Should couples who don't have kids and don't want to ever have them do 50/50 by default?

mandoa_sky · 2025-12-31T00:26:31+00:00

it depends on what kind and whether finances are merged or not.

i see it similar to friendships. ie we can't all do the same activities because we're all in different financial brackets. so because everyone pays their own way, we usually go with the cheaper options to make things more affordable for the more financially tight friends. otherwise we accept that the more financially tight friend just won't do the activity.

if as a couple and you always do stuff together, then equity makes more sense than equality - simply because the less financially well off person can't be expected to suffer even more just to keep up with the SO

toasterchild · 2025-12-31T00:21:47+00:00

All couples should decide for themselves what they want to do, why would there need to be one rule for all couples?

fakingandnotmakingit · 2025-12-31T00:34:33+00:00

Depends on the couple and whether to merge money.

I did 50/50 the first year or so. Then we divided based on income. If earned 60% of the income so it became 60/40

I don't think true 50/50 payment is realistic unless both parties are happy with the living the lifestyle of the lowest income partner.

I also think that complete 50/50 feels a bit less like a partnership because the person who earns more is basically always going to have more money.

Equitable splitting to me is the nice middle ground between pooling all your money and strict 50/50

Once you commit and go full long term like marriage or buying a house together (tbh I find buying a house more financially committed than marriage) then you should probably just pool all your money together.

I now do a thing where we pool all the money together. Then we each take out a set of fun money that's the same amount each. That fun money can be spent however that person wants. He tends to spend more on a daily basis. I tend to save my fun money and spend big when I do spend like a new laptop.

No_Teacher_3313 · 2025-12-31T01:54:50+00:00

I have been happy to treat my partner when I was the one earning more. Marriage is a partnership. It makes sense for some amount of sharing to occur.

Kizka · 2025-12-31T02:16:30+00:00

My partner and I are childfree. I take on more of the expenses because I make significantly more than him. I want us both to enjoy life.

KayRay1994 · 2025-12-31T05:54:24+00:00

Who cares? Let the couple decide for themselves

The “split” debate is annoying cause so much of it is manufactured distress. Mature couples will discuss it and figure it out. Immature couples will try to follow trends and not think this through. Simple as that

jorts-enthusiast · 2025-12-31T00:27:22+00:00

Every couple should decide individually what they want to do.

ChewedMyWayOutOfThat · 2025-12-31T01:57:54+00:00

If men contribute more

This is an assumption and generalization. There's your first mistake, because the statistics are telling us that it's the complete fucking opposite.

How the fuck do men contribute more? 23% of families are sole breadwinners who work 52 hours a week, while their SAHMs work 51 hours. 16% are sole female breadwinners who work 46 hours, while their SAHDs work 33 hours. So SAHD working 13 fucking hours less than their breadwinner wives and 18 fucking hours less that the typical SAHM. The rest are egalitarian marriages where the wife brings home half the family income.

Here's some more statistics you're not gonna like:

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220406-women-breadwinners-why-high-earners-compensate-at-home

Some researchers have found that in the UK, 45% of female breadwinners still do the majority of household tasks, compared to just 12.5% of male breadwinners

And this one too:

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/what-is-the-average-hours-per-week-worked-in-the-us-2060631

Men work 40.5 hours per week. Women do 36.5 hours per week, but they average 12.6 hours on cooking, cleaning and housework, compared to 5.7 hours for men. Men take an extra 3.5 hours of leisure per week than his wife, where they get to fuck off and do nothing and leave the chores and the kids with the wife.

should all couples who are childfree do 50/50 in expenses?

Worry less about women's financial contribution, because the data is telling us they do their fair share and then some. Worry more about men doing less than half their fair share of chores, while only making half the income because the data is telling us they fucking aren't.

fucksiclepizza · 2025-12-31T01:14:37+00:00

They should do whatever they agree to. If there is a huge income discrepancy and they're to go 50/50 then it makes sense to live by the means of the lower income person.

TheCounsellingGamer · 2025-12-31T00:39:41+00:00

Not by default because it depends on each couple, how much they each earn, and how much they're willing to compromise. If one earns 100,000/year and the other earns 20,000/year, then that might complicate things. They could still do a 50/50 split, but the person earning 100k would have to accept a much lower standard of living. If the person earning 100k wants to live in an expensive house and go on vacation all the time, then they either need to find someone who earns the same amount as them or be willing to pay more than 50% towards everything.

Perfect-Resist5478 · 2025-12-31T02:09:11+00:00

I’m child free with my (male fiancée) and I pay for about 75-80% of our expenses.

People should do whatever works for them

NoDanaOnlyZuuI · 2025-12-31T02:29:29+00:00

All couples, regardless of whether or not they have children, should contribute financially proportionate to income. Or have one bank account and stop fucking nickel and diming your partners.

stuffeson · 2025-12-31T04:50:42+00:00

It really all depends on each individual couple and what they want. And I would really incourage people to have a discussion about what your expectations are before you become a couple.

Personally, since I run my own small company, doing consulting in a creative industry, I want to keep my personal expenses very very low. That way i can do without having a project for months, if needed. I would not expect any woman to want to run their lives the same way. Therefore our economies are completely separate and we split bills 50/50.

Traditional_Lab1192 · 2025-12-31T00:32:41+00:00

It really depends on the couple. I imagine that most child free relationships are probably 50/50 but the dynamics are up to the individuals and what works best for them. My boyfriend’s brother has a girlfriend who is a “stay at home girlfriend”. She does all of the household care while he works and they don’t have kids. It works for them, so they have no issues.

I imagine that each relationship is like that. Its based on what works.

Edit: Change girlfriend to wife. I forgot that they got married recently.

Junior-Campaign-6326 · 2025-12-31T01:54:30+00:00

No, that's a roommate situation and that disgusts me. Why don't men just get get roommates and split bills? Why keep beating women over their heads with these standards that women reject? Do you men not like other men?

half_avocado33 · 2025-12-31T02:33:23+00:00

Why 50-50 and not pool all the money and join finances? I prefer the joint finances.

Disastrous_Agent9307 · 2025-12-31T02:36:55+00:00

It depends on why they're coupling up.

Generally, I think couples do best when everyone is giving 100% of what they have to give and not treating everything like a market transaction, but rather are doing their best day to day.

But if they're going to treat it like a market transaction then this is just a game right. And I think the woman can still argue for more because he'll have a harder time replacing her than vice versa. It's more likely she's also welcome at home than vice versa. And if she's a child free woman she's a rarity so that would mean her asking price can be even higher. She also has way more sexual risk than him so that's another factor in the calculation. She's also giving up more overt fertility than him so if she changes her mind the damage is worse which would have to be factored in.

So based on my math I'd say probably default is closer to 70/30.

Again, I don't really look at it like this, but if we're going to...women will always have greater risk, greater investment, and greater value in every market.

AutoModerator · 2025-12-30T22:11:29+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

LoopyPro · 2025-12-31T09:05:46+00:00

Isn't that the equality that everyone fought tooth and nail for? One thing is certain, contributions wise, you're not entitled to more than someone else's 50% share.

januaryphilosopher · 2025-12-31T09:22:55+00:00

I don't think anyone should do 50/50 by default unless they earn the same because it's not fair. A lower earning partner could end up with little to nothing for themselves and a loving partner wouldn't let them do that. A couple that acts as a team rather than adversaries will support each other and give proportionally to what they have.

No-Hovercraft-455 · 2025-12-31T09:27:12+00:00

I think all couples, regardless of if they have children, should split shared expenses in the proportion of their income. If you earn 50-50 you go 50-50, if you earn 60-40 you go 60-40.

I think this is a good system because for shared expenses like housing usually also the decision making process is shared and if they were alone the lower income partner would probably choose something less costly than where shared decision lands. Always going proportional to income is fair and - most importantly - it's easy.

It spares you from having to negotiate every single purchase separately based on what each partner would have bought if they were alone, and then compensate the difference to partner who would have gone cheaper (ie I want to buy 800 couch and your budget is max 500 so you'll be paying 250 and I'll be paying remaining 550), and keep meticulous pile of papers about how each of your assets was shared costwise and why. And having business negotiations every single month when who is using what and how much changes, accounting for the initial difference in opinions for when the asset was purchased. I.e are you gonna pay me 550 minus some sum to account for use if the couch gets moved into your office because you want it there and we buy new one, or just 250, and who's gonna pay for both of our lawyers every time issue occurs. Or accountants to keep track of how many years the couch has been in use before you stole it, and how much should be deducted from the initial price before we settle the couch matter.

Partnership is supposed to be family relationship (for practical reasons like not needing legal representation for every thing, even if not ideal ones) not constant business negotiation and this alternative is too competitive plus it could put someone in disadvantage just because they are bad negotiator and you don't want anyone doing that to their partner. Going proportional to income cuts the above crap and ensures nobody is financially using anybody to pay for purchases majority of which (at least price wise) they wanted.

Valuable-Marzipan761 · 2025-12-31T11:56:59+00:00

Everyone should do 50/50 overall. That doesn't mean 50/50 on every individual task. One person might do more cooking or cleaning. One person might work more.

dk_angl1976 · 2025-12-31T13:34:50+00:00

There is no overall consensus that pleases everyone. Each couple should do what works for them and their relationship. People need to stop attempting to write an all encompassing blueprint.

ChadChasingBReturns · 2025-12-31T13:50:44+00:00

It wouldn’t work for my relationship. I either wouldn’t have anything or I would have to marry someone else.

Confident_Counter471 · 2025-12-31T13:54:59+00:00

This is for each couple to decide. I’m the primary breadwinner in my relationship and we don’t have kids. I contribute more financially because I make more and I want us to have a good life TOGETHER. Why would I want to go to a nice restaurant and not bring the person I love most? Why would I downgrade our living situation when I can afford it because he can’t pay the same amount I can? Now we both get to live in a nicer house…I really don’t think yall love your partners.

GridReXX · 2025-12-31T14:45:49+00:00

50/50 only works if the person who makes way more is okay living how the person who makes less can afford. If both parties are okay with that, sure.

EugeneCezanne · 2025-12-31T18:47:58+00:00

Couples should do whatever they want and can agree to, for whatever reason seems important to them. At the very least, it should be obvious that there are more factors involved that just this one.

Obvious_Smoke3633 · 2025-12-31T20:42:34+00:00

50/50 would be okay if both partners earn exactly the same, consume exactly the same, and do the exact same amount of chores. Otherwise, there has to be some taking and some giving. I've lived with men before and shared grocery expenses 50/50, but I have never eaten 50% of the food. A man will typically eat portions twice as big as mine for meals and snack a lot more. If we're going 50/50 on bills, I would only pay for my own things. Not cover half of whatever he eats.

TheOneWhoThinketh · 2025-12-31T00:25:47+00:00

I don't know if they should go exactly 50/50, but the bulk of what gender roles consist of has generally been structured around children and potential for childbearing. So if you take children out of the picture, much of what we consider chivalry or benevolent sexism is neutered along with them.

2025-12-31T00:30:41+00:00

Sharing assets let alone if your not even the one making alot of money to begin with is really stupid if not done right.

Depends on the cost of where your living and who makes more money. 50 percent for someone who is making 25k year is different for someone who makes 100k a year.

If the rent for example is 2500 and I'm making 25k a year 50 percent of me would only be 500-600 dollars. And thats it.

ResponsibilityAny217 · 2025-12-31T06:55:37+00:00

I think 50/50 expenses for childfree couples is a pretty good deal.

But in this situation I would want my own room.

SwimmingTheme3736 · 2025-12-31T07:37:06+00:00

Couples should do what works for them. Relationships don’t have rule books.

kvakerok_v2 · 2025-12-31T13:40:49+00:00

Lmao, American women will die on this hill before this becomes norm.

Cool-Campaign-7815 · 2025-12-31T20:18:27+00:00

For Gen Z, women should pay 100% by default

abaxeron · 2025-12-31T06:32:43+00:00

If men contribute more because his partner carries the child and goes through child birth and does most of the childcare

Men contribute more because men either do so, or stay single, long before children come into picture, or regardless if they do.

https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/12l5b2u/male_vs_female_income_in_childless_couples/

Title	Should couples who don't have kids and don't want to ever have them do 50/50 by default?
Author	Jazzlike-Lifeguard38
Upvotes	14
Comments	98
Date	December 30, 2025 10:11 PM UTC (6 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1pzvczg/should_couples_who_dont_have_kids_and_dont_want/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/should-couples-who-dont-have-kids-and-dont-want-to.1570075 https://theredarchive.com/post/1570075

Comments