If a partner moved in with me they absolutely would help pay my mortgage. But I wouldn't lie that I didn't own the place. Just set standards of what I expect
They aren’t wrong tho. If you stop paying your taxes they will take your house away. So in the end you may “own” it but you really don’t have full control, which raises the question on who really owns the land.
In the end the government has the control. Do you really own it?
If you don't pay your taxes and have any assets, will a court seize them if you refuse to pay? Sure. A private company can sue you if you don't pay for services and a court may also seize assets if you lose and refuse to pay. Do you own the assets?
Yes, obviously.
Hey guys, I found the anarchocapitalist.
Which makes you a slave to the government by virtue of taxes.
I’ll repeat it to the slow folks in the back. If the government can seize your property then you never owned it from the beginning.
As I say to all anarcho-capitalists: If you want to live on the land and not use any infrastructure whatsoever, then be my guest, you wouldn't need to pay taxes if you don't have any income 👍
Here's a great series by AdamSomething for why arachocapitalism is stupid: https://youtu.be/HTN64g9lA2g
If you want to participate in society, taxes are the fees needed to keep it going. Funnily enough we live in a society with laws and concesequnces for breaking them.
If you live in the US, it's understandable why taxes bother you because your infrastructure is crumbling, but that's because your voting system sucks and you keep electing shitty governments. Taxes themselves aren't to blame.
That and expropriation/eminent domain, etc. Even if you pay your taxes, if the government needs it, they have processes to take it.
I'm not saying it's an inherently bad thing, but it's another one of those important things to realize is already present if anyone wants to argue for/against certain government reforms.
That's what I'm doing with my SO. My house and my mortage but she pays about half of it though that includes also groceries, water and electricity
My partner said that when he'd move in with me, he'd pay his share. His logic is that he's currently paying a landlord and he'd rather pay me. That way I get more financial room to loan money again (I own my apartment, but have a mortgage), and he'd pay less than current rent, allowing him to expand on a down-payment buffer. Ideally this way we could upgrade to a small house in time, suitability split, and I keep the apartment to rent out or I can sell it.
There is power in combined finances, but you need to take into account what you'd do on your own. That said, I would prefer to be in a situation where I could just let him move in for free, as life is expensive enough already.
But I also believe that it is essential to a good relationship that each carries their reasonable share. I grew up with my mom fully depending on my dad for finances as she was a stay at home mother. I loved she was always there for us, but when my parents grew apart, she really struggled and dealt with a lot of guilt because she couldn't provide for us as before. This is why I've always made sure I could make my own way. My apartment isn't the greatest but I'm thankful every day I can benefit from ownership.
The fact that he lied about owning property is gross, but if he had told her, why wouldn't she contribute to the monthly bills? She is occupying space.
Again not telling her is shady but if she could make an informed decision, paying rent to live in a house isn't crazy, even if one person is accruing long term value from the spend.
If it were me I'd obv tell her day 1, then offer a generous rent rate. The house is being worn down by 2, but you are gaining long term value (paying principle on the mortgage). She can't expect to live rent free, but you can't expect her to share the mortgage burden equally.
Because when they break up she has nothing and he has her money in the form of equity. Splitting consumption bills is obviously good, but splitting a mortgage where one party gets it all is far less cut and dry.
If that's all up front and she agrees then whatever but the scenario in the meme is pretty scummy
Replies filled with people that will hopefully never live with their girlfriends because they seem very satisfied with the idea of lording over a romantic partner.
I'm not saying she gets 50%, but if she put in $10k and the home price held or went up then she should get some proportional pay out
If we're splitting hairs, why not wait to move in until you can fully buy half? Why move in together at all?
Yeah but charging a partner rent is kinda shitty. It's supposed to be an equitable partnership that benefits both parties. Otherwise why have a partner?
He paid 700k for an apartment, so naturally she can live in for free, because he doesn't pay rent. Very smart
It’s supposed to be an equitable partnership that benefits both parties. Otherwise why have a partner?
if 2 people live in a place, 2 people should pay the rent. that is equality. you're advocating for the woman to not pay the rent because she's a woman in the meme.
We're talking mortgage. If we're talking rent then yeah she should absolutely pay. It just gets muddier when equity is involved and there should be some agreement up front.
Why would I have someone live for free in my house who doesn't contribute to the expense of upkeep? Ie, a freeloader. That's what rent is. Sorry, a partner doesn't expect their SO to pay their way for them just because they pay a mortgage payment instead of a rent payment. Add to that, now since it is a mortgage payment, any repairs and other incidentals are paid for by the owner as well. Does this person get to just break things and expect the partner to pay for it? That's another thing rent covers. Why have a partner that is more expensive than being alone? Why have a partner at all?
Not to say that the deception is shitty, but she'd be in the same situation as if she rented a place. It's a little out there to expect equity when all you did was cohabitate for a period, it's the exact same thing as renting a room or something.
The difference is a rental agreement and generally people in relationships aren't expected to be in a landlord tenant situation. If this was just your friend then sure
Well hang on, here's a scenario for you: Say I own a 2 bedroom condo, and have a roommate that I charge rent. One day, I meet a girl and we start dating. At some point, said roommate moves out, and it just happens that my gf and I are at the point where she moves in, and said 2nd room gets turned into a office or guest room, because obviously we're going to share the master. She pays me rent for living with me (might even be a lower amount for whatever reason). After two years, we decide to break it off since it isn't working between us and she moves out. Do you think I should be expected to pay her out a slice of equity? How is that any different than a roommate renting a room from a financial standpoint?
And in response to your other reply, what if she didn't contribute to repairs? I think my point here is where do we draw the line? I can understand if a partner makes a significant investment contribution to the property, but I don't know if I necessarily agree even with a certain length of time outside of marriage without a prenup, considering if y'all were renting somewhere you would have no claim to the property whatsoever. Just because someone is in a relationship with someone, in my mind, does not entitle them to another person's assets just because they were together.
Not the OP, but in Canada at least, I think you would legally be expected to because common law is (as far as I'm aware) very nearly marriage and is entirely implied by time living together in a conjugal relationship. It might be provincial to determine the actual property laws, though.
I don't have a firm opinion here, but I think the key difference in your case is that a conjugal relationship has some expectation of... Oh I don't know, mutuality? A landlord tenant relationship is a lease agreement. If your roommate didn't sign any kind of lease agreement, they might have a legal case to just not pay you and suffer no consequences (I don't know), but they're not in a conjugal relationship, so there's also no implication of shared ownership.
Without signing lease agreement and being in a conjugal relationship, I think there is a pretty fair case that expecting shared ownership is a fair assumption.
That all said, it's also really up to the individuals to figure that out early, and the deception in the meme suggests that the agency to have that discussion wasn't available, and that's really the part I find problematic here.
There are laws for this reason, because renting to a rando is different than commonlaw intimate relationship.
You still didn't answer the question. In terms of property ownership equity rights, what is the difference? Bear in mind common law marriage in its implied form only exists in a small handful of states as well as DC (in the US). Otherwise you'd have a domestic partnership, which does include contractual rights and privileges to financial assets. Further, I could be renting to my best friend without a written agreement for all intents and purposes.
This is a relationship not a roommate nor a tenant. It's slightly concerning how many people think these are the same thing
Funny how you keep repeating that like a broken record when you can't come up with a logical and objective answer. It's a relationship and varies on a case by case basis. If my girlfriend is living with me in my house and we're both earning equally then I'd expect her to contribute to the expenses too. Either by taking "rent" from her or just splitting the bills. But to be fair, I do see your side too. If I'm paying mortgage for the house then it would be weird to ask her to pay a part of it.
It seems we may just have different morals that no amount of back and forth will rectify. I apologise for sounding like a broken record but I'm responding to several people with similar arguments and memmy ain't as good as keeping track of context as Apollo was.
I actually live this scenario and have an equity agreement that splits the sale proceeds proportional to what each person put in. I find the idea of land lording over a partner to be disgusting.
If you want your girlfriend to live with you then what's the alternative? She move out and buy a second house? If you want her to live with you then she shouldn't have to put her financials on hold to do so.
But I agree that it's case by case. In several other places I've said that I don't expect their recent girlfriend to get a cut of their boyfriend's house just because her lease expired when they started dating. The longer she lives there though, the more I think the conversation should be had.
Nah I fully get that. But what I'm saying is that, hypothetically, I have a home that I'm paying a mortgage on. Just because I am intimately involved with someone that I'm not married to, that entitles her equity in my property if I charge her rent? I also mentioned in in another reply, she did not help with repairs, merely paid a reasonable rent. What exactly, in your view, is the defining line between having ownership stake or not? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just curious for your perspective.
I really don't have a defining line. It's very grey for me. I wouldn't expect someone to take out a HELOC to pay out equity for their girlfriend that moved into a house, that he already owned, for six months. But on the other extreme, a couple that has been living together for five years feels like she should get something. Especially if she helped with the down payment like my GF did.
Where the line between these two extremes is? I don't really have a catch all answer. It'd have to be case by case.
Because when they break up she has nothing and he has her money in the form of equity. Splitting consumption bills is obviously good, but splitting a mortgage where one party gets it all is far less cut and dry.
The person renting (man or woman, if the situation was reversed on gender) has no responsibility for maintenance or liability to the house. If the renter is paying rent, they should also have no responsibility to pay for any house maintenance. Roof needs replacing? Homeowner pays, renter pays nothing. Fridge goes out? Homeowner pays, renter pays nothing. Mail carrier slips on ice and sues? Homeowner need to defend themselves, renter pays nothing. If the renter wants to break up and move to Alaska, renter can do exactly that with 30 days or less notice. Homeowner would need to go through all the trouble of evicting and selling the property to do the same.
She's not renting though as there's no rental agreement. She's just throwing money into the equity. This is a relationship, not a landlord tenant arrangement.
It doesn't matter if there isn't a written lease. Its still very much a rental arrangement. No law enforcement will hold her liable for being a homeowner. No law will compel her to pay for a new roof for his house, should it need it. In fact, if she's been there more than 30 days she'll likely have many legal protections a renter has, such as protection from being thrown out without formal eviction.
It doesn’t matter if there isn’t a written lease. Its still very much a rental arrangement.
That's sorta the issue. You shouldn't treat your SO as a tenant.
I would hope you treat your SO as an equal partner, but that also means healthy boundaries equal to where the relationship is at the time. If one doesn't pay rent, but pays toward the mortgage, and you break up instead of getting married, do you expect the home owner partner to cut the other partner a check to cash them out of their "equity"? How is that fair to the homeowner?
Then please complete your argument. One person is contributing money into the equity of the house without ownership, and I believe you're arguing that is unfair, because the homeowner its benefiting.
What actions are you proposing is fair to the non-homeowner that doesn't make it unfair to the homeowner?
My argument is complete. Feel free to read the other ten replies where I address the same comment
My gf pays half the mortgage. She lives here. She uses everything. She helps with bills. This is a lot less expensive than if she were paying rent elsewhere.
She also didn't contribute to: new fridge, new kitchen floor (damage from old fridge), new bathroom ceiling (mold damage), new driveway, new garage, tree removal and trimming, new door (that broke when she failed to latch it in high wind), and all other house stuff.
asking half the mortgage when the burden of all the rest is on you is not asking a lot.
Sounds more like a landlord tenant relationship then. Maybe if it's a girl you met six months ago then sure, but if your girlfriend helps with your mortgage for a few years and ends up with zero equity then you scumbagged her.
We specifically split the interest portion of my mortgage. It changes every payment obviously, so we just rounded it and adjusted it every year or so.
5 years later we’re getting married, so it’s all moot.
Oh that's totally different. Interest splitting is fine imo because that's basically just bank rent
I mean, if they're not married and he charged her rent, how's that much different than having a roommate? Why would she be entitled to ownership of the property just because she paid for a place to live, barring marriage or common law? There's something to be said about being up front about your financial situation sure, but how she could expect equity out of the arrangement is a little asinine, unless she helped pay for repairs and upkeep (aside from basic cleaning/chores).
It's obviously all a made up scenario, but imo time is a significant factor here. If she lives there for three years then it's likely that she's helped with repairs etc, so imo should be entitled to equity in some respect.
Seems a bit shit to treat a partner like a roommate.
What’s the expectation here? That you get to live for free because you’re banging a guy who owns a house? Alrighty.
My husband literally lives for free because 90% of our income comes from me. His money basically is just our food. So yeah, its unethical to charge your partner rent. Its really weird to view relationships as a business deal where you both give exactly 50 percent. That sounds like roommates who have sex.
Your husband.
That's commitment and with it comes a lot of decision, one of them whether to keep money separate, pool together or just have one account altogether.
But unless that commitment is made, expecting ither half to be responsible and pay for their shit - unless agreed otherwise beforehand - is to be expexted.
Totally. What makes sense is to have a discussion about it and come to an agreement. Whatever arrangement that feels fair for both of you. You two have an arrangement that works for both of you and you’re both OK with it.
On the other hand just because you two are together doesn’t mean he’s automatically entitled to you paying 90%. That just happens to be something you both landed on and you’re clearly OK with it. Not everyone will be and it’s unfair to expect them to be ok with it.
I don’t think it’s unethical for your partner to chip in. Lying about it on the other hand is.
There is still taxes and maybe other stuff that the owner pays and the renter doesn't that he would have to cover but yeah I get your point.
All of Britain and maybe other european countries. Apartment or Condo here in North America. Brits have a tendancy to simplify their descriptions. Like it is a "Flat" because the layout living space is typically single floor with no stairs. Or they will do the Hoovering of the flat. Hoover once being the go to brand of vaccum cleaner.
