I once described basically the reverse case here: My partner wants to buy property, we want to live in it together, but he wants the property to be 100% in his name (e.g. so that in case of emergency he does NOT HAVE to sell because he has to pay me out).
There was back and forth about it, and I had the same thought as you: I would benefit if I only paid him the incidental costs. But looked at the other way around, the repayment rate can be seen as a direct investment in his retirement provision. And bluntly put: why should I build HIS wealth while I myself have NOTHING if it should fall apart after all?
Therefore, I have come around to this view: separating the consideration of investment (repayment rate) and housing costs (incidental costs, interest, depreciation). And I am willing to count half of that. And through what you call "rent-free living," I can do what he does as well: build wealth. (Whether through another property, ETFs, or whatever remains up to me).
Yes, I would also have to pay rent elsewhere, just as he would then have to bear 100% of the costs alone. So you both benefit from each other mutually.
Hello , I have read it. Your situation was/is really different and your general perspective on things is more understandable to me; therefore, it is hard to compare.
What would have bothered me about it is that your partner generally wants nothing joint, but only in his name. I would have resisted because apparently he wants to be the “boss” there in the worst case scenario, and that is a very bad starting point.
In the present case, however, he is not building more wealth by her moving in. Everything stays the same for him; only she has been saving her rent for years, and when moving in it was not about buying, and still no rent was paid. In principle, this is not bad at all and there are a thousand possible arrangements, but one should, as you also did, take their arising feelings seriously and not let themselves be told they are greedy or that they shouldn’t think that because otherwise they don’t love. One should clarify it openly and competently (have it clarified) so it does not come back as a boomerang at some point.
In his situation, I could also understand if she does not want to move into the house planned/built by him (or another (person?)) and they decide to start anew with building/buying so that the 50:50 feeling can be established. Then the house has to go (rent/sale), and they start the new one together. That would be what I would do!