Massively offtopic: 'future financial dependants'

el_presidente

DonDaddyD wrote:

Ms DDD and I do want at least one more holiday.

good thinking, as you know it is illegal to go on holiday once you have a child.

UndercoverElephant

True. Our original plan was that Mrs. Elephant would go back to work. When our oldest was born, however, she burst into tears every time she thought about it. Hence plan B, the hastily decided, "Move to Edinburgh where the jobs are better".

Good luck. As others have said, you're never ready - sometimes you do need to make a leap of faith. It IS worth it, IMO.

greg66_tri_v2.0

UndercoverElephant wrote:

however, she burst into tears every time she thought about it.

Ah, that old trick.

Wish I'd thought of that in the 66 household. Damn.

wgwarburton

el_presidente wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Ms DDD and I do want at least one more holiday.

good thinking, as you know it is illegal to go on holiday once you have a child.

Before kids we went skiing in France, travelling all around the world (Latin America, Antipodes, Africa, Asia) and took cycletouring holidays in the UK.

We have friends in Peru and in Gabon, family in New Zealand... long haul tickets for a family of four during school holidays are, however, out of our budget at the moment.... A family skiing holiday during peak times (ie school holidays) is also not sensible.

The cycling holidays may be back on the cards when the kids are a little bigger, though...

It's all achievable... but compromises are necessary.... There are, however, some holidays that it would probably be sensible to fit in before (or during?) starting a family.

Cheers,
W.

sarajoy

I feel for the ladies who struggle with the work/mum balance after giving birth.

We have indeed been brought up to believe we can have it all - but there are plenty of exhausted career mothers now (including my mother) who struggled juggling children and work (especially since she ended up a single mum after dad's philandering), and in the end simply wish that they could have chosen one or the other. There's a resurgence of knitting and crocheting. We /want/ to have time to knit booties for our babies.

I read some article ages ago where a career-mum with a stay-at-home husband was trying to fight his getting main custody of the children after a divorce. It makes sense that he won it, but I think it's very hard to not-be-a-mother after giving birth.

Of course not everyone gets that luxury, many families require the woman to carry on working somehow to make ends meet - plus grandparents are clearly very useful while they are still compos mentis.

I'm leaving electronic engineering (which I never enjoyed that much anyway) in order to go into the teaching profession - while for a few years it's going to be a pain in terms of being stuck having to have holidays when the whole world and his dog are also on holiday - by the time children come along this is going to be good in terms of being 'free' when they are.

Also if I'm lucky I'll get to a nice rung of the teaching ladder by the time I have kids that need looking after, and can work comfortably part-time. Finally teaching is very mobile - there are schools everywhere. So if blokey finds a good job somewhere that requires us to move a long way - I can hopefully find myself a job wherever it is without too much hassle (going off to do Physics - there's a definite shortage of teachers in the subject).


Back on topic - I think frivolous purchases shouldn't be completely lost - but you can't only buy yourself toys with the money you've saved, without saving for toys and treats for the rest of the family too. But this is what Christmas is for, no? Especially if you're the sole breadwinner, your money will come back to you in the presents you get...

UndercoverElephant

You see now, I think that was a nasty curve-ball to the ladies, actually. "You can have it all", was often misinterpreted to mean, "You have to do everything". True feminism should have been about the capacity to choose, something so few people get these days.

jedster

good thinking, as you know it is illegal to go on holiday once you have a child.

That's a bit facetious - of course you can go on holiday but some kinds of holiday are tricky when the kids are very small - better do that kind of stuff before the kids arrive.

Our last holiday before we had kids combined camping on the Serengeti, climbing Kilimanjaro and relaxing on the beach in Zanzibar. Hopefully we'll have that kind of holiday again but not for a while!

rhext

For myself, I almost look upon this thread with amusement: it seems to me that all the things you are worrying about are trivia. They're not trivia to you now, but I suspect when you have a family they may seem so. It changes your whole outlook on life.

How much money will I have left to spend on myself at the end of the month? Question does not compute. If there's money left at the end of the month it's really the family's money. I'm a member of the family and sometimes that means I get to spend it on something I want or need. Sometimes it doesn't. And the more money I earn, the more chance etc etc....

One thing I never regret: going on a couple of blow-out holidays while we were trying. But recently I've found more enjoyment dodging showers on a UK beach with my young family as I did spotting whales off the west coast of the US. Think you won't enjoy playing in the sand? Wait until you've got a four-year-old to play with!

Don't worry about it: things are always tight for the first few years, but you progress up the career ladder; Mrs DDD decides it's time to start work again; and suddenly a few years later you find you're standing there in the bike shop with space on the credit card again............asking 'if I get one of those, any chance of throwing in a free child seat?' ;-)

sarajoy

UndercoverElephant wrote:

You see now, I think that was a nasty curve-ball to the ladies, actually. "You can have it all", was often misinterpreted to mean, "You have to do everything". True feminism should have been about the capacity to choose, something so few people get these days.

Well, indeed.

The parental leave in this country needs fixing, for a start - the Swedes allow 480 days to be shared out equally between parents (of course they can't take it at the same time). In practice the mothers still take the majority of said leave, but the point is that they both have the opportunity to take it. That would help the discrimination that women still face in the workplace - being looked over for promotions while at childbearing age etc. - as it's possible it won't be she who stays at home.

el_presidente

jedster wrote:

good thinking, as you know it is illegal to go on holiday once you have a child.

That's a bit facetious - of course you can go on holiday but some kinds of holiday are tricky when the kids are very small - better do that kind of stuff before the kids arrive.

Our last holiday before we had kids combined camping on the Serengeti, climbing Kilimanjaro and relaxing on the beach in Zanzibar. Hopefully we'll have that kind of holiday again but not for a while!

facetious my arse. reading this thread I wonder how anyone managed to have kids before the internet.

rjsterry

Or indeed make their mind up about anything.

DonDaddyD

Ms DDD is in charge of the holidays.

I have only one request on this. when the kid/s are old enough, we go Disney Land, I'll even pay for the whole thing.

davmaggs

the flaw in giving more and more time off is that someone has to pay for it.

We already have large UK firms locating overseas to reduce their tax bills and avoid the volume of red tape they need to complete. I've also been to several large UK organisations that bring over hundreds of Indian workers on Indians terms and conditions supposedly because of our "skill shortage". Those jobs would have been done previously by high taxing paying Brits and now the money leaves the country. The government itself uses these contracts to save money, yet won't reduce the cost of employing people.

Unfortunately having a family means costs and someone has to pay for it. Whilst you can quote Sweden it does mean that the state takes money off other people to support those who made a lifestyle choice.

Clever Pun

Cafewanda wrote:

Jeeze I thought men were more decisive than wimmin :roll:

oi don't tar us with the same brush as him...

Anyone else in the same situation would have gone oh well less money and hope they don't hit the target first time

rhext

davmaggs wrote:

the flaw in giving more and more time off is that someone has to pay for it.

We already have large UK firms locating overseas to reduce their tax bills and avoid the volume of red tape they need to complete. I've also been to several large UK organisations that bring over hundreds of Indian workers on Indians terms and conditions supposedly because of our "skill shortage". Those jobs would have been done previously by high taxing paying Brits and now the money leaves the country. The government itself uses these contracts to save money, yet won't reduce the cost of employing people.

Unfortunately having a family means costs and someone has to pay for it. Whilst you can quote Sweden it does mean that the state takes money off other people to support those who made a lifestyle choice.

Eh? Having children is a lifestyle choice? Wow, I thought it was to do with perpetuation of the species. Not to mention ensuring that when you're too old and infirm to earn a crust, there's still some people around paying taxes to keep you!

rjsterry

davmaggs wrote:

the flaw in giving more and more time off is that someone has to pay for it.

Unfortunately having a family means costs and someone has to pay for it. Whilst you can quote Sweden it does mean that the state takes money off other people to support those who made a lifestyle choice.

Whilst I agree with your general point (the Swedes pay for it through more tax than us, the Norwegians with fossil fuels), I think describing having children as a lifestyle choice is a bit wide of the mark. Their taxes will be paying off the government debt (still) for a start.

davmaggs

it is a lifestyle choice.

If you can't afford children or don't want to give up your lifestyle then you can choose not to have them. One of the great liberations for women is that they can control whether they bear children or not, hence the massive drop in family size in only a few generations.

PBo

DonDaddyD wrote:

Ms DDD is in charge of the holidays.

I have only one request on this. when the kid/s are old enough, we go Disney Land, I'll even pay for the whole thing.

How will you distinguish paying for this from everything else you'll be paying for???

btw, I told you back on about page 4 that Disney Land is overrated

wgwarburton

rhext wrote:

...Eh? Having children is a lifestyle choice? Wow, I thought it was to do with perpetuation of the species. ...

At a population/societal level it may not be but at a personal level it is.

Every so often goverments get worked up that we're not having enough children and do some social engineering to try & encourage it (tax breaks, childcare vouchers etc).

Cheers,
W.

davmaggs

Whilst I agree with your general point (the Swedes pay for it through more tax than us, the Norwegians with fossil fuels), I think describing having children as a lifestyle choice is a bit wide of the mark. Their taxes will be paying off the government debt (still) for a start.

There's a scale on how much you want the state to take money from an individual and for the state to then to decide what to spend it on, rather than the individual choosing for themselves. The Swedes chose to give up more to the state than we do, the money doesn't just magically appear.

rjsterry

In that sense yes, I thought you meant in the Sunday supplement 'Lifestyle' section sense. That said, the fact that birth rates have dropped and life expectancies increased has had some pretty considerable effects on society. Some of us at least do need to keep breeding.

DonDaddyD

PBo wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Ms DDD is in charge of the holidays.

I have only one request on this. when the kid/s are old enough, we go Disney Land, I'll even pay for the whole thing.

How will you distinguish paying for this from everything else you'll be paying for???

btw, I told you back on about page 4 that Disney Land is overrated

I'm beginning to see the logic of "our money" as oppose to "my money". I guess because while Ms DDD and I do share our bills and joint purcahses, we haven't really been faced with anything that truly pools our finances together. We can afford, individually, everything we've bought so we just buy it ourselves: Need a new hoover, I'll buy it, need kitchen stuff she'll buy it that sort of thing. Until the true unification of our finances happens I think we'll both see it as our own money. I don't see this as a problem, I don't begrudge Ms DDD my salary or neither does she I. Also the family (divorce, custody) lawyer in her would prefer to have a measure of financial independance at all times.

I've been to Disney Land, once. It's selfish but I may enjoy it as much as my kids do and then I'll enjoy it more because I'll also enjoy them enjoying it.

I want babies.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

In that sense yes, I thought you meant in the Sunday supplement 'Lifestyle' section sense. That said, the fact that birth rates have dropped and life expectancies increased has had some pretty considerable effects on society. Some of us at least do need to keep breeding.

Ageing population, its one of the arguments against increasing certain healthcare services, housing and free perscriptions.

(Some of you won't like this) But I've been in meetings where people have said they don't want to provide the above because its not sustainable and the younger generation will have to pay more to keep an increasing number of elderly/retired who no longer pay taxes. Or words to those effects.

sarajoy

davmaggs wrote:

Unfortunately having a family means costs and someone has to pay for it. Whilst you can quote Sweden it does mean that the state takes money off other people to support those who made a lifestyle choice.

Oh, my point wasn't clear - I mean we need ours fixing so that the parents can share the leave - I wasn't commenting on the pure amount of it.

For example if she wanted to, why couldn't the woman take say 4 or 6 weeks off to recover from childbirth, and the man take the 6-12 months statutory parental leave?

jedster

For example if she wanted to, why couldn't the woman take say 4 or 6 weeks off to recover from childbirth, and the man take the 6-12 months statutory parental leave?

I think that would make a lot of sense.

DonDaddyD

sarajoy wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

Unfortunately having a family means costs and someone has to pay for it. Whilst you can quote Sweden it does mean that the state takes money off other people to support those who made a lifestyle choice.

Oh, my point wasn't clear - I mean we need ours fixing so that the parents can share the leave - I wasn't commenting on the pure amount of it.

For example if she wanted to, why couldn't the woman take say 4 or 6 weeks off to recover from childbirth, and the man take the 6-12 months statutory parental leave?

My girlfriend described why she, a woman, would need more than 4 to 6 weeks off to recover from childbirth.

There are some things men should not know.

sarajoy

jedster wrote:

For example if she wanted to, why couldn't the woman take say 4 or 6 weeks off to recover from childbirth, and the man take the 6-12 months statutory parental leave?

I think that would make a lot of sense.

I think so too. Those who argue against such a plan say that a minority of couples would do it - but so what? Surely the opportunity to do so should exist?

NGale

DonDaddyD wrote:

NGale wrote:

Myself and Jake have had the same conversation recently :shock: :shock:

Pretty much his plan is for me to give up work and look after the kid. Me I am of the opinion that even if I only work part time I need to get away from the child for a while at least to maintain my sanity.

Mind you I'm nearly 33 and still don't feel ready for kids :?

If you and Jake had a kid would you call it Rambo?

Thankfully no

If it was to be a boy then it would be called James

sarajoy

DonDaddyD wrote:

sarajoy wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

Unfortunately having a family means costs and someone has to pay for it. Whilst you can quote Sweden it does mean that the state takes money off other people to support those who made a lifestyle choice.

Oh, my point wasn't clear - I mean we need ours fixing so that the parents can share the leave - I wasn't commenting on the pure amount of it.

For example if she wanted to, why couldn't the woman take say 4 or 6 weeks off to recover from childbirth, and the man take the 6-12 months statutory parental leave?

My girlfriend described why she, a woman, would need more than 4 to 6 weeks off to recover from childbirth.

There are some things men should not know.

That's cool, of course.

OK, say she took 3 months, but say she's also in a career that pays more than the bloke's, and feels the need to get back to it? Everyone's different.

It's a real bugbear to me - I don't think all this maternity red-tape around women is helpful, legally they have to be allowed to come back to work part time - and usually by then a company has found someone to fill the space then downgraded the mother's job... and it can lead to nasty wrangles of 'unfair' treatment... No wonder promotions don't come so quickly to women, employers can never be sure whether she'll naff off pregnant.

BUT if parental leave was shared, we wouldn't have to protect the woman with all these rules (that, let's face it, just make life hard for the employer esp if a small company), because it could equally be a man that disappears for 6 months.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

sarajoy wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

Unfortunately having a family means costs and someone has to pay for it. Whilst you can quote Sweden it does mean that the state takes money off other people to support those who made a lifestyle choice.

Oh, my point wasn't clear - I mean we need ours fixing so that the parents can share the leave - I wasn't commenting on the pure amount of it.

For example if she wanted to, why couldn't the woman take say 4 or 6 weeks off to recover from childbirth, and the man take the 6-12 months statutory parental leave?

My girlfriend described why she, a woman, would need more than 4 to 6 weeks off to recover from childbirth.

There are some things men should not know.

And you'll know a lot more of them by the time DDD Jr arrives.