Miete, mein Freund will 66% 33% aufteilung?
Hallo, mein Freund und ich überlegen zusammen zu ziehen. Er wohnt aktuell in einer 2 Zimmer Wohnung und Ich auch. Ich habe noch einen 4 Jahre alten Sohn der nicht von ihm ist. Allerdings meinte er zu mir, wenn wir zusammen ziehen dann soll ich auch ¾ also knapp 66% der Miete bezahlen weil ich ja quasi zu zweit bin mit meinem Sohn und wir wegen ihm ja auch ein Zimmer mehr brauchen (eine 3 Zimmer Wohnung) ich war erstmal etwas baff weil ich eher von 50/50 ausgegangen bin. Ist meine Vorstellung da weit entfernt von der Realität oder was denkt ihr?
PS. Er hat übrigens auch einen Sohn (8J) der jedes zweite Wochenende bei ihm ist.
(2 votes)
Loading...
I can tell you from our own experience we have divided it so that I paid the rent at the time and they have the running costs…she has brought 2 children into the relationship
For the first time, 3⁄4 are not nearly 66%, but exactly rich 75%!
So even more so when you sign it here.
The case is therefore clear to me: either 50/50, or still separate apartments. It’s your ideas that are far from reality, not yours!
With your son, I think it’s an excuse to save money!
Sounds good, but it doesn’t seem so good. If you’re a couple, you should start 50/50. This is when you take a partner with a child. I don’t think it’s possible to figure it out all over and beat the mother. Otherwise it would have to be done with bread, I only pay 1/3 of bread, because you two are surely swallowed 2/3 etc. This will make the other partner so or so angry.
If that’s a room that’s a third more, you could say it’s a computer.
But I’d rather ask what this means for your relationship, so he has a relationship with you, is pulling with you, but your child is looking at your business alone?
Then why are you pulling together? What role does he want to take for your son?
How is this going on when buying food? Is that what you’re looking for?
Based on the fact that there are no financial problems in the game, I already wonder how he imagines a future.
I think he could have thought it from the beginning.
I’d think twice about moving with him. Looks like he’s very distant to your son.
I wouldn’t even come together with that and separate myself. Don’t worry.
Otherwise, I’d split everything up. He must wash his own laundry, cook himself, ironing, cleaning etc.
Wasn pickles. Your son is part of the family.
There was a question like this before.
The best way to split up the refrigerator and draw land limits.
I wouldn’t want to go with him.
Independently of the spatial division deserves Your friend probably more than you, and still expects you to throw the entire household.
If you pull together, a division 50:50 would be the absolute pain limit. Rather, I would divide the costs in relation to income.
If a man is so greedy in advance, you do not have much to expect in this relationship.
Giwalato
we do not know about the respective income ratios. Perhaps the questioner himself does not know what the partner deserves. These things should first be discussed. For example, it would not have any sense that he offers 50% if he could not afford it. As a percentage: with approximately the same merit of both, I would still find 66% acceptable to the questioner, but 75% too much only because of the child.
Then it was with him. 66% are not 3⁄4 but 2/3.
Either 50/50 or you don’t pull together.
You’ll get your child’s child’s money, and I’m sure you’ll get some help. One part of it is estimated for rent and ancillary costs is just right.
I would suggest him 40 for him and 60 for you.
So I know that we men often think mathematically/logically/computerly, but there’s a hook.
In no household, KIND living in the household pays a rent share. You can think of it during training when it brings money home.
Therefore, it is a mistake to believe that you would have to pay for the rent of your child.
As long as he can follow this argument, I would consider it a quick schnapps. If he’s serious, you should talk seriously.
Well, it’s not a mistake, because the mother gets the child’s money to pay something like that.
One can find this out of relationship view, but it is now not a mistake to say that the additional living space is not its financial matter because it does not want it or needs it.
In fact, the child’s money is not intended for rent, but for the current costs, i.e. food, clothing, kita or school supplies.
It is not really a mistake of thinking if he thinks he must pay more for 1 room and the additional costs if he does not use it.
But I don’t need to get together when I’m set. In this context, it is already a mistake of thinking, because it is still 2 “separated” considerations, just on a rather than 2 living rooms.
If he wants it that way, he should stay in his part of the apartment, I’m moving a line and if he wants to go into the part of the apartment I’m paying, he’s got bad luck. It’s ridiculous.
In addition, if you want to reckon the DIG, you have to pay the equal share of the 3. Clamping the room at the main rental by square meters and DAS then takes over the mom.
I’m totally in your opinion. The friend knew this from the beginning and it seems to me that he wouldn’t accept the child.
But it is not a mistake of thinking.
He then seems to add one third per person living there permanently, which is also suitable for three people.
In any case, computer.
You can do that.
How would you handle it if his son lived with you permanently, and your son only comes to visit 2 WE in the Moat?
It would be fair to REin.
However, he should also pay you the days when his son is there. (yes it is only visit and therefore does not fall below the additional costs and so). But if you’re so petty, I’d be.
yes, because of your son you build a room more (or it would be sensible).
Anyway, I don’t think that’s a base, and I’d think that’s better than that. (Maybe he wants to cook for himself, wash the laundry etc.?)
He seems to have a problem with your child, otherwise he would never have taken that with your son as an argument.
If you can see how he is, you can see how you are. Right is alone, and both sides agree.
I and my then-girlfriend (assistant wife) have always solved it in such a way that we divide common costs (food, rent, electricity, gas, costs for children, insurance etc.) according to our income conditions. Certainly not up to the last euro, but in the rough.
If one of us brings 60% of the income to the house and the other 40%, one of them pays 60% of the Community costs and the other 40%. Works well for us.
Again others simply throw all income into a pot and pay everything and everyone gets such a kind of pocket money for themselves. It’s okay.
But I find it strange to you that he does not want to carry your child. From my point of view, the children of the partner belong to one as the parnter itself. Talk about it and then find something.
That sounds like he wouldn’t really accept your son. You should be a family, not two separate families who happen to live together.
In principle, the cost allocation should be based on a relationship with income and not on the area used.
Does he then pay more proportionately for the food, since an adult man usually takes more food than a woman and a 4 year old child?
Does he also do 1/3 of the apartment and cooks 1/3 of the meals?
If you really respond to this, I recommend that you, as the principal renter, complete the rental contract only on your name and impose a sub-rental contract. If it doesn’t fit anymore, you can throw it out.
“In principle, the cost allocation should be based on a relationship with income and not on the area used.”
No, it’s what you want to do. There is no right or wrong and no principle in this. The calculation by area used is not invalider than by income.
Of course, you should look like that. However, there should also be a sensible common denominator, which I think this is coming in. But everyone in his values and morals can see that as he or she wants. For me, income would be a principle of cost allocation.
But a simple solution would then be the surface approach as proposed by the partner. -> She officially sleeps with her child in a room and he alone in the other. The area 50/50 is then divided.
I’d rather determine the distribution of income.
So my honest personal opinion is: I find that impossible. A child does not have income, but is a financial additional burden. If you want to move with your partner, you want to support it and build and lead a life together. What you’re saying sounds like a community but not a relationship or family. If that’s what I’d say, we’ll leave it.
This has to be done every couple of times, but I can understand that: he doesn’t need this 3rd room, so why should he pay for this 3rd room? The son of a visit is also left with him in the 2 room apartment.
Both options have their right of existence, but I would also be getting doubled if I should pay more for extra living space with which I actually have nix to do and which I do not need.
In the case of children, you usually get more emotional, but imagine he wants to move into a 3 room apartment with you because he wants to set up a hobby room: would you want to co-finance it with him? If my partner would at least expect that, I would personally be unfair.
33:66 I find something difficult because it is a bit too easy to imagine (the child does not use the kitchen, for example, and the other rooms are not as strong as the two adults. But so…60:40 or something I could imagine)
Comparing a kid with a hobby, I think I’m a little bit off now. And the child did not fall from heaven, but was already there at the beginning of the relationship.
“He doesn’t need this third room, so why should he pay for this third room?”
According to the logic, parents do not need to pay for a children’s room at all, the idols can also sleep on the pull-out couch in the living room.
The child doesn’t use the kitchen? Let’s do a stopwatch record now, how long it takes when it blows?
This is a lot more basic: does the guy get involved or not? If so, that means patchwork family. And family is not divided.
This discussion is a symptom discussion in my eyes.
You forget that the partner also has to pay aliments and she gets aliments for her child and both are not married.
The comparison with the hobby room does not at all stop. It is about who, with his own budget, finances what living space.
It should not be mixed with unrealistic emotions.
The largest part of the apartment rental makes kitchen and bathroom. This cost can be expected to be 50/50. The about 10m2 for children’s room or hobby room can be attributed to the one who uses these rooms completely.
That’s just realistically fair.
However, both partners save so or so rent because they only have to finance 1x kitchen and bathroom.
What is a symptom discussion? 🙂
Otherwise, we don’t know if the friend wants to go with the lady at all, it doesn’t even seem like that to me.
For me as a woman with (foreign) child, it would be a matter of course financial in the living room and also in the food, etc. Pay MORE and not bring my partner in there. For me, my partner should stay my partner and not become a substitute father. I do not think that is correct now than the opposite, but as I said: Both options have their right of existence.
Then he must not be with a woman with a child. He is now the steppapapa and co-responsible. If he doesn’t want to be, let him go.
Gnauso, by the way, I see this with a hobby room. I’m getting to know someone with his hobby and I know what to do when we move together and then I’ll buy it. Ready. It’s called a relationship and it only works that way.
Why should he be the steppapa? Why is that the expectation? Why would MUSS be the expectation? The two aren’t even married, there can be no talk of step–
For rent, you are not talking about 5 €, which the purchase costs. Depending on the region we speak of 500 € more only for the one room. Would my partner say we’re moving now for my wishes and you pay the 250 € more then I’d show him the bird. (and my husband is different)
To claim a relationship would only work as you sign it is simply wrong. It depends on how it works for the couple. And that can be like that or something. Just because you don’t like my personal opinion, she’s not invalider than yours.
The two have to find a common way, and if they don’t find it, the relationship doesn’t work.
“Would my partner say we move now for my wishes and you pay the 250 € more then I would show him the bird. (and my husband otherwise)”
Now you’re setting the FS a selfish line that’s nowhere to read out: “My friend and I’m thinking about moving together.”
The good is: they are still in the consideration phase. 😀
Today no marriage has to be to be steppapa. And he has the choice, he doesn’t have to take a wife with a child if he hates the obligations associated with it. Then he shouldn’t take, but go.
And apparently the woman doesn’t like it here either. So…
And yet there is correct and wrong. In a relationship you share everything, not only bed, but also responsibility and burdens. Otherwise, they can establish a residential community. Then you can split everything in a compass.
Of course, it’s just real crap for the child if the new partner is already clinging out. No family life can arise. I wouldn’t go with someone who thinks that way, and I’d be looking for the breadth.
Of course there is discussion, you see here with me:) You can do what you want to do for yourself. But I’m afraid you’ll have to allow counter-balances.
I think there is no discussion. I’ll take my partner “purchased, as seen.” Whether with pet, with child, with wheelchair, with hobby. Or I’ll separate. In the same way, my partner has to bear my things, so that’s last and for me is someone who enters a relationship with a woman who already has a child, the steppapa and he now has duties. If he does not want to fulfil these duties, he is free to go.
In the same way, however, he also has the right to raise questions or expenditure which the child and the common budget should address.
Yeah, that’s a bit different: if you’re collaborating with a partner who already has a child, that’s a commitment and a take of responsibility. Whether you want to call this “replacement father” right now is there.
But that is exactly what I mean: there are two options, but they differ fundamentally in how to look at this combination. And I think that this should be resolved between the two prior to the question of the rental division. :
This is a joke from his side and not acceptable.
Either 50/50 or everyone stays alone. What’s that? And later, he wants to split up and split up everything at the weekly purchase?
From my point of view, you shouldn’t let that happen.
I’d advise you to think a little further. He also paid a child for aliment. The questioner gets aliments for her child.
Why the new partner is to finance the housing costs for the child of his partner is not logical at all. Especially since the two are not married.
The expensive at an apartment are kitchen and bathroom. The approximately 10m2 that make up the child’s room permanently may be counted to the child’s own. This is only realistic and fair.
If the 2 decides for a 4 room apartment and each child has its own room then 50/50 is fair.
This solution will be pushed up or so with the age of the partner’s child.
The combination of the couple saves both costs because the costly share of an apartment rental bathroom and kitchen is only 1x.
At first glance, it seems a bit tricky. But maybe he doesn’t have the means to put more rent on his side. Check your financial circumstances before you come together! Finances are quickly a reason for disputes in everyday life. If there are significant differences better not to pull together.
So even more German is not going 😂
50/50 of course everything else is bullshit sagomoool 😅
On the one hand, 3/4 75%, and on the other, I’d think about moving together.
I’d be looking for a new friend. That’s more than three.
I didn’t think I was reading right. Just unbelievable what women can do.
3/4 would be exactly 75%.
Otherwise you have to discuss how you divide the rent.
I see Jo too. There is no right or wrong, there is only one “fits for us, or just doesn’t fit and we leave it”
Just shocking to read this as a woman. I’d never be together with a man like that and stop. Ridiculous man. Certainly German.
” Certainly German.”
And that’s not less shocking. And then cry about racism
As a woman, I find it shocking or alienating, in 2024 in Germany, that the questioner simply assumes that the new partner with whom she is not even married should finance the living room/children’s room for her child, but forgets that he himself must also pay aliment for his child. But she gets aliment from her child’s father.
The 50/50 division would be fair when the couple has a 4 room apartment and each of the children gets their own room.
How racist are you, please? Asocial!
Then I’d rather pay the foreign ex-girlfriend the driver’s license and let him be fooled.
but good. He wasn’t a German.
I can’t understand that you’re out of 50/50.
Actually, you need a room for your child.
You will get aliment for your child, which is of course also calculated for rent and maintenance for your child.
Your friend, in turn, pays aliments for his child.
It’s clear that you don’t have to settle everything exactly against each other.
Nevertheless, you can realistically calculate the permanently occupied room by your son also in your accounting. You and your child’s father are responsible for the maintenance of your child.
As your friend and mother of his child are responsible for the maintenance of their child.
Your friend must also fund his child to me.
If you both move into an apartment together, the renting costs for both of you are reduced.
I think you both don’t see the cost allocation realistic.
The largest part of the apartment rental makes kitchen and bathroom, not the rooms. Kitchen bathroom you only need 1x
A children’s room usually has about 10m2 and is therefore a small part of the rent.
It goes without saying that you pay this room from your budget. Just like you do clothes etc. of course also finance for your child.
What your children cost is a mixed bill.
Sit together and share the costs fairly and realistically.
However, it can certainly not be that your friend, who himself also pays alimentes for his child, must finance the housing costs for your child with the combination.
50/50 If your child, like his child, gets a separate room in the common new apartment.
What is basically coming up sooner or later.
His child will not be able to sleep on the sofa in the long term if it is on the father weekends and holidays.
Well, in principle, you get child money for it..
3/4 are not 66% by the way.