Spend or save? 18 February 2014 at 10:57PM edited 19 February 2014 at 9:13AM in Over 50s MoneySaving 52 replies 9.3K views

margaretclare

mumps wrote: »

Gosh, what old fashioned ideas. If a man came on and talked about "subsidising" his wife I wonder what response he would get. Our money is our money, at one time I was earning alot less than husband then he was disabled and I was earning alot more than him, well he was getting a pension. It has never occurred to me, and I don't think it has occurred to him, to say who is being subsidised and who is subsidising.

Moneyistooshortistomention sometimes things are more important than money, by the way I am 60 so same generation.

I never thought of 'subsidising' my first husband at the time. We shared, just as DH and I do now. I used the word 'subsidise' in response to another post.

vivmagb

My husband had bowel cancer 2 years ago and had to have chemo radio therapy then surgery and then chemo again. Just as we had recovered from that he was diagnosed in the early stages of Alzheimer's. Reeling from that diagnosis we then found out that he had terminal liver cancer. Money is not at the top of our priority list.

Errata

I never cease to be amazed by couples who are happy and willing to share body fluids but not money. Coupledom is a joint venture, not a loose federation of interested parties.

Parsimonia

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

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:

Yes, he certainly never could afford his lifestyle on his milkman's wage - he's always joked that he's high maintenance and that Trudy needs to keep working to keep him in the style to which he's beome accustomed.

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

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 hadn't considered that she might be 'testing' him....if so, he's failing with flying colours at the moment!

Parsimonia

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Just checked out your first post again, as to what age she is. Not young enough to be a younger generation than I am in personally (I'm early 60s). With that...I'm in a generation that is surprised to see a woman subsidising a man.

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've 'subsidised' my husband since he had to give up work through illness - to be honest, I'm always reassuring him that it's not a problem in any way, shape or form! I consider my salary 'our' money, and to be honest he brings more than his fair share to the partnership - he gives me his love, his support, his company, his humour...and his housework and good cooking skills!!!

To be honest, I don't think 'Trudy' chose 'Steve' in the first place for his earning potential. As regards the house, his parents died in a car crash at the ages of 52 and 48 just 3 months after 'Trudy' and 'Steve' married...in the normal course of events, they wouldn't have expected a legacy from the parents for 30 or 40 years...indeed, if at all.

Parsimonia

zygurat789 wrote: »

The description "milkman" could mean anything from getting up early and putting on doorsteps" to being self employed running a business. My FiL was a "milkman", he did everything from grass to doorstep and he certainly had a bob or two.
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

He was the 'getting up at dawn' type of salaried milkman (Dairy Crest) and earned (I think) about £18k gross for a 6 day wek. No question that he didn't work hard for his money.

Trudy does indeed know what she's let herself in for... I think it became clear pretty early on in the marriage that Trudy (who was the university educated brainy one) would be the main breadwinner, and would be expected to give Steve free rein (within reason) over what he spent on his hobbies. She and the children have accommodated this selfishness for many years - but they love him, so I assume they feel it's a fair trade off (and who am I to judge?)

I think applying the skills and processes she uses daily at work has led her to the conclusion that (knowing her husband) a bigger nest egg is required just in case he doesn't shuffle off this mortal coil as quick as he fears he might.

Steve is all for living for the here and now - spend, spend, spend and hang the future...Trudy is a bit more cautious as she knows she has a husband with expensive tastes.

I think she's leaning towards the sabbatical....

Parsimonia

Errata wrote: »

I never cease to be amazed by couples who are happy and willing to share body fluids but not money. Coupledom is a joint venture, not a loose federation of interested parties.

Yes, I couldn't agree more!!!

zygurat789

Parsimonia wrote: »

To be honest, I don't think it's Trudy's own future financial security that she's worrying about! The crux of her worry is what's the best thing to do financially if he manages to go into remission and his health doesn't deteriorate, and he therefore lives another 20 or 30 years?

To make it clear, this is what she absolutely WANTS to happen - she wants him to live as long as possible.

But, she's worried that if he does live a longer life than anticipated, she'll need to provide sufficient pension for two people to live comfortably on (one of whom has very expensive hobbies and tastes).

I think if she knew for certain that he only had a few years to live she'd quit her job in an instant, before she's even entitled to draw down any pension at all, and regardless of the financial impact.

It's Steve that wants her to carry on working - he wants the high income now so that he can enjoy himself whilst he still can.

She's devoted to him, and wants to look after him but also not have to deny him anything (materially) that he wants.

I agree that £450k (or thereabouts) is a lot of life insurance - not quite sure why they took out that much (I think Trudy's life is insured for the same amount)...I think they wanted to provide security for their children and grandchildren....

So it boils down to a financial problem, lets examine rthe finances.
By far the bigest chunk of this is £900,000 of life insuarance, but what sort is this.
Is it a whole of life policy which only pays out on death in which case Steve's should definitely be maintained.
Or is it a savings plan for a specific number of years, in which case it will not be worth £450K if it is cashed in now but will pay out that amount on his death.
What are the premiums for these and which type are they?

I also note that "cutting expenditure to the bone" means spending about £30K pa!

Parsimonia

zygurat789 wrote: »

So it boils down to a financial problem, lets examine rthe finances.
By far the bigest chunk of this is £900,000 of life insuarance, but what sort is this.
Is it a whole of life policy which only pays out on death in which case Steve's should definitely be maintained.
Or is it a savings plan for a specific number of years, in which case it will not be worth £450K if it is cashed in now but will pay out that amount on his death.
What are the premiums for these and which type are they?

I also note that "cutting expenditure to the bone" means spending about £30K pa!

Yes, some people's idea of 'cutting expenditure to the bone' differs from one's own! Hence why Trudy thinks they can afford to do it...Steve on the other hand thinks they can't afford to save anything.

I'm not sure about the insurance - I know that Steve did suggest cashing his in which suggests it doesn't just pay out on death...

zygurat789

Parsimonia wrote: »

Yes, some people's idea of 'cutting expenditure to the bone' differs from one's own! Hence why Trudy thinks they can afford to do it...Steve on the other hand thinks they can't afford to save anything.

I'm not sure about the insurance - I know that Steve did suggest cashing his in which suggests it doesn't just pay out on death...

Policies that you may cash in may pay out on death, so long as they haven't been cashed in.
Steve's policy should not be cashed in if it pays out on death
Possibly they should be talking to the insurance company to see if they can keep the death bit but not the savings bit
This is Steve's life policy shouldn't he be allowed to spend it a bit before he dies?