Cohabiting before marriage is becoming more common, with the number of unmarried partners living together in the US nearly tripling from 1996 to 2017.
That was before potential isolation during a pandemic followed by wild inflation and skyrocketing rent made it even more practical to move in with a partner prior to saying “I do.”
The shift raises a question: How should unmarried, cohabitating couples navigate finances that are shared but not exactly joint?
Illustration: Constance Chou
The childhood truism that the fairest way to split anything is 50-50 simply does not hold when it comes to balancing a household budget. One partner might drastically outearn the other, or have significantly less debt or receive family money. One partner could have a taste for luxury in a way the other does not. One partner might need financial support because she is going back to school or has experienced job loss.
There are so many shades of gray with what is fair and equitable in a romantic relationship, especially when it comes to money. The one certainty is that it is time for those who consider a 50/50 split as the best way to handle finances to instead infuse the conversation with nuance to determine what feels best for the ecosystem of the relationship.
Just as in marriage, the two main considerations should be financial goals and lifestyle. Are the two of you compatible when it comes to the type of life you want to live and how you want to achieve your goals? It can be particularly trying when one partner makes substantially more and expects the other to keep up.
Should you want to live in a significantly more expensive apartment or house, then the rent needs to be prorated in a way that acknowledges your partner’s income and individual financial goals. It never hurts to draft a cohabitation agreement so that you can go back to a written document that outlines what you have both agreed to.
The next step is to discuss how you want to handle your finances as a couple. Joint is often seen as the default in marriage, even though it should not be — it is rarely even the right move for unmarried couples.
This is not because the relationship is less serious without a marriage license, but simply that there are parameters dictating how marital assets are divided in a divorce.
Things are not quite so cut-and-dry in a breakup, especially with a joint account. In the case of an acrimonious split, an ex could drain a joint account and the recourse would be somewhat minimal.
Sure, you can go to small claims or civil court, but that could take a lot of time and money. For cohabitating couples, joint accounts should only be for the bare minimum needed on shared expenses such as rent and utilities.
Joint credit cards should be avoided as well because that is essentially cosigning on a loan and could affect your bank account and credit score. An authorized user is easier to remove from your credit card, but a joint credit card typically needs to be fully paid off to remove a card owner. It might sound untrusting, but it is usually in your best interest to keep most of your financial assets separate.
Speaking of financial assets, what happens if you plan to move into your partner’s home, which she owns?
Creating a dynamic in which one partner is both lover and landlord is setting you up for a potentially disastrous power imbalance. It is completely unfair for the non-owning partner to pay rent, especially market-rate rent, without the protection of a lease agreement. You are helping someone else pay off a mortgage, and you are vulnerable to an eviction should the relationship go south.
This is a situation in which nuance and discussions of what feels fair to both of you is critical. Splitting the mortgage costs down the middle when one person is building equity and the other has no legal claim to the property seems unjust, but one person paying the full cost when utility costs and wear-and-tear are likely to increase with another inhabitant is not exactly fair, either.
You could prorate the mortgage costs so the partner moving in is paying a modest amount that feels reasonable. Non-owners could cover a portion of utilities and other shared expenses such as groceries. Non-owners should never be responsible for the cost of home repairs, such as a new roof or HVAC system, unless they directly caused damage that resulted in the necessary repairs.
The other uncomfortable calculation for an unmarried couple is to determine just how much to invest in a partner. No, I do not mean emotionally. Financially, how much are you willing to invest when you are unmarried?
Of course, in marriage, there is still no real guarantee of a payoff in the purest financial sense. How many horror stories are there of wives who helped support husbands through medical school or business school, only to be left just as the men are on the precipice of financially leveling up?
Alimony could help soothe the pain somewhat, but it is an unfair sacrifice for the emotional, and potentially financial, devastation.
Unmarried partners must consider the cost-benefit analysis of how much they are willing to help support each other financially. Will one partner be resentful about carrying the bulk of housing costs while the other goes back to school? How about paying most living expenses so the other can pay off debts faster?
Much like loaning money to a loved one, this sort of support should only be provided if it can truly be framed as a gift — meaning you feel emotionally and financially comfortable with never being repaid.
Financially supporting a partner has the potential to pay off massively for both and increase an emotional bond — but there does need to be a frank conversation about how both feel and what feels equitable.
People do not like to frame romantic relationships through a practical business lens, but partnerships do have such elements. The person with whom you end up is one of the most important financial decisions you will make in your life.
Of course, life is about more than just money, but it’s also important to set yourself up to minimize resentment and regret.
Erin Lowry is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering personal finance.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is often accused of getting close to, and even conspiring with, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). There are certainly good reasons behind these accusations, yet the confounding truth is that it makes neither historical nor logical sense for it to do so. Whether one believes that the Chinese civil war fought between the KMT and CCP in the previous century has ended or has yet to be resolved, the KMT’s retreat to Taiwan in 1949 resulted in the CCP governing China and the KMT taking root in Taiwan. For years, the KMT refused to even
RSS