It is said that money cannot buy happiness – but it can certainly cause much angst, especially when it mixes with love. Financial stress and money is repeatedly cited as one of the top reasons for relationship issues in the UK. Aviva found last year that 26 per cent of couples argue about money at least once a week and around five per cent say they argue about finances every day, with the majority disagreeing about bills. So, how should partner’s split the bills? The i Paper’s columnists Simon Kelner and Deborah Frances White plus money coach Fanny Snaith offer their perspectives.

It is said that money cannot buy happiness – but it can certainly cause much angst, especially when it mixes with love.

Financial stress and money is repeatedly cited as one of the top reasons for relationship issues in the UK. Aviva found last year that 26 per cent of couples argue about money at least once a week and around five per cent say they argue about finances every day, with the majority disagreeing about bills.

So, how should partner’s split the bills? The i Paper’s columnists Simon Kelner and Deborah Frances White plus money coach Fanny Snaith offer their perspectives.

The precise derivation of the phrase “Going Dutch” – to share a bill equally – is not known, but there are theories that it originated in the 17th century, when the English hated the Dutch. It has a derogatory connotation, and comes from a time when the Dutch had an international reputation for stinginess.

The Dutch themselves believed that the sharing of a bill is a sign of fairness rather than meanness, and that frugality was a virtue. Nevertheless, it’s worth remembering, next time you suggest going 50-50 on a restaurant or household expense, that “Going Dutch” is, traditionally, not regarded as polite, and certainly not generous.

I have always hated that moment when, after a meal out with friends, the bill arrives and no one picks it up. What happens next? There’s a vaguely embarrassed discussion about splitting the bill. But one of the party is a non-drinker. And another one is on weight-loss drugs and hardly ate anything. And someone else had the oysters and the Wagyu steak and an armagnac to finish. And so on.

It doesn’t matter how ostensibly fair the division may appear, at least one person will feel stitched up like a lightly smoked herring. So if my vast age and long experience has taught me one thing, it is this: pick up the bill immediately yourself.

This may seem like a radical answer to a ticklish problem, but it has two advantages: it precludes any embarrassing discussion about who had consumed what, and it also burnishes your reputation for generosity. Everyone goes home happy.

Of course it’s not quite as simple as that. First, you have to be able to afford it, and also you need to train yourself not to feel resentful that you’ve paid for someone else. And if the beneficiaries of your munificence are nonplussed by your actions – feeling disempowered, or indebted or awkward – that’s their problem, not yours. Just think that the act of generosity is a gift to yourself as much as it is to others. It’s not charity: it makes you feel good.

This, I believe, is the principle with which you should also approach the division of household bills with your live-in partner. It is less about the wallet, more about the heart. Be generous. Don’t feel put out. And certainly don’t keep score. Shoulder as much of the financial burden as you can tolerate, because there is nothing that kills romance as conclusively as a discussion about the reminder to pay your council tax.

If you are the major earner, it makes logical sense that you should pay the lion’s share of the bills, and if, in these circumstances, your partner feels supported and respected, and not dependent or oppressed, then this is undoubtedly a fitting and equitable arrangement for you. My underlying point is that financial symmetry is extremely difficult to achieve, and, no matter what the prevailing gender politics, a partnership can be rent asunder in the effort to find it.

We all know that a disagreement about money is often not about money. It can be about control, security, independence and indeed worth. These questions relate to the dynamics of your relationship beyond who pays for the windows to be cleaned, and it is clearly not healthy that one person should feel like a provider and the other like a dependent.

But consider the opposite scenario: “No, I’m not paying for that,” because it might undermine your sense of independence, or damage your self-esteem. Is that a loving gesture? No, the key issue is not who pays the bills, but whether you operate as a true partnership. Running parallel financial lives does not suggest the building of a life together.

Paying the bills because you earn more is not inherently right or wrong, and, whether in a domestic or social setting, fairness is, anyway, in the eye of the beholder. Just try not to say: “Now, who had the lobster….”

The UK’s plan for civilians in a war is terrifying – you’re on your own

America is realising that Trump is failing – just look at the polls

Trump is causing something worse than outrage: boredom

Trump has turned the US into a laughing stock

© iNews