying to change our original agreement and not respecting our original agreement. We had another conversation today about it. Both trying to make our points. I am trying to get him to understand that things change and our situation changed and we are adjusting accordingly. He keeps bringing up things from the past where he, valid point, "helped me" ,was financially in a negative by waiting for 2 years for my older son to have a down payment to purchase my home, so I can contribute with the down payment in our current home. We agreed on going on an equally down payment, I did not say for the down payment it should be based on income. I agreed on not having my name added until I have the money, so we are in the process of doing this currently. He agreed to this arrangements, but could have backed out at any time. In his defence he does admit I have done other stuff for his kids. That will continue but not financially. I can give them a ride, cook for them, when it works for me. He says it's not about the money but the principal, but yet speaks about money and how he was affected and did not complain. I told him because he knew that it would last a short period of time. His kids could be with us for another 10-15 years at least and that is the difference.. Every extra payment on the mtg we go in 50/50. Every house expense, roof, basement, we did 50/50. We have a house spending account for things around the house 50/50 I am not asking for anything else but food and he still disagrees. We agreed to disagree on this point. I told him that Iactually by giving him this offer instead of buying my own food I had considered all involved as this would not put us in a situation where skids have to ask "Whoes bananas are these?" Can I eat them? That would be very uncomfortable for all. Thanks for bringing up some other good points I have not thought about. I stood my ground, he realized that suggesting to buy my own would not work as we would have to eat separate meals even with no kids around and would be awkward.