How to split finances fairly if you make more than your partner
Dual-income couples are now the norm, but incomes are rarely split 50/50. Whether due to career choices, child-care duties, or differences in gender, education and age, income gaps between partners are common.
Despite this, unequal income between partners can create financial tension if the issue isn't handled thoughtfully. One partner may feel burdened, while the other feels guilty or less independent. To maintain harmony, couples should address both the emotional and financial aspects of their finances.
Unequal incomes are common in Canada
A 2024 Statistics Canada study found that women aged 25 to 64 working full-time earned about 70 cents for every dollar earned by men.
These differences are often influenced by age, education, parental leave, or one partner taking a less demanding role for work-life balance.
Different approaches to splitting finances
No matter how much love you and your partner may share, the way you both handle your shared finances can often make or break your relationship. Recently, Alberta-based non-profit Money Mentors released its 2025 Love and Money survey, which revealed some interesting points:
47 per cent of participants admitted to arguing over money with their partner; and
10 per cent admitted that they have considered splitting ways due to financial stress.
Overall, the study revealed that financial stress and arguments between couples contributed to higher rates of anxiety and depression, lost sleep, loss of patience, and reduced productivity and motivation at work - none of which are conducive to a healthy long-term relationship.
To this point, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada even has an official page offering guidance and money management strategies for couples. Below, I'll explore several common ways to divide expenses.
1. The 'everything combined' approach
This method involves pooling all of the household income into a single joint account, where both partners share full access. From this shared account, couples will pay bills, save, invest and spend together, viewing the money as 'ours' rather than 'mine' and 'yours.'
This approach is common among couples who view their finances as fully united, especially in long-term or married relationships. It simplifies day-to-day management by consolidating all cash flow into one place, and keeps both partners accountable to each other.
However, if spending habits, personal debts, or financial priorities differ between couples, sharing a single joint account can lead to tension. For this method to work, both parties need to be able to trust each other, share financial values, and communicate.
2. The 'proportional contribution' approach
Rather than splitting everything down the middle, the proportional contribution method involves each partner contributing a set percentage of their income toward shared expenses. This way, both partners contribute fairly relative to what they earn, rather than equally in dollar terms.
For example, if one partner earns two-thirds of the household income and the other earns one-third, they would split rent, bills and groceries using the same ratio. This approach can alleviate the burden that the lower-income partner may feel with fixed costs.
For many couples, proportional contribution strikes a healthy balance between fairness and independence.
3. The 50/50 approach
In this approach, each partner contributes an equal dollar amount toward shared expenses like rent, utilities, groceries and subscriptions, regardless of their income percentage. Many couples who prefer financial independence favour this model, especially early in a relationship or when both partners earn similar incomes.
The 50/50 model is simple to manage, as each party carries their fair share of responsibilities. It also allows each person to retain full control over their personal finances, savings and spending beyond shared costs.
However, it may become unsustainable if one partner earns significantly less or finds themselves between jobs, or if new responsibilities such as a pregnancy, parental leave or caregiving to aging parents come into the picture.
In this case, the lower-income earner might struggle to keep up with bills or have less disposable income left over, potentially creating stress or imbalance in lifestyle.
How to start the conversation with your partner
I believe that it's important for new couples to discuss their finances and expectations of each other early in their relationship. Unvoiced opinions and expectations (whether financial or otherwise) are often the things that erode trust, love and harmony the most.
If you have a long-term vision with your partner, it's important that you're both on the same page and willing to grow together. Part of this involves being able to have open, candid and respectful conversations about your financial life.
Rather than arguing about your finances or approaching financial conversations with judgment or anger, or waiting until you hit a boiling point, you should set aside time to discuss finances.
Many of my married friends and clients have a scheduled 'meeting' every month or so where they sit down over dinner, at a cafe, or just at home and discuss their finances, goals and family budget, and talk about ideas and adjustments that can be made to keep them on track.
For this to work, both partners should keep an open mind and be willing to listen to and understand each other. If you find it difficult to have money conversations or feel like you're stuck in a rut, working with a financial advisor can be a great way to start.
A good financial advisor can help you analyze your goals, provide unbiased feedback, and create a strategy that works best for both of you.
Final thoughts
Many couples find that having a flexible approach that combines certain aspects of the methods above works best. For example, new couples may start off with separate 50/50 finances and gradually move toward combining finances or saving for shared goals together as more trust is built in the relationship.
When it comes to sharing finances with your partner, keep in mind that no one method is 'right.' What matters is finding a fair approach that fits your lifestyle, values and goals as a couple.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vancouver Sun
44 minutes ago
- Vancouver Sun
The two ways Trump's tariffs on Canada could collapse — despite his fight to keep them
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Time's up. On Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump raised the tariff rate on Canadian goods not covered under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) from 25 to 35 per cent, saying they 'have to pay a fair rate.' The White House claims it's because of Canada's failure to curb the 'ongoing flood of fentanyl and other illicit drugs.' U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, however, show that fentanyl seizures from Canada make up less than 0.1 per cent of total U.S. seizures of the drug; most smuggling comes across the Mexican border. But the future of Trump's policy also rests on shaky ground, and the tariffs could come crashing down even if Canada can't reach a deal at some point. Imposed through a controversially declared 'national emergency' under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the tariffs come with essentially three paths for relief to Canadian exporters and their American customers: the courts and the economy. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. And there's always the wildcard: that the president changes his mind. Without relying on that, National Post looks at two very possible ways out of all this: The courts: There is a big question hanging over whether Trump's tariffs are even legal under the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress powers over trade. Trump has bypassed that by claiming he's using presidential IEEPA emergency powers. On Thursday, the Washington, D.C.-based Federal Circuit Court of Appeals convened an en banc hearing for oral arguments in challenges to Trump's use of IEEPA. The 11 judges questioned whether the law meant for sanctioning adversaries or freezing assets during emergencies grants Trump the power to impose tariffs, with one judge noting, 'IEEPA doesn't even mention the word 'tariffs.'' The White House, meanwhile, says the law grants the president 'broad and flexible' emergency powers, including the ability to regulate imports. 'Based on the tenor and questions of the arguments, it appears that the challengers have the better odds of prevailing,' Thomas Berry, the CATO Institute's director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies said in a statement. 'Several judges peppered the government's attorney with skeptical questions about why a broad term in IEEPA like 'regulate importation' should be read to allow the president to unilaterally impose tariffs.' Trump's lawyers claim his executive order provides the justifications for the tariffs — in Canada's case, fentanyl. But Berry said 'those justifications would not matter if IEEPA simply does not authorize tariffs in the first place. That is the cleanest and simplest way to resolve this case, and it appears that the Federal Circuit may be leaning toward that result.' A decision is expected this month, and if it's a resounding pushback from the judges' panel, said Andrew Hale, a senior policy analyst at Heritage Foundation, the Supreme Court may not even take up the case. If so, he says, 'these Liberation Day tariffs and everything that's been imposed under emergency legislation, IEEPA, that all evaporates.' At that point, the White House would not be able to declare across-the-board tariffs against countries. Instead, it would have to rely on laws allowing tariffs to be imposed on specific products that are found to threaten U.S. national security, like those currently imposed on Canadian steel and lumber. The economy: The other path to tariff relief is through economic pressure. If Americans start to see higher prices and economic uncertainty, and push back at the ballot box — or threaten to do so — it could force Trump to reverse course. The most recent figures show that U.S. inflation, based on the Consumer Price Index, hit around 2.7 per cent in July. That's a slight rise, fuelled by rising prices for food, transportation, and used cars. But it's still close to the Federal Reserve target of 2 per cent. U.S. unemployment rose slightly to 4.2 per cent in July, while far fewer jobs were created than expected, and consumer confidence rose two points but is still several points lower than it was in January. Overall, most economists agree that risks of a U.S. recession over the next 12 months are relatively low, but skepticism over growth remains high. 'Our outlook is for slower growth in the U.S., but no recession,' said Gus Faucher, chief economist of The PNC Financial Services Group. He notes that the 'tariffs are going to be a drag' because they are a tax increase on imports. Economists have said price inflation from tariffs is not yet being felt in the U.S., but believe it's inevitable. 'Trump's tariff madness adds a great deal to the risks of a recession,' said Steven Hanke, professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University who served on President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors. 'With tariffs, Americans are going to be paying a big new beautiful sales tax on goods and services imported into the U.S., and taxes slow things down. Taxes don't stimulate.' It is surprising that higher U.S. prices haven't happened yet, said Jonathan Gruber, chairman of the economics department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But he explained that it's likely a reflection of the duration of contracts and the fact that import sellers haven't yet put up prices — 'because they were hoping it wouldn't be real, like they'd wake up from this nightmare.' 'I think we start to see the effect on prices by the end of the year,' said Gruber. The trouble for Canada, however, is that the Canadian economy is starting from a much weaker position, with higher unemployment, lower consumer confidence, and a slowing GDP, on top of the trade tensions. So, trying to wait things out for the U.S. to feel the pinch will be even more painful for Canadians. And any American downturn will also reverberate north. 'As Uncle Sam goes, so goes Canada,' said Hanke. Gruber agrees with that, but with a caveat. 'It's all bad in the short run and good in the long run,' he says. He believes the U.S. is 'weak and getting weaker' and that Canada should start taking advantage of how the U.S. is making opportunities for other countries to invest in themselves. 'We're not investing in our future. We're killing our education. We're killing our research. We're not allowing in immigrants,' he said, explaining the weakening of the U.S. economy. 'We're basically setting the stage for long-run economic slower growth.' Meanwhile, China is doubling down on investment, research and other longer-term policies. 'Canada and other countries need to do the same,' Gruber said. And as for when a backlash could lead to a reversal in the U.S., Gruber points to two factors. 'It's got to be high inflation, and Trump's opponents need to make sure that the voters understand that's Trump's fault.' National Post tmoran@ Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our newsletters here .
Ottawa Citizen
44 minutes ago
- Ottawa Citizen
The two ways Trump's tariffs on Canada could collapse — despite his fight to keep them
Article content WASHINGTON, D.C. — Time's up. On Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump raised the tariff rate on Canadian goods not covered under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) from 25 to 35 per cent, saying they 'have to pay a fair rate.' The White House claims it's because of Canada's failure to curb the 'ongoing flood of fentanyl and other illicit drugs.' U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, however, show that fentanyl seizures from Canada make up less than 0.1 per cent of total U.S. seizures of the drug; most smuggling comes across the Mexican border. Article content Article content But the future of Trump's policy also rests on shaky ground, and the tariffs could come crashing down even if Canada can't reach a deal at some point. Imposed through a controversially declared 'national emergency' under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the tariffs come with essentially three paths for relief to Canadian exporters and their American customers: the courts and the economy. Article content Article content There is a big question hanging over whether Trump's tariffs are even legal under the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress powers over trade. Trump has bypassed that by claiming he's using presidential IEEPA emergency powers. Article content On Thursday, the Washington, D.C.-based Federal Circuit Court of Appeals convened an en banc hearing for oral arguments in challenges to Trump's use of IEEPA. The 11 judges questioned whether the law meant for sanctioning adversaries or freezing assets during emergencies grants Trump the power to impose tariffs, with one judge noting, 'IEEPA doesn't even mention the word 'tariffs.'' The White House, meanwhile, says the law grants the president 'broad and flexible' emergency powers, including the ability to regulate imports. Article content Article content 'Based on the tenor and questions of the arguments, it appears that the challengers have the better odds of prevailing,' Thomas Berry, the CATO Institute's director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies said in a statement. 'Several judges peppered the government's attorney with skeptical questions about why a broad term in IEEPA like 'regulate importation' should be read to allow the president to unilaterally impose tariffs.' Article content Article content Trump's lawyers claim his executive order provides the justifications for the tariffs — in Canada's case, fentanyl. But Berry said 'those justifications would not matter if IEEPA simply does not authorize tariffs in the first place. That is the cleanest and simplest way to resolve this case, and it appears that the Federal Circuit may be leaning toward that result.' Article content A decision is expected this month, and if it's a resounding pushback from the judges' panel, said Andrew Hale, a senior policy analyst at Heritage Foundation, the Supreme Court may not even take up the case. If so, he says, 'these Liberation Day tariffs and everything that's been imposed under emergency legislation, IEEPA, that all evaporates.'
Winnipeg Free Press
44 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trade Minister Maninder Sidhu eyes new markets, smaller trade delegations
OTTAWA – Ottawa's new trade minister says he's looking to sign deals in South America, Southeast Asia, Africa and beyond — and to convince businesses to actually use the trade agreements Canada has already signed. 'My primary role as Canada's top salesman is to be out there hustling, opening doors for businesses and accessing new markets,' Maninder Sidhu told The Canadian Press. 'My phone has been ringing with opportunities because people want to deal with reliable, stable trading partners.' Prime Minister Mark Carney has tasked Dominic LeBlanc as minister responsible for Canada-U.S. trade. Sidhu's job focuses on countries other than the U.S. Export Development Canada says Ottawa has 15 free trade agreements covering 51 countries, offering Canadian exporters preferential access to over 1.5 billion consumers. But Sidhu said Canadian businesses could be doing a lot more to look beyond the U.S., particularly as Washington threatens and imposes a range of tariffs. Sidhu served four years as a parliamentary secretary in roles reflecting all three branches of Global Affairs Canada: aid, trade and diplomacy. The job saw him represent Canada in trade promotion events in Southeast Asia and security forums in the Caribbean. Sidhu worked as a customs broker before politics — a job that focuses on navigating red tape and tariffs to secure the best rate for trading goods. Sidhu said he plans to visit Brazil soon as the South American country seeks to revive trade talks that kicked off in 2018 between the Mercosur trade bloc and Canada. His predecessor Mary Ng put an emphasis on large trade missions which took months to plan. The minister would sometimes fill a plane with corporate and business leaders, spending a substantial chunk of time in one or two countries. Sidhu said he is hoping to bring smaller delegations of companies with him on his trips abroad, with a focus on specific sectors, 'whether it's South America, Indo-Pacific to Europe, to Africa.' 'Businesses feel like they're heard, but they're also getting higher-level meetings on the opposite side in the countries that we take them into,' he said. Ottawa is navigating its trade ties with China as the two countries work to revive the decades-old Joint Economic and Trade Commission, a forum to sort out trade irritants. China has been roundly accused of engaging in coercive trade practices and of restricting certain commodities or services like tourism during political disagreements with Ottawa. Sidhu said the goal there is to offer 'stability' to industry, with an emphasis on 'how do we work through those challenges, and how do we make sure that those conversations are facilitated.' Sidhu also downplayed the chances of a bilateral trade deal with the United Kingdom. Trade talks collapsed last year over the U.K.'s desire to sell more cheese in Canada and after Britain blocked Canadian hormone-treated beef. Both countries are using a temporary deal put in place after Britain left the European Union, and the U.K. will soon enter a trade bloc that focuses on the Pacific Rim, Sidhu noted. He said Canada would still be open to a full deal. 'If U.K. and Canadian businesses already have access on 99 per cent of the items that we trade, then if we're looking at trade agreements, we need to make sure that we're getting the best value for our negotiations,' Sidhu said. He also said Canada could consider 'sector-specific agreements' with other countries, instead of comprehensive deals that span most industries. 'We are getting very creative in how we can open up more doors,' he said. Sidhu did not name specific countries where Canada might pursue sector-specific agreements. Canada had been looking at a trade agreement with India that would be limited to certain sectors — before Ottawa suspended talks in 2023 following an assassination the RCMP has linked to New Delhi. Ottawa launched security talks with India this spring and agreed to re-establish high commissioners. Sidhu was circumspect when asked when Canada might re-establish trade talks with India. 'This is a step-by-step approach,' he said, adding that the eventual return of top envoys will help 'to carry out those very important conversations.' Sidhu said Global Affairs Canada is still sorting out how Carney's decision to cut spending in all departments will affect the trade branch. 'It's really going to be a focused approach, of where we can make the best impact,' Sidhu said. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. The Business Council of Canada has urged Ottawa to expand the number of trade commissioners, who provide the contacts on the ground for Canadian companies looking for export opportunities. While Sidhu did not say whether Ottawa's cuts will mean fewer trade commissioners, he said he's heard a clear message from chambers of commerce that these positions are extremely valuable. 'It comes down to return on investments, what programs are working (and) where can we get the best bang for our buck for Canadian industry and Canadian workers,' he said. 'A lot of the business community doesn't even know that (the Trade Commissioner Service) is there to help. And so my job is to help amplify that.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 3, 2025.
