When One Person Holds the Financial Power: Writing Fair Agreements

In most casual arrangements that involve financial support, one person provides and the other receives. That dynamic is not inherently unfair—but it does create a power imbalance that, left unaddressed, can quietly distort every other term in the agreement.

The person who controls the money often ends up controlling the arrangement. Not always intentionally. Sometimes it happens simply because the financial terms are vague, the exit terms are punitive, or because one person's livelihood depends on the other's continued generosity.

Here is how to write financial terms that keep things honest and fair for everyone involved.

Why Financial Power Distorts Agreements

When one person depends on the other financially, every disagreement carries an unspoken subtext: "If I push back, will the money stop?"

That fear—whether or not it is justified—changes how people negotiate. The financially dependent party is more likely to:

Accept terms they are not comfortable with
Avoid raising concerns about boundary violations
Agree to scope creep (expanding expectations without renegotiating terms)
Stay in the arrangement longer than they want to

Meanwhile, the financially powerful party may not even realize this is happening. They may genuinely believe the other person is happy with the terms because that person never complains. Silence in the face of financial dependency is not agreement—it is survival.

What Fair Financial Terms Look Like

Fair financial terms are specific, predictable, unconditional (within the agreed scope), and documented. Let us break each of these down.

Specific

"I will provide financial support" is not a financial term. It is a vague promise. Fair agreements specify:

Exact amounts or clearly defined ranges
Payment schedule (weekly, monthly, per meeting)
What the payment covers (and what it does not)
How and when payments are made
What happens to payments if either party needs to cancel a scheduled meeting

The more specific the terms, the less room there is for manipulation in either direction. For a deeper dive, read our guide on writing financial terms clearly.

Predictable

Financial support that fluctuates based on the provider's mood, satisfaction, or subjective assessment of the other person's "effort" is not support. It is a reward system, and reward systems create obedience, not partnership.

Fair financial terms are predictable. Both parties should know, at the start of each month, exactly what financial support will be provided regardless of subjective factors.

Does this mean the provider has no recourse if the other person is not holding up their end? No. It means those conversations happen through the amendment process, not through unilateral financial punishment.

Unconditional (Within the Agreed Scope)

This is where most arrangements go wrong. Financial support should be tied to the arrangement's existence, not to specific behaviors within it.

Here is the difference:

Fair: "While this arrangement is active, I will provide $X per month."
Unfair: "I will provide $X per month as long as you [meet specific behavioral expectations that are not clearly defined]."

The second version gives the provider a subjective kill switch on financial support. That is not an agreement between equals—it is an employment contract without labor protections.

If the arrangement itself is not working, either party should be able to invoke the exit clause. But financial support should not be weaponized as a tool for behavior modification within an active arrangement.

Documented

Every financial commitment should be in writing. Every payment should be documented—amount, date, and method. This protects both parties:

The provider has proof they fulfilled their obligations
The recipient has proof of what was agreed and what was received
Neither party can later claim the terms were different from what was written

Consider keeping a simple shared log or using payment methods that create automatic records.

Common Financial Pitfalls

"I'll take care of you." This phrase is not a financial term. It is a feeling. If someone says this instead of specifying amounts and schedules, press for details. Goodwill is wonderful, but it does not pay rent.

Gifts vs. obligations. Some arrangements mix agreed-upon financial support with spontaneous gifts. That is fine, but both parties should understand the difference. Agreed-upon support is an obligation. Gifts are voluntary. If the provider starts treating obligations as gifts ("I gave you extra this month, so..."), that is a manipulation tactic.

Reimbursement vs. allowance. An arrangement where one person must spend their own money and then request reimbursement creates a different power dynamic than one where funds are provided in advance. Reimbursement models require the recipient to ask for money, which can feel demeaning and creates opportunities for disputes about what qualifies for reimbursement.

Late payments without communication. If the provider is going to be late with an agreed-upon payment, they owe the other person advance notice and a specific timeline. Unexplained late payments are a power move, whether intentional or not.

A Template for Financial Terms

Here is a structure you can adapt for your own agreement:

1. Base Financial Support

Amount: [specific number]
Frequency: [weekly / biweekly / monthly]
Payment method: [bank transfer / cash / other]
Payment date: [specific day]

2. Additional Expenses

What is covered: [list specific categories]
Spending limit: [per month / per item]
Approval process: [if any]

3. Late Payment Terms

Notice required: [how many days in advance]
Make-up timeline: [specific window]

4. What Financial Support Does Not Cover

[List exclusions to avoid assumptions]

5. Financial Terms Upon Exit

Transition period: [duration after arrangement ends]
Final payment terms: [how the last payment works]

Protecting the Provider Too

Fair agreements protect both parties. The person providing financial support also has legitimate concerns:

Clarity about what the financial support is for (so it does not become an open-ended obligation)
Protection against claims that verbal promises expanded the written terms
Assurance that the arrangement will not be characterized as something it is not (employment, for instance)
A clear end to financial obligations when the arrangement ends

These protections do not conflict with fairness for the recipient. They complement it. Both parties benefit from terms that are clear, bounded, and documented.

The Bottom Line

Money does not have to corrupt a casual arrangement, but it will if you let the financial terms stay vague. Write them down. Make them specific. Ensure both parties have genuine input. And revisit them regularly to make sure they still work.

For more on keeping arrangements equitable, explore our Power Dynamics and Fairness hub and our guide on recognizing power imbalances.