Renovations and Repayments.

Goldiegirl

newgirly wrote: »

I must be very old fashioned as I see dh and my wages as "ours" he earns way more than me, but its all in one pot. I felt the same even when I was a sahm, he worked lots more but I did everything at home and took on 99% of chores and all the childcare. When (and if of course) I get a pretty large inheritance hopefully many many years from now, it will be just as much dh's as mine.

On the flip side I wouldn't want my dd or ds's to share everything they had with a very new partner as many relasionships don't last, but surely after a fair few years and a family it must be hard to feel you are not contributing enough be being penalised financially in a relationship.

Maybe I would feel differently if I was earning loads and dh wasn't though, so maybe I should keep my trap shut :rotfl:

We've always seen the money that comes into the house as 'ours', regardless of who earns it, and over the years at various times my husband has earned more, other times it was me who was the highest earner, and other times we both earned around the same.


Actually, I always thought that was the modern way to do it. In my mind, the old fashioned way is one person controls the household spending, usually the highest earner, and the other person's money is 'pin money'


I couldn't cope with a system where people keep their finances separate and paid a percentage of the bills or one person had responsibility for one set of bills and the other had responsibility for the other set of bills. That'd be far too complicated for me.


In a relationship where the parties are co-habiting, I personally think finances should be pooled. But at this point in my life the only person I could trust to share with is Mr Goldie, so I'd never live with anyone else again. If I ever had to find a new partner in future, I'm sure it'd be on the basis that we kept our own separate houses

Watty1

Have you thought about listing all you do around house including childcare then researching how much it would cost to pay for that? A pal did this recently and it boosted her no end when she saw how much she financially contributed ... in theory

AlexLK

smallholdingsister wrote: »

The lower paid teaching jobs are in the classroom.
You get paid more the more experience you have, up to a point and if you succeed at appraisal.

Squirrel was a member of the senior leadership (assistant head and above). They get paid the most but are no longer protected by teachers' terms and conditions which limit time spent at work - though there is no limit to time spent working.

Thanks, smallholding.

Still trying to work out if teaching (in a school / classroom) is for me, to be honest. If I think it's something I'd like to try, I'll put my application in around this time next year but for the time being I'm trying to get as many and varied experiences as possible. Other possibility is completing my current course and going down the PhD route (which has been planned for a long time). If I do teaching I think it'll probably be a 5-7 year thing and then do the PhD anyway as that's something I've always wanted to do, so very much doubt I'll reach any position of responsibility.

maman wrote: »

:Ton signing up for the IT course. You're right that some programming has now been included but using the computer across the curriculum as a tool is still the major part at KS1/2.

Interesting that you were asked whether you were going into KS2 for Headship. Many governors would still prefer a Headmaster as they assume that men are more suited to being in charge and managing behaviour!!:rotfl:Headships are increasingly difficult to fill and many areas are only coping by having 'Executive Heads' that manage several schools at once. Ofsted has an awful lot to answer for.

I still find MrsK's attitude to money selfish. Does she not take into account the cost of childcare?

I have the right type of mind to rather enjoy the programming. When I progress I hope to make the website I've been promising to do for years, so no loss if this is never put into practice in a classroom.

Can't see me as a Headmaster, maman.

:rotfl: Re. Mrs K and childcare, she's made is very clear she wouldn't have chosen to have a child if it were purely her decision.

AlexLK

hiddenshadow wrote: »

I wouldn't say I'm an optimist so much as I'm not willing to write off my entire future as a loss until it's happened. I might win the lottery tomorrow (would have to find a lost ticket first as I don't play), or I might be hit by a bus. Neither outcome is particularly likely, but I'm open to both possibilities (and prepare for the bus one with life insurance).

You'll be "back to the start" as far as not having a savings pot anymore, but your house will be in better condition and you won't have gone into debt for it - that's still far better than you would have been if you hadn't saved (or gotten out of debt in the first place). You may not be that inspired by the end result of fixing up the house (hence my suggesting finding something that does inspire you), but you can't argue that financially having an end result of "savings account: 0, paid-for-repairs: 10k" is far better than "savings account: 0, new-debt-for-repairs: 10k".

Don't play the lottery either and doubt I'd find a ticket (too absent minded to notice and don't know what one looks like) but would gladly be hit by a bus.

I'd be happy to spend the money on the house had my wife not decided she does after all have strong views about what is to be done to the house (to cause an argument, not because she really is bothered). In my opinion, she wants to wreck it.

hiddenshadow wrote: »

What do you mean? (As an aside, the only things I can think of to spend money on that would lead me to an impression of "complete loser" are drugs/alcohol, and even then there are - usually - addictions behind that level of spending on those things. DH spends all his free money on DVDs that he usually doesn't even watch - drives me a bit mental because I don't really see the point, but it makes him happy so that's the part I care about. And even though I think it's weird, I don't think any less of him for spending his money in a weird-to-me way - just means we're different people with different interests/priorities.)

I mean by not earning much money I'm seen as being a complete loser. No one cares about the things I am good at or know about. Nothing to do with how I choose to spend whatever money I do have.

hiddenshadow wrote: »

You and your wife seem very firm on keeping all your finances separate - income separate, debt separate, etc. That's up to you and how you manage your finances, but the one strong recommendation I'd have in this regard is to use a percentage-based level for counting who pays for what. Given that she earns more than you do (and her income is steady as she's not self-employed), it's only fair that she contribute more than you do (you can count this towards just bills or spending money as well, which sounds like it would please MrsK )

Assuming she earns 40k and you earn 10k. Thus of the 50k she's contributing 80%. You then apply that to some/all of your spending (depending on whether you agree that it applies to everything or just expenses/household things).

Mortgage - 1000 - she contributes 800, you contribute 200
Bills - 500 - she contributes 400, you contribute 100
Food - 200 - she contributes 160, you contribute 40
etc

Thus more of her pay goes towards your joint expenses, as she brings in more money - the key point being that the amounts are based on what each of you bring in. You still pay for expenses, but it's relative to the amount you bring in.

If you want to extend this to spending money, then she gets 4x as much as you (but no more!). It's not fair if she hoards her pay just because she earns more than you, leaving you to use all your income to handle household expenses (which benefit her as well).

If she wants to spend, say, 1k/mo of her pay on things she wants, you should get to spend (or save) 250/mo on whatever you like. If that puts you over budget on the rest of your lives, then you'll both have to cut back on what you have to spend/save as you like (stopping what she's been doing, which sounds like spending the 1k and then leaving you to figure out how to make up the difference in the budget alone).

I've already illustrated what 250/mo can get you down the line ...it could mean financial independence depending on your expenses, or it could just mean a very nice car/watch/pen .

My wife and I do not have separate finances. She tells me to one minute sort out our finances and the next, when she doesn't like my suggestions, tells me it's her money. We did have separate finances for a bit during the time I was paying off my debt but she refused to split things in the way you describe.

newgirly wrote: »

I must be very old fashioned as I see dh and my wages as "ours" he earns way more than me, but its all in one pot. I felt the same even when I was a sahm, he worked lots more but I did everything at home and took on 99% of chores and all the childcare. When (and if of course) I get a pretty large inheritance hopefully many many years from now, it will be just as much dh's as mine.

On the flip side I wouldn't want my dd or ds's to share everything they had with a very new partner as many relasionships don't last, but surely after a fair few years and a family it must be hard to feel you are not contributing enough be being penalised financially in a relationship.

Maybe I would feel differently if I was earning loads and dh wasn't though, so maybe I should keep my trap shut :rotfl:

I used to earn more than my wife and sharing didn't bother me at all.

Don't want my son to have a relationship like mine when he's older and I hope he'll have enough self respect to not.

Debsnewbudget wrote: »

We have used the percentage share for years but only for the household expenses. The rest is ours to do what we want. We both pay half towards holidays etc
When DH was working he paid in a higher percentage than me, now he is on his pension I pay in more than him. It works for us

Wife wouldn't do this. When we had separate finances she told me she saw it as something she hoped I'd remember as being uncomfortable.

AlexLK

Goldiegirl wrote: »

We've always seen the money that comes into the house as 'ours', regardless of who earns it, and over the years at various times my husband has earned more, other times it was me who was the highest earner, and other times we both earned around the same.

Actually, I always thought that was the modern way to do it. In my mind, the old fashioned way is one person controls the household spending, usually the highest earner, and the other person's money is 'pin money'

I couldn't cope with a system where people keep their finances separate and paid a percentage of the bills or one person had responsibility for one set of bills and the other had responsibility for the other set of bills. That'd be far too complicated for me.

In a relationship where the parties are co-habiting, I personally think finances should be pooled. But at this point in my life the only person I could trust to share with is Mr Goldie, so I'd never live with anyone else again. If I ever had to find a new partner in future, I'm sure it'd be on the basis that we kept our own separate houses

I used to believe all this about my own marriage.

Watty1 wrote: »

Have you thought about listing all you do around house including childcare then researching how much it would cost to pay for that? A pal did this recently and it boosted her no end when she saw how much she financially contributed ... in theory

It wouldn't make a difference. So far as my wife is concerned, I was the one who wanted to have a family, therefore my responsibility.

maman

AlexLK wrote: »

I'd be happy to spend the money on the house had my wife not decided she does after all have strong views about what is to be done to the house (to cause an argument, not because she really is bothered). In my opinion, she wants to wreck it.

Is that just because she wants a modern bathroom? Or has she got stone cladding, decking, a built in BBQ and hot tub in mind?:rotfl:

Watty1

maman wrote: »

Or has she got stone cladding, decking, a built in BBQ and hot tub in mind?:rotfl:

Surely those would all enhance the K household??? (ducks)

smallholdingsister

Maybe a bar in the sitting room?

AlexLK

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Very funny.

She wants a bathroom that looks akin to something you'd find in a suite of a nice city hotel. It would look completely out of place in the house and not to my taste.

heartbreak_star

I'd totes have a bar in the living room.

Over a bench, with big metal discs on it...

I was pondering this thread the other day, and a thing that came to mind was "It's really uncool to live with your parents"! My mind is funny sometimes...

I don't think I'd like a hotel-style bathroom either. Mind you, my dream is a sunken bath...

HBS x