Are these situtions different...or not?

ceridwen

aliasojo wrote: »

Unfortunately for reasons I dont think it's right for me to go into, Mrs Smith isn't working and is unlikely to be any time soon, if at all.

Then she must be eligible for some sort of disability grant - or Mr Smith is eligible for carers allowance or something. If one is too ill to be able to work then there are these various things available. Have they checked to see what her illness entitles them to?

aliasojo

Thanks Ceridwen but for the purposes of the thread and the two points being discussed, I dont think it's necessary to go into Mrs Smith's details so I'd prefer not to comment on her situation. It's enough just to say she's not working and their income is, as it is and their budget is, as it is.

I appreciate you taking the time to make the suggestion though, so I hope you dont think I'm being a bit 'off' here by not specifically answering your points?


@seven-day-weekend...that's my feeling also, that they should build in a certain amount and alternate.

I also think they should go back to a communal jar situation and just be more responsible about dipping into it tbh. I think Mrs Smith could easily keep back some money in her purse and just have a set amount in the jar (and sly as it may seem, personally I wouldn't be telling Mr Smith there was money in my purse at all so he thinks that once the jar money is gone, then it's gone).

I sometimes feel this all boils down to just a difference in views about spending. I think Mrs Smith is of the view that you cant have personal luxuries if you have serious things you need the money for...and Mr Smith thinks you need personal luxuries to stop yourself from becoming completely brownbeaten by a tight budget, iyswim.

Anyway, thanks for all the comments, it's always useful seeing other people's pov.

Lunar_Eclipse

aliasojo wrote: »

Mr and Mrs Smith.

I think both those scenarios are the same. They are both about secretly stashing cash, which is far from the best way of getting one's desires. However, Mr Smith may not see his way as being as deliberate as Mrs Smith's example. Given what is currently going on, it doesn't seem that money is so tight that a small personal allowance wouldn't be possible, since Mr Smith is effectively taking one already.

Firstly, I would encourage formalising this. Mr Smith's feelings of working hard for no/few treats are important (and less relevantly, justified IMO).

Secondly I would stop the 'taking from the purse' situation. Personally I would add occasional coffees/sandwiches into the personal allowance. That way Mr S has a choice between buying 3 coffees or a CD for example. He may be unaware that in reality he already currently has this choice.

I think you said Mr S takes money most days. £2/day works out at £10/week. So they may even be able to push this to £50/month and Mr Smith might start enjoying more water from the tap. Furthermore, an allowance would seem to empower both Mr and Mrs Smith. Mrs S doesn't get caught out by finding less money than expected in her purse, Mr S could buy more treats, by sacrificing in other areas.

Back to read other replies now.:)

seven-day-weekend

aliasojo wrote: »

Thanks Ceridwen but for the purposes of the thread and the two points being discussed, I dont think it's necessary to go into Mrs Smith's details so I'd prefer not to comment on her situation. It's enough just to say she's not working and their income is, as it is and their budget is, as it is.

I appreciate you taking the time to make the suggestion though, so I hope you dont think I'm being a bit 'off' here by not specifically answering your points?


@seven-day-weekend...that's my feeling also, that they should build in a certain amount and alternate.

I also think they should go back to a communal jar situation and just be more responsible about dipping into it tbh. I think Mrs Smith could easily keep back some money in her purse and just have a set amount in the jar (and sly as it may seem, personally I wouldn't be telling Mr Smith there was money in my purse at all so he thinks that once the jar money is gone, then it's gone).

I sometimes feel this all boils down to just a difference in views about spending. I think Mrs Smith is of the view that you cant have personal luxuries if you have serious things you need the money for...and Mr Smith thinks you need personal luxuries to stop yourself from becoming completely brownbeaten by a tight budget, iyswim.

Anyway, thanks for all the comments, it's always useful seeing other people's pov.

Agree absolutely with Mr Smith, even if it's only a coffee in a cafe once a month. You can't NEVER have something for yourself, especially if you work full-time. They'll end up either having a breakdown, Mr Smith being even more 'sneaky' (although from what I read I think she has driven him to it by being so inflexible, not that that is any excuse) and/or hating the sight of each other.

She needs to lighten up imho. I understand there is not enough money for very much, but I still think they could find enough for the small, occasional treat.

We are on a tiny budget which has further suffered from the exchange rate (we live in Spain) and can still afford a treat every so often - it means we have a veggie curry instead of a chicken one, or one sausage instead of two. The food is still good, wholesome and plentiful, you just have to be a bit creative about it.

aliasojo

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

I think both those scenarios are the same. They are both about secretly stashing cash, which is far from the best way of getting one's desires.

:confused: I dont agree that Mrs Smith is stashing cash. It's just that the everyday household money for bread/milk/bits etc is in her purse.


I think you said Mr S takes money most days.

No, I said occasionally.

Have to write something here or message wont post.....:rotfl:

aliasojo

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

She needs to lighten up imho. I understand there is not enough money for very much, but I still think they could find enough for the small, occasional treat.

I agree. I can completely see her point, she thinks that if you put your head down and put up with not having, then you can get past the tough bits quicker but the problem I think, is that they aren't going to get past the tough times quick enough and I think they do need to be a little flexible given that this is a long (ish) term situation.

Lunar_Eclipse

aliasojo wrote: »

Have to write something here or message wont post.....:rotfl:

Sorry, I wasn't implying that Mrs S is currently stashing cash. I don't think her purse counts.

I thought the question posed by 'are these situations different or not?' was referring to Mrs S's comment about Mr S's current behaviour and her starting to secretly stash cash, which he thought were different. And I would (then) consider the same.

Jo_R_2

The family 'pot' - is this basically the grocery money if I understand rightly?

So Mrs. Smith looks after it in her wallet, and Mr. S pulls out the odd couple of pounds for a sandwich, drink basically as he is leaving for work, not letting Mrs. S know? I'd be peeved at that. If he's doing this regularly, why doesn't he take extra to work, instead of buying stuff for his work day? If this was OH I'd be chucking a flask of soup his way or an extra sandwich rather than him spending extra.

I'm also a bit confused about the taking money, him taking extra then saving it for CDs. If the budget is so tight and Mrs. S doesn't always notice what he's got, how is there *not* extra for a small amount for spends for both of them? Personally I think that is very, very sly on Mr. S's part. Also the attitude about working and not seeming to get anything out of it... Well I'm trying to bite my lip here because those very words have come out of OH's mouth more than once:rolleyes: Having said that I do see the point, but I do think it is rather selfish on his part if he's only concerned about HIM and his treats rather than saying that "they" don't get anything to treat themselves with.... But that's probably going off on a tangent a bit.

I think they both need to have some spends for themselves... I know you said the budget is v. tight, but IMO if Mr. S is sneakily buying CDs anyway where is that coming from - could that not be 'converted' to a little personal allowance for them each maybe?

aliasojo

Jo_R wrote: »

I'm also a bit confused about the taking money, him taking extra then saving it for CDs. If the budget is so tight and Mrs. S doesn't always notice what he's got, how is there *not* extra for a small amount for spends for both of them?

When I said Mrs Smith didn't notice what he has....I meant in the way of cds, so he could easily buy a new one and leave it in the car stereo for instance and she'd be none the wiser.


I think they both need to have some spends for themselves... I know you said the budget is v. tight, but IMO if Mr. S is sneakily buying CDs anyway where is that coming from

Ok, sometimes he might take more from the purse than he needs, so if he wanted 2 quid for a coffee and sandwich for example, then he might take 3 or 4 quid, use what he needed and then put the rest to one side. He might do this a few times then end up with a spare tenner which he would then buy a cd with. Mrs Smith argument is that this isn't fair and if there is any 'floating' money like that, then it shouldn't be used for cds.

:easter_os < Just thought I'd get in first as I needed to write something here again.

aliasojo

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

Sorry, I wasn't implying that Mrs S is currently stashing cash. I don't think her purse counts.

I thought the question posed by 'are these situations different or not?' was referring to Mrs S's comment about Mr S's current behaviour and her starting to secretly stash cash, which he thought were different. And I would (then) consider the same.

Get you now.