Should a couple pay everything 50/50? Kendall Jenner, Jacob Elordi, and the debate about money and power

Money has always been that thorny topic that is hard to talk about, especially when we share life with someone else. For generations, it worked under a predictable status quo, but today, with the transformation of economic roles and the breaking of old schemes, it is an uncomfortable mirror where our insecurities, expectations, and power dynamics can be reflected.

Read more Minister of the Interior, César Astudillo, was questioned: Which benches support him and which ones criticize him?

Recently, the news that the Kardashian clan was worried about the romance between Kendall Jenner and actor Jacob Elordi set off alarms. According to leaks, the model would be covering much of the luxuries of the relationship—from hotels to private jets—due to an abysmal wealth gap: it is said she has about 200 million dollars in fortune compared to his 4 million.

Reactions on the internet were immediate and divided users: on one side, those who defended that “if she has more money, what’s the problem,” and on the other, criticisms labeling the Frankenstein star as “kept.” Amid this clash of opinions, the favorite social media solution to avoid problems quickly surfaced: the classic “50-50.”

However, this type of case shows that such a simple rule becomes infinitely more complex when applied to real life. Because paying exactly half does not always mean both are contributing the same, just as the one who puts in more money is not necessarily bearing the real weight of the relationship.

In a couple, the math may seem simple, but the sense of fairness almost never is. That’s why it’s worth asking ourselves, is it really fair to split everything equally?

Many assume that doing so is the absolute proof of equity and modern love, but in reality, equality and equity are not the same.

To understand why, you have to step away from the spreadsheet. As psychologist Álvaro Álvarez from Antonio Ruiz de Montoya University explained, a relationship is not a business, so splitting everything in half is only truly fair if both start from very similar conditions. “If one person earns three times more than the other, a 50-50 split can represent a very different effort for each. Maybe one pays without altering their life too much and the other is left without the ability to save or attend to personal needs,” he told Somos.

Along the same lines, Maurice Prevost, managing director of Equifax – Infocorp warned that demanding exact halves when salaries are disparate can cause financial stress on the lower earner and even generate short-term resentment. Equality is sharing the same amount, while equity is building an agreement that doesn’t leave one breathing comfortably and the other drowning at the end of the month.

Therefore, when the wage gap is a fact, the rule changes and forces us to ask how the burden should be shared. The first filter, according to Javier Rivas, director of the Master in Finance at EAE Business School, is to separate individual costs—which should be borne by whoever caused them—while shared costs are normally divided in proportion to each member’s contribution to income.

However, cash is not the only asset in play. For psychotherapist Liliana Tuñoque from Clínica Internacional, it is key to first look at the comprehensive economic reality of both—including debts, responsibilities, and time invested—before signing any agreement.

Added to this is that the expense equation must consider unpaid tasks, since often one of the two gives up a job or even a higher income to sustain common well-being, child-rearing, or care of relatives, an invisible effort that also balances the scale.

Assuming that a single formula applies equally to absolutely everything is undoubtedly a mistake, so the distribution of expenses must be understood according to their nature.

On one hand, fixed and essential expenses—such as rent, utilities, and food—should be subject to stable and proportional mutual agreements that prevent one party from falling into over-indebtedness to keep up with the other, Prevost specified. While discretionary and leisure expenses, like trips or outings—the typical whims questioned in the Kendall and Jacob case—being non-essential, can be much more flexible, vary month to month, and be negotiated case by case.

“What is truly important is that the pact is so transparent that no one feels they are carrying the weight of the other, but rather building a project together,” emphasized Tuñoque.

When money starts to talk about power

Behind an apparently simple conversation about “how much each puts in,” what is really at stake is much deeper. As Álvarez noted, money is rarely just money. In a couple, it can be security, freedom, recognition, fear, family history, and decision-making power.

Read more Russians vote in the legislative elections with a black hole in the budget

A discussion about who pays the rent can hide another question: “Is my contribution worth as much as yours?”, “Do I have the right to decide?”, “Can I depend on you without losing autonomy?” or “What happens to me if this relationship ends?”

That’s why economic conversations quickly become charged with emotions and inevitably touch on power dynamics. “Whoever controls more resources can end up having more negotiation power, even unintentionally. And whoever contributes less may feel guilt, inferiority, dependency, debt, or fear of expressing disagreement. The problem is not that differences exist, but that money becomes an authority argument: ‘since I pay more, I decide,’ forgetting that income is simply a fact and never an affective hierarchy,” highlighted the psychologist.

Over time, that friction leaves clear signs that the initial distribution has stopped working. According to Liliana Tuñoque, the breaking point occurs when the agreement stops feeling like a voluntary pact and starts being experienced as an obligation.

If a person constantly feels they are sacrificing their needs, cannot save, are getting into debt, or phrases like “I always pay” or “everything falls on me” become recurrent, these are unmistakable symptoms that the perception of fairness has deteriorated and the rules urgently need renegotiation.

The bill that doesn’t show up in the bank

When the economic gap translates into desires—like what couples exposed to the public eye such as Jenner and Elordi face—some friction arises when the higher earner wants to maintain a lifestyle beyond the other’s means. That’s why, to negotiate this difference without falling into debt or feelings of inferiority, psychologist Paul Brocca from Universidad Científica del Sur emphasized that the key is assertiveness. “It’s about properly expressing one’s own goals, interests, and limits and being honest about what each wants and can assume.”

The couple needs to go through emotional honesty and accept that they have different needs and rhythms, so it is essential to find a realistic balance point between what they want to build and what they can really sustain financially.

That balance becomes even more complicated when factors that no spreadsheet records come into play. Domestic and care work—cooking, cleaning, organizing the house, or managing child-rearing—requires time, effort, and mental energy. As Liliana Tuñoque explained, it’s not necessarily about putting a price on each task, but about incorporating them into the conversation when the couple evaluates how responsibilities are distributed.

“If one contributes more money because they work more hours outside, but the other assumes household responsibilities, both are contributing to the common project in different and totally valid ways.”

Added to this is another great challenge of financial intimacy: what happens when one of the two carries previous debts, has opposite consumption habits, or minimal saving capacity, without falling into the role of having to “rescue” the other?

For Maurice Prevost, the most important thing is to put the cards on the table with absolute transparency. It is not strictly necessary for a couple to share or merge their entire budget, but it is vital to know the other’s financial reality—debts, obligations, and real limits. From there, they can build a joint plan that suits both and allows them to make informed financial decisions.

The limit of transparency

In this gear of agreements, there is a golden rule often forgotten: transparency does not mean losing individual freedom or having to ask for permission. As Prevost rightly pointed out, the healthiest thing is “to establish a joint spending capacity for the household while maintaining personal budgets at the same time.” This allows each person to keep some autonomy without having to account for every individual expense.

Although transparency remains vital in those aspects that directly affect the couple’s course—such as debts or overdrafts—maintaining a personal fund is not hiding information but finding the perfect balance between shared responsibility and personal space.

The problem is that many couples avoid talking about all this for fear of arguing, but entering a constant cycle of fights over who pays wears down any relationship. To get out of this, psychologist Álvaro Álvarez recommended taking the conversation out of the conflict zone, since you should never talk about money right after a bill arrives or when there is accumulated tension, but rather find a neutral moment and put the numbers on the table without looking for culprits.

In fact, to carry out the dialogue we can ask ourselves:

• What does a fair agreement mean to each one?
• How much can each contribute without becoming financially suffocated?
• Which expenses do we really consider common and which personal?
• What non-monetary contributions—like time or care—are we ignoring?
• What real fears arise when we talk about money?

The goal of this talk is not to decide who is right, but to build a rule that both understand and accept. And if after honestly talking, one still feels their voice is worth less because their income is lower, or that they must permanently finance the other, the conclusion is clear: the problem was never whether they should split the bill in a rigid 50-50. The real core of the matter is how the couple is distributing respect, responsibility, and power.

Read more While Sephora and Kiko Milano wait, 70 new Asian companies have already entered the Peruvian market, why are the giants delaying?