Energy Price Cap announcement: Watch Martin Lewis explain what it means for your electricity and gas bills this winter
Spend or save?
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides
MoneySavingExpert
Chair, Martin Lewis · Editor, Marcus Herbert
Replies
It's Steve that wants her to carry on working, to bring in a high income now whilst he can still enjoy it. Trudy's the one who wants to cut short her working life so they can spend more time together, but she thinks she needs to build up a bigger nest egg first, knowing his expensive tastes, and that requires some financial sacrifices now.
I think the suggestion to work part time is a good one. It's what I'd do if I could (my hubby is also ill with a reduced life expectancy) if we weren't already barely making ends meet. We can't afford to do it but Trudy can, so I may suggest that to her.
At the moment she's sick with worry and can't think straight....
January NSD Challenge - 19/21 under target
February NSD Challenge - 22/20 - over target
March NSD Challenge - 19/14 - over target
April NSD Challenge - 0/16
YTD NSDs = 60
We have found it to be best work / life balance for us. :j
Ride hard or stay home :iloveyou:
At least they won't have to fork out for foreign holidays as he's so ill and insurance virtually impossible.
What an insightful comment! I confess he's not my favourite person in the world, and Trudy is a saint to put up with him. He's very much an "I want it, and I don't want to have to wait for it' type of person, and Trudy bends over backwards pandering to his whims and caprices.
Poor Trudy...it must be awful to think someone chooses material things over quality time together.
January NSD Challenge - 19/21 under target
February NSD Challenge - 22/20 - over target
March NSD Challenge - 19/14 - over target
April NSD Challenge - 0/16
YTD NSDs = 60
I'd be inclined to back that idea of a sabbatical.
Maybe hubbie will come to appreciate his wife's company more than her money during it. Maybe not.
There is no way a milkman could afford first editions/fine wining and dining and holidays I would imagine. I think that standard of living for someone on the wages he must have been bringing in isn't possible (even for a married person..with the lower expenses married people than have singles). He must be being heavily subsidised by the good salary your friend is earning to be able to live at that standard.
His call....as to whether he wants her company or her money most. I'm not surprised you describe their marriage as "difficult".:cool:
Maybe she is "testing" him a bit herself at some level (though I don't know whether she is aware of this herself??) to see whether its her or her money he actually wants and that is part of the reason why she wants to give up the money. Then she'd find out which it is that he wants from her.
A sabbatical would equal that she hadn't "burnt her boats" if she got the wrong answer to that question and found it was her money that is what is required.
I wonder whether she had thought "Well he brings a house to the marriage and maybe he will make something of himself later...in order to 'match' me better". But if the only sizeable asset he has, of himself, is one he inherited (rather than worked for) then I would say it sounds as if he wants (and has always wanted) to free-ride and has been unconventional enough to have a woman subsidise him even though he is a man. Sometimes women in my generation will "trade down", but only for a man with "potential". I've "traded down" a few times with boyfriends, but then ensured they "fulfilled their potential" subsequently LOL. The ones that stuck around ended up getting much better jobs than when I met them and maybe that's what your friend thought would happen with him.
I don't rate your friends chances of being wanted for herself I'm afraid and the best thing you can do for her is urge her to do everything possible to protect herself (and their children) from this man.
I do hope I'm proved wrong.
I subsidised my first husband for many many years. He didn't work after 1976, was on a downward spiral with heart disease, latterly strokes, died in 1992 when we were both in our late 50s.
When we moved here - where I still live with my second husband - I took on a mortgage. The lender wouldn't let his name be on the deeds and he wasn't insurable because of his health.
So, what would we have done if I hadn't subsidised him? We'd have lived on benefits, I suppose, all the years that we were bringing up 2 daughters - 'lived', well, existed really. The good part of it was that he was at home for the girls coming from school etc.
Before I found wisdom, I became old.
Moneyistooshortistomention sometimes things are more important than money, by the way I am 60 so same generation.
2831.00/£1500
However, it does transpire that Steve is an asset rich deliveryman, Trudy should have known what she was getting into. I am a little disturbed at the way some of these posts are going, these days who supports whom is a lot more fluid than it used to be and, logically this burden should be borne by the one most able to shoulder the burden, the higher earner. There is also an old adage, "He who pays the piper....etc".
Trudy is by all accounts able to make decisions affecting the lives of many ill people she should now be able to put this experience to good use.
If all else fails , use a decision tree