Loan agreement for only one person: advantages / disadvantages

Alright, then we tried to minimize possible points of conflict.

Rationally viewed, yes, full agreement. Feelings are later irrational.

But that would then be the problem that arises here, even if it drifts off here and there. Imagine someone moves in with you.... because it's simply easier, you continue paying the mortgage and even increase the repayment because your girlfriend covers the household costs from her salary. Let's assume, roughly and by percentage, you both pay about the same for your shared life (rent/repayment, food/drinks/household), also in relation to your income, only that you invest in the house, she feeds and cleans for you daily. Simplified now: after 10 years you separate. She moves out. You come out of this time well-nourished with about 10 kilos more and have even been able to pay off your house because you didn’t have to spend a penny on beer and bread. She leaves empty-handed and with nothing she saved. She put her money into daily living. In return, she had rent-free living. If she hadn’t met you and instead invested in a small condo herself instead of rent, she would have saved for retirement too. That’s why it would be an unfair naive calculation. This example isn’t even connected to children or marriage; it’s just a very simple scenario, as it’s often lived.

but she did sleep there for free! don’t you understand that? ) no, as I said, everyone should do as they think. For me, a prenuptial agreement remains more of a minus than a declaration of love. If you love each other, you go through thick and thin and share as well. A prenuptial agreement only makes sense to me if, for example, an entrepreneur separates private law from business law and protects his family.

I understand your example and partly agree with you. But if you were to split the daily living costs 50/50, then for example the woman could somehow put aside the costs she would actually pay monthly in life, like rent or, for example, a payment for a shared house.

Just roughly now. Both earn €2000 net.
The house repayment would be €1000 net and each would pay €500 for the repayment if everyone has their own account.
The rest for each is €1500 net.
If only the man pays now, the woman would have €500 more, so still €2000, and the man would have only €1000 left. So the woman could put aside €500 or really, for example, buy a condominium. The remaining costs, total sum X, would then either be shared or, from my point of view, the rest of the money could just be pooled together, whatever. Then you would still have €2500 for additional costs etc., and both partners would provide for the future. If both earn the same, you could even say the man comes off slightly better, but if the man now, for example, earns €3000 and the woman €2000 and the man then pays the house installment of €1000, then this would roughly be okay in terms of income, or do I have a thinking error here?

Whereas if she had rented, she would not have made any provisions herself either. This scenario is not inherently unfair, but depends on the circumstances. Who saves more by living together (it should be cheaper than living alone, synergy effects), who can possibly not actually afford the standard of living they maintain from their income, and how both then deal with it, how much the arrangement is designed to be long-term, etc. I also know cases where she moved into his house, which was right next to his parents' house. She didn’t want to own the house at all, she didn’t particularly like it as it was, and then also living with the parents-in-law. You simply have to consider that she can also build wealth during the time together, which does not necessarily have to be real estate.

@ HilfeHilfe.

I completely agree with you that when you love each other, you go through thick and thin, and still it can simply happen that love fades away, or have you never experienced that. Are you still with your very first partner? It can really happen that one partner cheats on the other, supposedly even despite love. It is a proven fact that something can always happen that causes love to fade.

I understand your example and partly agree with you. But if you were to split the daily living costs 50/50, then for example the woman could somehow save the costs that she would actually pay monthly in life for rent or, say, for a mortgage for a shared house.

Just roughly now. Both earn €2000 net.
The house repayment would be €1000 net and each would contribute €500 for the repayment if each has their own account.
The rest for each is €1500 net.
If now only the man pays, the woman would still have €500 more, so still €2000, the man only €1000. The woman could then save €500 or really buy, for example, a condominium. The remaining costs, sum X, would then either be split or, say, the rest of the money would just be pooled together, whatever. Then there would still be €2500 for incidental costs, etc., and both partners would provide for the future. If both earn the same, you could even say that the man is somewhat better off, but if now the man earns €3000 and the woman €2000 and the man pays the mortgage payment of €1000, that would roughly balance out income-wise, or am I missing something here?

Yes, it would work, but do you really do it that way^^ Do you really split everything 50%? Going out to eat, cinema, vacation, groceries, incidental costs?

How is it planned with the children? First draw on child benefit and then split the costs? What about balancing part-time work or do you demand that she goes back to full-time work?

It is in no way about children. At the moment, we do it so that I pay EVERYTHING, including the additional costs alone. She pays completely for the food except for my lunch at work. The suggestion came from her; I actually didn't care. I would have also gladly thrown 200€ into the food fund. We haven't even been together for 10 years yet. I pay for cinema and whatever else there is; I somehow feel it is my duty since I also earn significantly more. So she pays 200€ and then has 1600€ left for herself. She can live quite well on that. If there were a child, of course, I wouldn't expect her to work full-time; otherwise, in my opinion, you shouldn't have a child if both work full-time anyway, but after about 24 months, I would expect part-time, no matter what percentage. I would also reduce myself to 80% if it would make a difference. As a civil servant, this is relatively easy; I don't even know how much money gets lost there. So with a child, a fair solution for both sides would definitely be found; I am sure of that.