Massively offtopic: 'future financial dependants'

NGale

rjsterry wrote:

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.

Jake is of the opinion that men should not be in the room when the baby is born on the principle of 'There are just some things a man should never see'

ex-pat scot

"Financial independence".

No such thing.

You are a unit. Soon to be a "family unit".
Whether the cash sits in an account in your name, her name or joint names, and whether one can spend without recourse to confirmation from the other, is just a matter of budgetary control. It's still joint money, however badged.

You will rightly glean from the above stories that money is top of the list of argument topics between spouses, particularly in families.

Decisions you make now:
- marry?
- children?
- how many?
- house / location / mortgage size?
will be with you for the next 25+ years. Not to be taken lightly, and impossible to undo.

Once you've made the decisions, then you'll find that "daddy spend" will be very much de-prioritised.

You may be lucky and earn sufficient to comfortably provide for the whole family, with surplus to save or spend as you wish. I wish you the best of luck in that regard...

You may find that there are hard hard choices to be made with very finite financial resources. this is where I sit. Every purchasing decision becomes pretty tough.

Even sensible spending soon mounts to huge levels when you're talking children, as the previous posters have said. Comfortable care-free spending patterns of pre-children years are a distant memory for me.

If you are going to rely on gross generalisations then fair enough.
What the people here have done is give you a number of anecdotal stories of their experiences.

I would summarise my own thoughts thus:
1. if you wait until you feel ready for children, then you'll never have any. Jump in with both feet, and learn to swim fast!
2. expect difficult and sometimes irrational difficult discussions over spending and priorities
3. share everything. It's not about the cash; it's recognising that you are both equal partners and sharing responsibilities.
4. it's the hardest job in the world, and you'll get it wrong every single day
5. even getting it wrong is immensely rewarding
6. life has a continual habit of kicking the legs from underneath you, every time you think you're under control and financially on the straight - and - narrow.
7. there's a whole lot more to life than buying stuff. Thankfully.

rjsterry

NGale wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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.

Jake is of the opinion that men should not be in the room when the baby is born on the principle of 'There are just some things a man should never see'

Too scared to see more like. Hope you told him to MTFU.

NGale

rjsterry wrote:

NGale wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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.

Jake is of the opinion that men should not be in the room when the baby is born on the principle of 'There are just some things a man should never see'

Too scared to see more like. Hope you told him to MTFU.

actually it suits me fine, he'd only get in the way while I'm busy

sarajoy

NGale wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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.

Jake is of the opinion that men should not be in the room when the baby is born on the principle of 'There are just some things a man should never see'

I'd like him in the room with me when my time comes, but uh, am not sure he needs to stand downwind... :shock:

UndercoverElephant

sarajoy wrote:

I'd like him in the room with me when my time comes, but uh, am not sure he needs to stand downwind... :shock:

Who, Jake? :shock:

NGale

sarajoy wrote:

NGale wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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.

Jake is of the opinion that men should not be in the room when the baby is born on the principle of 'There are just some things a man should never see'

I'd like him in the room with me when my time comes, but uh, am not sure he needs to stand downwind... :shock:

The only time I would want him there was if I went into labour at home, I know what the paramedics in the area are like

DonDaddyD

NGale wrote:

Jake is of the opinion that men should not be in the room when the baby is born on the principle of 'There are just some things a man should never see'

Certainly, especailly if that baby ever hopes to get a sibling...

I'll be sitting outside, cigar at the ready!

rjsterry

At our ante-natal course, the dads were advised to be there, hold a hand, maybe help in other small ways, and keep any thoughts to ourselves. Sound advice.

Weaker sex, my a*se.

NGale

UndercoverElephant wrote:

sarajoy wrote:

I'd like him in the room with me when my time comes, but uh, am not sure he needs to stand downwind... :shock:

Who, Jake? :shock:

That would explain those 'business trips' :roll:

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

NGale wrote:

Jake is of the opinion that men should not be in the room when the baby is born on the principle of 'There are just some things a man should never see'

Certainly, especailly if that baby ever hopes to get a sibling...

I'll be sitting outside, cigar at the ready!

You won't be able to afford a cigar

DonDaddyD

NGale wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

sarajoy wrote:

I'd like him in the room with me when my time comes, but uh, am not sure he needs to stand downwind... :shock:

Who, Jake? :shock:

That would explain those 'business trips' :roll:

Nah, if you read the papers his business trips coincide with the quelling of South American insurgents, the eradication terrorists in the East somewhere and the destruction of a Russian Oil baron's empire...

If you look at his Credit Card, on the inside it say Mi19....

Jake Bond, I'm telling you.

Agent57

DonDaddyD wrote:

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

Naming your kids after film characters is a great idea. My daughter's called Indiana (after Indiana Jones), and my son's called Elias (after Sgt Elias in Platoon).

Underscore

rhext wrote:

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.

+1. I feel that all prospective and expectant parents should be required to say "We won't let it change us" at least once a day (if they aren't already). There is no way that I could have had a clue about what life would be like with kids before I had them - and if I could have I would probably run a mile as it was so different to life up until that point - so there's little point worrying about it.

I also agree; it's not my money any more, it's the family's. Yes, some of it gets spent on bike stuff (some of it even on stuff for my bikes) but it's the family's income.

_

spen666

Agent57 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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

Naming your kids after film characters is a great idea.

Why?

spen666

Agent57 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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

Naming your kids after film characters is a great idea.

Why?

rjsterry

I always think of Rambo as a common name for a German Shepherd Dog. The preils of picking the wrong film star/character.

Underscore

rjsterry wrote:

At our ante-natal course, the dads were advised to be there, hold a hand, maybe help in other small ways, and keep any thoughts to ourselves. Sound advice.

Absolutely. Another piece of advice: If you wear a wedding ring or similar, slip it in your pocket. I forgot to do this during the arrival of our 3rd (my 4th) last year and, when my wife squeezed my hand during a contraction, I nearly had to grab the gas and air out of her mouth. Yes, I realise that I'm not going to get a lot of sympathy from the women on here but it really hurt, I tell you!

rjsterry wrote:

Weaker sex, my a*se.

Anyone who calls women the weaker sex has never had to get some of the duvet back off one in the middle of the night!

_

DonDaddyD

OK, so for those who are telling me it's not their money its the Family's, does this mean that your teenage children can spend a portion of it as they please?

Is it your car or the family's car?

Is it yours (and your wife's) house or the Family's house.

As a child I always understood that it was my Mum and/or Dad's money, which they used to support the 'family' with. It is my Dad's car and it is my Dad's (and my Mum's) house.

My Dad also owns other propety that has benefitted the family, it is still his. It isn't mine or 'ours' and I don't own a stake in it. Much like the plantation/farm land in Jamaica is my Grandfather's even though most of us are more than welcome to go there build a home and live on.

The money made on that land provides for his Family (which does include me), it is still Grandad DDD and he chooses to support the Family with it.

rjsterry

Think you've kind of answered your own question there with the last couple of paragraphs. Legal ownership isn't really what any of the other posters are talking about unless they have set up little mini communist states..

sarajoy

DDD now you're just getting into semantics

I think you're smart enough to realise that if you're supporting a family - buying yourself nice toys that you saved up for - and proving that nothing else in the family/family home needs some funding before buying said toy - will be a rare occurrence.

Best I can suggest is putting money aside in 'pots' for each family member which accrue value monthly as your paycheck comes in. Kid can choose to use his or hers as pocket money or save it, mother can buy herself nice things, and father can use it for those must-have pieces of geekery/manliness/equipment, etc.

My bloke's mum still effectively gives him pocket money (he's 26), but now she calls it 'whimsy money' at £30/month. He's fairly thrifty and doesn't spend money easily - and most of the whimsy money disappears into his balance! I keep telling him to put it in a separate 'pot' and when it's a certain size use it for something truly worthwhile - I think his mum would be pleased to know how she'd contributed to his enjoyment

rhext

Think of the family as a mini-state, with the parents as the government....

....it's not my money, it's the family's. In the same way that tax revenue belongs to the voters not the government. But someone has to make a decision about who spends what on what. In my household, we have a coalition: both myself and my wife make those decisions within fairly loose boundaries. Some families have a single-party democracy. Some have dictatorships......perhaps in those households the money does not belong to the family.

But the whole issue of ownership doesn't really arise in my case. The house/car belongs to the family. It's my name and my wife's name on the deeds, but that's almost irrelevant, since there are no circumstances under which I'm going to say to the kids 'you can't live here because it's mine'. To give you an example, I'm lucky enough to have a Mercedes. Well, I say 'I'm lucky enough...' because I really can't remember whether I'm the registered keeper or my wife is. It's not my car, it's our car!

When they get older, the situation changes again, and I guess stuff will start to become 'mine' again. At least until I pass away, at which point it becomes theirs!

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK, so for those who are telling me it's not their money its the Family's, does this mean that your teenage children can spend a portion of it as they please? YES

Is it your car or the family's car? BOTH

Is it yours (and your wife's) house or the Family's house. DITTO

As a child I always understood that it was my Mum and/or Dad's money, which they used to support the 'family' with. It is my Dad's car and it is my Dad's (and my Mum's) house. THAT'S BECAUSE YOU WERE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE OPINT IF VIEW OF THE CHILD, RATHER THAN THE PARENT

My Dad also owns other propety that has benefitted the family, it is still his. It isn't mine or 'ours' and I don't own a stake in it. Much like the plantation/farm land in Jamaica is my Grandfather's even though most of us are more than welcome to go there build a home and live on.

The money made on that land provides for his Family (which does include me), it is still Grandad DDD and he chooses to support the Family with it.

(Not being shouty, just easiest way to highlight my responses.)

Underscore

OK, so for those who are telling me it's not their money its the Family's, does this mean that your teenage children can spend a portion of it as they please?

Yes, it's called pocket money initially; later, an allowance.

Is it your car or the family's car?

I used to drive a two-seater sports car and now drive a Ford Galaxy; what do you think?

Is it yours (and your wife's) house or the Family's house.

Any of my children will always be entitled to a bed for the night.

Legally the house is mine. I can't remember whether the car is technically my wife's or mine. However, that's not what we're talking about here...

_

lost_in_thought

I have to say that I agree with Sarajoy, I don't see why there isn't the possibility (like in my example of my cousins in Oz that you liked the sound of ddd) for the father to take the longer leave and the mother to go back to work.

And I do agree that having kids is a lifestyle choice.

jedster

Must admit I find this kind of stuff

My bloke's mum still effectively gives him pocket money (he's 26), but now she calls it 'whimsy money' at £30/month

pretty gobsmacking.

I mean, if my future 26 yr old children get into a scrape and need some financial help then I will likely be there for them but the idea that I will be giving them spending money? NOT BLOODY LIKELY. The 26 yr old me would have found it humiliating not that my parents would have contemplated it.

I was also pretty surprised by DDD talking about asking his Dad for £30 for a night out. Now I realise he was talking about when he was younger but my Dad would have said "you want to spend £30 quid on a night out then you better get out and earn some money". When I was at school, I did get an allowance to pay for clothes and some pocket money but a night out on Friday relied on earning some money the previous Saturday.

This all sounds bonkers to me. Am I turning into a Monty Python Yorkshireman?

J

rjsterry

jedster wrote:

Must admit I find this kind of stuff

My bloke's mum still effectively gives him pocket money (he's 26), but now she calls it 'whimsy money' at £30/month

pretty gobsmacking.

I mean, if my future 26 yr old children get into a scrape and need some financial help then I will likely be there for them but the idea that I will be giving them spending money? NOT BLOODY LIKELY. The 26 yr old me would have found it humiliating not that my parents would have contemplated it.

I was also pretty surprised by DDD talking about asking his Dad for £30 for a night out. Now I realise he was talking about when he was younger but my Dad would have said "you want to spend £30 quid on a night out then you better get out and earn some money". When I was at school, I did get an allowance to pay for clothes and some pocket money but a night out on Friday relied on earning some money the previous Saturday.

This all sounds bonkers to me. Am I turning into a Monty Python Yorkshireman?

J

Nope, that gets a +1 from me. To be fair DDD does admit to being spoilt when he was younger, but pocket money at 26? :shock: and then :shock: some more.

Agent57

spen666 wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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

Naming your kids after film characters is a great idea.

Why?

It was just a seque. Don't worry about deep analysis.

tailwindhome

Yep.

We're on page 12 now.

Boy Lard

My first daughter is called Abigail, after Abigail Whistler in Blade III, and my second daughter is called Harriette, because I want to shorten it to Harri, that is because my surname is Bowes, pronounced Bows, so now I have a daughter called Harri Bowes (should should like Haribos when you say it). I know it's mean, but it makes me giggle.

I was at the birth of both, and got the 'full view'. It wasn't the view which made me uncomfortable, but I love my wife very much and seeing her in that much pain really upset me. I didn't really want to have to see that bit again, but the second one sort of shot out, minimum fuss, we were home within 16 hours of her giving birth.

In my case I can honestly say that what I wanted didn't really matter, what my wife wanted was what I was going to do and I was not about to let her know I felt any different to what she thought I did.

Also, midwives generally have a lack of a sense of humour when they are busy. I was trying to keep my wife calming by making her laugh, and when I pointed out her labour pains probably weren't as bad as my tooth ache, the midwife nearly punched me.

So, no jokes during the birth.