Worked for 20 years now staying home to bring up children - help

viktory

bellrooster wrote: »

Children and handbags is a bonkers comparison :rolleyes:

The point I was making (which clearly went way over your head :rolleyes: ) is that we all have choices. The OP choose to stay at home and rear her children but wants us to pay for it. I choose to buy expensive handbags - but I don't ask the tax payer to pay for them. Perhaps I should?

She has enjoyed a fine lifestyle frittering her handsome salary and now thinks that the tax payer should pay for her to stay at home. Now that's bonkers.

bellrooster

It didn't go over my head at all (how rude)! I knew exactly what you were saying! I just don't agree with you.

viktory

bellrooster wrote: »

It didn't go over my head at all (how rude)! I knew exactly what you were saying! I just don't agree with you.

In which case might I suggest you phrase your posts a bit more carefully. This will ensure it is clear that you do not agree and could facilitate further discussion. Your rather rude comments about 'bonkers' comparisons adds nothing to the debate.

For example, you could have said "That seems like a strange comparison, not one I agree with at all". If you were in the least bit interested in further discussion (as opposed to the 'la la la fingers in the ears, I'm not listening to you' attitude you appear to have at the moment) you could have gone on to say "Can you explain to me how children and handbags are comparable in your world" etc, etc.

bellrooster

Viktory

Can you explain to me how children and bags are comparable in your world?

briona

bellrooster wrote: »

Can you explain to me how children and bags are comparable in your world?

I don't think Viktory's saying that a child and a bag are one and the same (obviously that would be ridiculous! LOL!). Her point seems to be that the taxpayer should not be held liable for your choices, be it children, holidays, fast cars, high fashion, huge houses or anything else you desire...

duchy

Of course the fact that anyone pays that sort of money for a handbag is equally bonkers !

Now if your handbag could be sent out to work for forty years and pay for your pension and healthcare in your old age I might see some point to it.

viktory

briona wrote: »

I don't think Viktory's saying that a child and a bag are one and the same (obviously that would be ridiculous! LOL!). Her point seems to be that the taxpayer should not be held liable for your choices, be it children, holidays, fast cars, high fashion, huge houses or anything else you desire...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 'Nuff said.

bellrooster

duchy wrote: »

Of course the fact that anyone pays that sort of money for a handbag is equally bonkers !

Now if your handbag could be sent out to work for forty years and pay for your pension and healthcare in your old age I might see some point to it.

^^^^^ Now there's 'Nuff said'

viktory

These are your opinions and of course you are perfectly entitled to hold those opinions. I suspect that on a money saving website a lot of people will share your opinions. But it all comes down to choice, doesn’t it? I choose to spend best part of £200 on a handbag. I can afford it so why not? What I don’t do is come onto a money saving site and say that I want an expensive handbag and I also want the taxpayer to pay for it because after all, I have paid loads of money into the ‘pot’.

As I said before, the OP has the right to be a SAHM but she does not have the right to ask me and other taxpayers to pay for her to be a SAHM. If that is what she chooses to do then she needs to make provision to pay for it.

I think her post is even more infuriating when you read that she has enjoyed a frivolous lifestyle with plenty of money, but has saved nothing, preferring to claim benefits to fund her new lifestyle.

That’s galling and as far as I am concerned it is not what benefits are supposed to be for. Benefits are supposed to be a safety net for those in dire need – not a lifestyle choice, whether it be a handbag or child.

krisskross

duchy wrote: »

Now if your handbag could be sent out to work for forty years and pay for your pension and healthcare in your old age I might see some point to it.

This is a very commonly held misapprehension. No one is going to be paying for my pension, I have made all the necessary arrangements, and paid for them, to ensure that I am not reliant on anyone.

At least the handbag won't cost a fortune to educate and keep healthy then decide not to work and cost for the rest of it's life to sit on it's laurels or whatever handbags sit on. There are no guarantees that any of todays children are going to be working for 40 years or at all.