Paying "rent" to the partner... how?

I keep noticing how simple life can be when both just close their accounts and throw all their money onto one big pile, the joint account. Both incomes go into it, the Riester too and I advise against it, and the credit cards end up there as well... and when she buys shoes, I keep my legs still because I’ve already set my eye on a new STIHL...

We have so many friends, also with a shared house and kids, who constantly have to transfer €18.70 for the Aldi shopping that I paid for. And when the missus is on parental leave, the big calculation starts about what is fair and what is social...

And everyone has €75 per month pocket money, which we usually save and buy gifts with.

We were a couple back then and we approach this as a couple.

One can also see it this way, that fundamentally, whether renting or owning, the error in thinking is already made. There are lifestyle models where only renting fits. This should be considered and agreed upon together. If necessary, discussed more often. The partner with money must also respect the anti-attitude of the partner without money. If the ownership model doesn’t suit you (because you simply have a problem with it), you should consider whether he might invest in a property that is rented out to others. Then you still pull together, namely as tenants and not in “his” house.

We have already discussed this topic here in the forum several times. Often, arguments are presented in black and white. It is similar in our case. My wife is not listed in the land register. But we are married and she is contractually (notarially) secured. She does not get the house in case of separation but in case of death. If no children are involved, this is relatively simple. In some situations, an account etc. simply isn’t possible... My wife also contributes (to a small extent) to the additional/living costs. However, this is not calculated as a percentage. If you want to be completely precise, you would have to cover half of all additional costs. Whatever remains from your income you can then put into retirement savings or other things. Nevertheless, you do not acquire any ownership. The question is whether you would even want to stay in the property in case of separation... There is no “wash me but don’t get me wet” [idiom]. Your partner wants/can handle everything alone. You benefit from that (living there). Why should you receive a share of the ownership? Especially in case of separation. Without marriage, the tax-free gifts would be quite limited anyway. You yourself have said that you could not afford it on your own. It is (in my opinion) correct that partners in a relationship benefit from each other (also financially). Insisting on this after separation is an attempt at financial enrichment. You should have a clarifying conversation about how and whether you want to secure yourselves. Do you have mutual powers of attorney, care directives, a will...? Or is it just about money and property. One should consider this as a whole.

I don't know how many times I have said now that I do NOT want to acquire ownership of his house... my goodness
I do NOT want to live there permanently, I do NOT want to throw him out, and I do NOT want to profit from him.

In the case of a marriage with the marital property regime of community of accrued gains, it is also irrelevant. In the event of a separation, the owner initially has the upper hand, but the assets acquired during the marriage must be divided. That means even without an entry in the land register, one acquires 50% of the assets gained during the marriage.

I once researched this and found that only the increase in value of the property (if any) falls into the accrued gains, but not the repayment of the loan. It's been a while – maybe someone knows more precisely.

The original poster never wrote anywhere that she wants to "enrich" herself from the house in case of separation, but only that 1) she does not want to be on the street overnight (understandable) and 2) her share of the rent should be a fair amount. So not for free, but also not paying off the partner’s house.

Agree on what kind of apartment you would rent, see what the rent would be, agree on how you would split this rent payment given the financial situation of the two partners – and then you pay that amount. That is certainly less than the rent for a single-family house. But it is the amount you would have spent anyway.

With significant differences in income, the model is critical, as the claims to the house usually orient themselves to the higher earner.

That is a disadvantage of a participation model. We know that from a condominium community in a multi-apartment building. At some point, you are no longer in control of your expenses. We sold the apartment.

I keep noticing how simple life can be when both just close their accounts and throw all their money onto one big pile, the joint account.

For many, the model apparently works well. When money gets tight, different spending disciplines can lead to tensions.

There is no "wash me but don’t get me wet."

That's how it is. When you live together, you enter into a partnership. That doesn’t work casually. The delusion of wanting to prepare for all eventualities leads to missing the moments you live in too often because of preparations and thoughts.

: I find the way you think about your participation on your own very good. Of course, I would discuss that with my partner – maybe there is an expectation there – and overall take some “head” out of it.