Affording to start a family when female is breadwinner

Person_one

onlyroz wrote: »

These days you are allowed to share the parental leave. So, for example, you could take off 3-6 months each, meaning that you both get to spend a decent amount of time with your new baby, you don't have to spend too much time on a reduced income, and neither of you has to sacrifice your career.

I'm a huge believer in equality in parenting, but also in making breastfeeding as easy as possible, so I think mothers should take the first 6 months on full pay and fathers should get the second 6 months, also on full pay. I can't see me winning any elections on that policy though! :rotfl:

cyantist

spadoosh wrote: »

I tried blagging this with the good lady and im a proper 21st century man (do cooking and cleaning as well as opening doors and DIY!) it took about 3 weeks for the laughter to die down.

In all honesty shes had the last 7 months of having to constantly deal with all the stuff that goes with having a baby and ive had the same time to squeeze in the last remnants of no responsibility (and ive fully taken advantage of that too!:D). She deserves some time off work if thats what she wants.

Understand some financial reasons but wouldn't dream of telling her that she had to work because she was the bread winner unless it was purely for the well being of the child. It wouldnt be when we have other luxuries that could be stopped in order for her to have the time off.

Very sensible - definitely do not tell someone who has just had a baby that they have to do something!

It obviously won't work for all couples but if it's a case of the only possible way to afford a child currently is for the father to take some of the leave and reduce hours it makes sense to do it this way.

If we are ever lucky enough to have a child, my husband will be doing more of the childcare than me even though he earns way more, just because this makes more sense for us given our job roles.

HappyMJ

Person_one wrote: »

I'm a huge believer in equality in parenting, but also in making breastfeeding as easy as possible, so I think mothers should take the first 6 months on full pay and fathers should get the second 6 months, also on full pay. I can't see me winning any elections on that policy though! :rotfl:

I'd vote for that.

90% pay would be acceptable as there are no travel to work costs to pay out for.

This country only pays 90% pay for a measly 6 weeks with no maximum and it's back to full time work if you earn a decent amount, have a mortgage to pay and can't afford to live on ShPP.

Despite increases it's still one of the lowest in the EU.

LannieDuck

I agree with the others. Shared parental leave now means that couples can choose who stays home with the baby with much more flexibility.

I suggest she takes the first part off (normally with enhanced pay from her employer), then goes back to work and he takes the second part of leave off with the baby.

It's good for both parties to learn how to deal with the baby anyway - loads of my friends have done it this way and they're all very happy with how it went.

One note about this comment:

"In all honesty shes had the last 7 months of having to constantly deal with all the stuff that goes with having a baby and ive had the same time to squeeze in the last remnants of no responsibility (and ive fully taken advantage of that too!). She deserves some time off work if thats what she wants."

Maternity leave can be hard, tiring, relentless work. You can have an easy baby who sleeps and never cries (that was my DD1), or you can have a clingy baby who never wants you to leave the room even to pee (that was my DD2). Unfortunately we were too early for shared parental leave - much as I love her, I would have jumped at the opportunity to hand DD2 over to OH for a couple of months at the end of mat leave!

spadoosh

LannieDuck wrote: »

I agree with the others. Shared parental leave now means that couples can choose who stays home with the baby with much more flexibility.

I suggest she takes the first part off (normally with enhanced pay from her employer), then goes back to work and he takes the second part of leave off with the baby.

It's good for both parties to learn how to deal with the baby anyway - loads of my friends have done it this way and they're all very happy with how it went.

One note about this comment:

"In all honesty shes had the last 7 months of having to constantly deal with all the stuff that goes with having a baby and ive had the same time to squeeze in the last remnants of no responsibility (and ive fully taken advantage of that too!). She deserves some time off work if thats what she wants."

Maternity leave can be hard, tiring, relentless work. You can have an easy baby who sleeps and never cries (that was my DD1), or you can have a clingy baby who never wants you to leave the room even to pee (that was my DD2). Unfortunately we were too early for shared parental leave - much as I love her, I would have jumped at the opportunity to hand DD2 over to OH for a couple of months at the end of mat leave!

Sorry forgive me, i used the word work as the place for employment, not the exertion to accomplish something.

Im under no illusions, the ironic thing is shes promising packed lunches everyday for me, tea on the table when i get in and an immaculate house. Apparently if shes off work (the place for employment) i shouldnt have to do anything in the house and all my free time should be for the child (her words). Im looking forward to it! :rotfl:

FreddieFrugal

We're in the same sort of situation.

OH is the main earner, she brings home slightly over double what I do. Not due to choice, just because I happened to be offered a job that was part time at a time of being an agency worker and part time was better than potentially no time.

It's worked out well as after baby is born, we'll save on childcare due to my having 2 days at home. Plus we both work term time.

Luckily OH is entitled to relatively generous maternity pay.

She gets 4 weeks at full pay, 2 weeks at 90% pay, then 12 weeks at 50% pay + Statutory Maternity Pay, then the remaining weeks just on SMP.

We've also saved up so we have a decent emergency fund should car die on us or something.

We're not entitled to anything beyond child benefit. But only just above the threshold for additional support.

I'm spreadsheet mad and have done all sorts of different budget sheets to forecast how we'd manage with the extra costs of a child at different ages, as well as while she's on maternity leave.

We're definitely not rolling in it, but we'll get by.

Scorpio33

I am flabbergasted by some of these replies.


Surely whoever earns the most goes to work full time and whoever doesn't, stays at home to look after the house? The sex of which person does what is irrelevant?


I can understand that the majority of companies are a bit behind the times in only offering extended leave to mothers post birth, and in these situations, I accept that it is best for the mum to utilise this as much as possible, but when it becomes unaffordable to stay off work, she would go back to work. As a dad, I would love to take 6-9 months off after my kids were born, but unfortunately the most I got was 2 weeks. After that I couldn't afford to take any more time off, so went back to work.


I just don't understand the assumption that the mother would go back part time when she is the main earner?

onlyroz

Person_one wrote: »

I'm a huge believer in equality in parenting, but also in making breastfeeding as easy as possible, so I think mothers should take the first 6 months on full pay and fathers should get the second 6 months, also on full pay. I can't see me winning any elections on that policy though! :rotfl:

I'm not disagreeing but sometimes the economics don't work. I could only afford to take four months leave with my second child - I could only live on £120 a week for so long.

Edit - sorry I see you are suggesting full pay, which would of course be marvellous.

burlington6

Scorpio33 wrote: »

I am flabbergasted by some of these replies.


Surely whoever earns the most goes to work full time and whoever doesn't, stays at home to look after the house? The sex of which person does what is irrelevant?


I can understand that the majority of companies are a bit behind the times in only offering extended leave to mothers post birth, and in these situations, I accept that it is best for the mum to utilise this as much as possible, but when it becomes unaffordable to stay off work, she would go back to work. As a dad, I would love to take 6-9 months off after my kids were born, but unfortunately the most I got was 2 weeks. After that I couldn't afford to take any more time off, so went back to work.


I just don't understand the assumption that the mother would go back part time when she is the main earner?

We live in a society where being a woman automatically makes you a better parent.

Gender equality doesn't exist when it comes to a man.

Person_one

onlyroz wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing but sometimes the economics don't work. I could only afford to take four months leave with my second child - I could only live on £120 a week for so long.

You could afford 6 months easily under my system.