Joint finances when you have children?

Guest101

LilElvis wrote: »

Total and utter rubbish! - Oh well someone better tell the millions of people receiving an income from the state that it's all make believe then.

I have a daughter in reception. I am a stay at home Mum. I receive ZERO, NADA, NOTHING ......... ZIP - Then you are in a fortunate position, as a HOUSEHOLD income . Before she started school the only benefit that I received was 1 year of assistance with her nursery education. This amounted to 15 hours a week. She attended nursery for 21 hours a week, but because the funding doesn't include food or school holidays it actually meant that out of the £550 this cost per month we still had to pay £330. Woooo Hoooo! - So there was some income after all?

I didn't have a child in order for the State to pay me to stay at home - and they certainly haven't.

Good for you. Any more inciteful comments? Or are you really so deluded thatyou think the majority of people are in the same fortunte position you find yourself in?

Guest101

Judi wrote: »

Who made you judge and jury?

Well they're entitled to an opinion...

Lily-Rose_3

Mojisola wrote: »

It's an arrangement that does suit some couples as long as the SATP understands the vulnerability of their situation. If the working spouse dies young or the relationship breaks up, the SATP would find it very hard to get a job after years of non-employment. It could also have a massive effect on the pension entitlement for their later years.

Like all life choices, people should chose what suits them but also have a eye on the 'what ifs' and plan accordingly.

Hmmmm, although I agree with much of what Peter333 says, that it is nobody's business but the couple's if the wife/mother stays at home forevermore, I have to say that this is a very good point. It's all well and good staying at home forevermore, but the woman can be left in a VERY vulnerable position if the man leaves her. There are all sorts of factors to consider. (Particularly the ones you have highlighed.) I am not badmouthing being an indefinite homemaker, but you really do have to think it through, and think how you will deal with it if hubby leaves you.

Originally Posted by Guest101

Why did she not work for 20 years?!

I can understand until youngest is at school. But surely after that you'd go to work?

LilElvis wrote: »

Possibly because schools aren't open 52 weeks of the year, 9 til 5. This means that for working parents childcare is still needed before/after school and during holidays. Childcare is extremely expensive and the cost might well outweigh the increase in income from the SAHM returning to work.

Very good point, and I really don't think that there is anything wrong with not working for 20 years (if until your youngest finishes school even.) Not if you are a mother who is a homemaker (or a father even!) Some people seem to assume that when the kids start school at 5, that the mother should now go back to work; but the kids still need one parent at home, more than many people realise. Many years ago woman used to stay at home with the kids and not work, and even when the kids left, they would sometimes still not work. So why are woman vilified for it now? (NB; you do have to take into account the things mentioned in the first post I quoted though if you choose to be a homemaker/SAHM for a LONG time!)

Jagraf wrote: »

Its a very common debate, but I personally felt vilified by others who thought I was wrong to go back to work when my daughter was very young. I don't very often hear the term "home maker" now, it sounds a bit Victorian.

Gosh really? Women with young kids can't win can they!!! And I would say homemaker sounds more American than Victorian.

I can definitely agree with the comments about people being jealous and bitter though, because I don't work now. I am in my early 50s now, and worked right up to 48, and had to finish through ill health. I worked for 32 years, and I was very well paid for much of that time, so I paid in 32 years worth of contributions, and a LOT of tax: so I have accrued a decent state pension, as well as 2 personal ones, and I have paid my dues.

But as I said, I don't work now, and the amount of comments I get from some women just astounds me. One woman in particular lives near me, (she is about 3 years older than me,) and every time I see her, she quizzes me... She will say 'do you not miss work?' 'do you cope all right financially then with you not working?' 'do you think you'll ever go back to work?' She seems very annoyed and puzzled when I said 'NO I don't miss work,' and 'NO I have no plans to go back.'

And the raised eyebrows from some when they ask me what I do, and I say I am retired, in my early 50s; they look a cross between puzzled and annoyed. One even said 'well what do you DO all day?!' My husband's brother's wife said once (about a year ago,) 'well it wouldn't do for ME to not work!' LOL, she is 44 and was a SAHM from 19 y.o to 39 y.o, so that's a bit rich! So far she has only worked 8 years of her life!

Like I said, some women are quite jealous and catty.

Mojisola

Lily-Rose wrote: »

Hmmmm, although I agree with much of what Peter333 says, that it is nobody's business but the couple's if the wife/mother stays at home forevermore, I have to say that this is a very good point. It's all well and good staying at home forevermore, but the woman can be left in a VERY vulnerable position if the man leaves her.

In the case of one couple I knew very well, it was the Dad who stayed home and raised the children. He did some casual work while the children were at school but nothing permanent. During the child rearing years his wife was in a high-powered job, putting a lot away in her pension and her personal savings while he had to manage on what he earned during the term times.

When she left, he was left with very little to start life again and has never got much above minimum wage jobs because of his years of non-employment.

Lily-Rose_3

Mojisola wrote: »

In the case of one couple I knew very well, it was the Dad who stayed home and raised the children. He did some casual work while the children were at school but nothing permanent. During the child rearing years his wife was in a high-powered job, putting a lot away in her pension and her personal savings while he had to manage on what he earned during the term times.

When she left, he was left with very little to start life again and has never got much above minimum wage jobs because of his years of non-employment.

Oh dear. I am sorry. That is the risk one takes. And it is usually women to be fair. Although I have no issue with men being SAHD'S!!!

It's pretty wrong and pretty bad that the Stay at home Parent is left vulnerable like this, as it's great for one parent to be there all the time... but I don't think there's anything that can be done about it, sadly...

AngelOfTheNorth

LilElvis wrote: »

Possibly because schools aren't open 52 weeks of the year, 9 til 5. This means that for working parents childcare is still needed before/after school and during holidays. Childcare is extremely expensive and the cost might well outweigh the increase in income from the SAHM returning to work.

Where it actually exists. It would be extremely naïve to think there is enough wraparound childcare everywhere to meet demand.

Guest101 wrote: »

Good for you. Any more inciteful comments? Or are you really so deluded thatyou think the majority of people are in the same fortunte position you find yourself in?

The point is that you said, without qualifying it, that the state will pay an income for a SAHP of a preschool child, and this just isn't true. If you'd said the state will pay an income for most but not all in this situation, you'd have been right. As it was, you weren't.

Lily-Rose wrote: »

Gosh really? Women with young kids can't win can they!!!

Nope!

LilElvis

Guest101 wrote: »

Good for you. Any more inciteful comments? Or are you really so deluded thatyou think the majority of people are in the same fortunte position you find yourself in?

I was replying to your sweeping (and inaccurate) statement that SAHM are in receipt of state support. Perhaps you could supply us with the figures as to what proportion do receive such support? Thanks for pointing out that I did receive a few hundred pounds towards my daughter's nursery education - representing, at the most, a couple of months worth of tax that I paid during the many years of my working life. I am fortunate that I have so much time to spend with my daughter, to be there every day to help her in her education and development, but not in the sense that you imply. It is not by fortune that we can afford for me to not work, and nor is it just because my husband is toiling away whilst I am at home - I paid over 50% of the cost of our house as a deposit, overpaid the mortgage by tens of thousands and then gave up my career in order to do a far more important job - be a full-time mother.

Please don't try to belittle me to cover for the fact that you made a ridiculous generalisation - not all families where only one parent works are in receipt of state assistance or are simply leeching off their partners.

System

My mum became a stay at home parent not long after my first sister was born (which was 23 years ago..:eek: ), and has remained so ever since, though i guess he's describe herself as a "housewife" or something now. I think its worked for so long as my dad has a decent paying job (and is older so maybe more old fashioned) but all the money that comes in is joint money. They split it equally. If mum wants to buy something she can, for bigger joint purchases (such as say a washing machine or a car) they'd discuss it first. But its always been "their" money.

Personally i coudn't do it, i don't like the idea of relying on one person and not having my own income and if i have kids i will endeavor to at least still work part time so i'm have some money coming in.

maman

Peter333 wrote: »

You may not be able to 'accept' that, but it's really none of your business - or anyone else's - if a woman is a SAHM, even when the children are much older. In fact, from your post, you sound a bit jealous of these women you refer to.

There is nothing wrong with the woman staying at home long term, even when the children are older; being there for the children, the family, the husband, and looking after house and home, whilst the husband goes to work, if that is what she wants, and if that is what the husband wants. As long as they are both happy with the situation, and there is enough income from his wage alone, it's nobody's business if the woman is still off work when the youngest is 20!
.

I totally agree with the second bit I've quoted, if that's what they both want then that's their choice. I just find it difficult.


When I say I can't 'accept' it that was probably a poor choice of words. I'm certainly not jealous. Judgemental maybe. The reason I find very difficult to understand and can't empathise with at all is because I thought we'd we've moved on since the 50s. Since then girls have largely had equal educational opportunities with boys and increasingly (although we're not there yet;)) men and women have equality of opportunity in the workplace. So while I understand the biology and practicalities of women taking a short break to have children I don't understand why they wouldn't want to be back out there in the work place using their education and training and 'paying their way' to the family income.

Kynthia

maman wrote: »

I think it's acceptable to share one wage as a family 'pot' provided the couple have decided together what the plan is before they have children. Sometimes the parent staying at home can be the father if that makes more financial sense.


What I can't accept is when parents take advantage of a situation and stay at home long after it's necessary for childcare etc. I know too many SAHMs who do nothing much but a bit of housework and endless coffee/gossip/gym/shopping while children are at school while fathers are working their socks off. To me that's not fair that's just taking the proverbial. It's using the fact you have children to have an easy life.

I know someone who is a sahm and has three children in primary school. It certainly doesn't look like an easy life to me. She'd struggle to find a job that fits in with school hours and is flexible about the number of times one of her children is sick. Her husband works long hours and often does weekends too and relies on her to do most of the household cleaning and tasks, bills, organising children and their activities, buying their clothes and food, cooking, arranging work on the house, helping with homework, etc. Their in her care from waking up until 9am then 3.15pm until bedtime, not that she stops working then. It's amazing how quick 2.30 comes along when she has to head off from wherever she is to collect them from school. Her work certainly isn't 9-5 so if she takes a couple of afternoons a week to go swimming or meet a friend for lunch then her husband doesn't think anything of it and definitely doesn't mean she has an easy life.