To think you do what you have to do to make having a child financially possible?

[GirlWithALlamaTattoo]

I'm not sure if this is a thread-about-a-thread sin. I've been reading in Relationships about a lady whose DH is IMO over-the-top about controlling the family finances, and a lot of people have picked up on the fact that she saved up to cover her share of the household bills while on mat leave. That wasn't the point of her OP, so I've started a new thread rather than hijacking hers.

We're approaching it in the same way. Our bills will still be the same when I'm not working, and DP doesn't earn enough to cover everything. Our combined income is enough to have a comfortable lifestyle. We will be using "my" savings, in the sense that I had the savings before I met DP, to make it financially possible for me to take time off. I'm self-employed, so won't get paid mat leave. (I'm not pg yet, but we're going to start ttc after the wedding.)

AIBU to think if one income isn't enough, the one who's off work still needs to pay their share, and if that means saving in advance, so be it? It sounds obvious to me, but maybe I'm weird.

I agree that you need to plan how you will afford to live - but plan and save together.

Also, you can get Maternity Allowance if you are self employed, it would be worth checking if you'd be entitled.

I think if your dp coould support you he shouldn't expect you to save up to be 'allowed' a baby. However- if you can't afford to do that you do what you gotta do

No one 'needs' to do anything. You do what you want. It's your life.
Good luck! :)

Reading that back not very clear, sorry. I mean both of you should save to ensure you have enought to live off, and it not just be up to the one who is going to take the time off.

I know where you are coming from but even with 2 people working not everyone has the ability to save large amounts. When we decided to have a baby we decided that I would have 9 months off work. As I am the highest earner this was going to be a challenge - but we didn't really earn enough between us to save a lot. We approached things slightly differently and made sure we were prepared with all of the 'stuff' we needed for the first 6 months so our extra costs would be minimal. We only shopped in places where we got cashback or reward points so we were able to buy loads of nappies / wipes etc. in advance. In every shop we bought something for baby so had a stockpile before my maternity leave started. For birthdays and christmas we asked for vouchers for places where we could buy more baby stuff etc. I'm now 4 months into mat leave and we're doing ok - we haven't had to spend much on DS so our reduced income is ok for us.

So, YANBU if what you mean is that you should plan for the financial implications of having a baby.
YABU if you think that everyone is able to save even with 2 incomes.

Exactly what EnglishGirl said.

it's down to both parents.

i think the man you mentioned is forgetting the women is not having a hoilday, she is at home caring for a baby

I think it depends on the couple. Some couples keep their finances seperate and some don't, and some continue to do so after having DC's.

DH and I keep everything seperate. All the bills come out of one account (a joint account), and 50% of this amount is debited from each of our private accounts every month. We also have another joint account into which our holiday savings go, and an equal amount from each of our private accounts go into this. Since we earn roughly the same, we're left with about the same in each of our private accounts to spend each month. We each do an equal amount of housework (we actually do it together at the same time, which is kinda sweet... i'll dust and he'll hoover, i'll do the dishes and he'll wash the clothes, he'll mow the lawn and cut the trees and i'll sort the flower beds, etc).

Some couples continue to work this way when the woman has children, and as you describe some couples have it so that the woman has to dip into her savings to keep up her side of the arrangement. Personally, i do not think this is fair.

For a start, giving birth and doing all that stuff is a job IMO... and it's a job that's as necessary as your DH earning money to pay for the electricity and water, children don't look after themselves. As such, i think it is fairer for him to pick up the financial slack whilst you do the unpaid work. Now i understand that his wage litterally won't cover your expenses by itself, but i don't see why it has to be your own personal savings that pick up the slack, he should have savings to contribute too (or else he should start saving!).

I don't have children, but when i do have them DH and I have agreed that i will take a year off. During this time, i will not contribute financially at all. Instead, the housework will not longer be split 50/50... i will do all of it (except cooking the evening meal, because he has a passion for cooking and wants to continue doing it), and i will look after DC. Of course, he'll also look after DC when he gets home because he loves the idea of being a father, and i bet he'll continue to do a fair chunk of the housework because he's very kind and will probably want to see me relax. :)

So my opinion is that splitting the bills 50/50 is a great way of working, but one one of you stops or reduces work to have children and take care of the house then it is the responsibilty of the other to pick up the financial slack. I don't think it would be right to continue to pay the bills 50/50 if one of you is doing more housework or looking after the children more.

I think the couple need to save up enough for one or both of them to take the parental leave they have agreed on.

I totally disagree that the mother needs to save up in order to be allowed to take maternity leave, this should be a family expense.

AIBU to think if one income isn't enough, the one who's off work still needs to pay their share, and if that means saving in advance, so be it?

If someone is off work caring for a baby, they ARE doing "their share". If savings need to be made beforehand they should be made by BOTH parties, presuming a similar income that is.

EnglishGirl - Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that everyone can save, I know I've been lucky to be able to.

What I was clumsily trying to get at is that I think it would be more unreasonable to expect to be supported and have a free ride when a) I can afford to contribute and b) that contribution is needed.

I think it would be more unreasonable to expect to be supported and have a free ride

Once again, caring for a baby is not a "free ride".

I think any contribution is important - it doesn't matter if it comes from you or DP.
In some relationships a man would feel strongly that he would want to support his partner financially and wouldn't think of it as giving a free ride. Everyone should, of course, do what works best for their family and in your case if that means saving in advance then go for it!

i feel sad for you OP, you are looking after his child who he helped create. the finacal pressure shouldn't be on 1 parent.

who is going to pay for the baby's needs like clothes, nappies, food, childcare, school uniforms, trips ect.

YANBU to plan and save together, my ExDH is that because he wanted a baby but expected me to still contribute my half of the mortgage/bills and pick up childcare costs when I returned to work (he had significant savings and earnt a lot more than me). He must wish we had that convo before we got married, he might have kept those savings intact!

If you chose to not take your mat leave, and went back to work immediately, you and your partner would have to pay for a nanny or nursery.
Would the cost of this be shared by the two of you, or would you be covering this out of your salary alone?
Don't forget, if you are home looking after the child you have both created, you are pulling your weight.

It is the couples responsibility to plan and save not just one of you. You are both still contributing on maternity leave just in different ways.
I wouldn't want a baby with anyone who thought differently.

I think your approach is very odd, girl.

A baby is not the mother's possession, like a car or a holiday, that she needs to save up for. A baby means making a new kind of family, which changes the dynamic forever. It means approaching finances as a family - not this is my share, this is yours. The father should be committed too, and realize that there will be a financial, emotional and time commitment required from him too. This 'not having a free ride' seems to be trying to avoid this realization. It also avoids acknowledging that Caring for a baby is a huge job (the poster who says she is planning to do all the housework might get a shock when she realizes how hard that will be when she has been up all night and has a newborn to care for). It is not a treat.

We only have a joint account so before we had our dc's we saved for about 2 years to help cover the period when I would not be working. The savings therefore came out of both of our salaries.

I would have been very annoyed and upset if I had to save the money just out of my earnings, while my dh therefore had more spare money each month to spend on himself as he was not saving!

We both saved out of both our earnings as our dc's are both our responsibilities and if I am at home looking after them then dh is gaining financially as we are not having to pay for childcare.

So you will be using "my savings" whilst DH gets to keep his intact?

Words fail me!

It seems there are a lot of people that just look out for themselves financially and not at the whole wider family. Eg. other thread at the moment with almost all the posters saying they would be horrified to be asked to pay towards their children's wedding.

My dh supports me when I am not working, we help out our parents when they need money etc etc.

In my family all money goes in the one pot and all expenses come out of the one pot, whether it's to save for a baby, buy a garden strimmer or go on holiday.

We both get to enjoy the holiday, only dh will get any use (or fun ) out of the garden strimmer and we would need to save for a baby so that I can take the maximum amount of mat leave I can as I am the main wage earner. But it doesn't matter because we don't have "my" money and "his" money, just "our" money.

I wonder if it makes a difference that we're approaching this from the perspective of separate finances?

We have separate accounts but share household expenses equally. Nursery, when the time comes, will be another household expense that will be split. We both earn about the same on average, although my income fluctuates. Each month we spend about the same as we earn, although a fair amount of that is on luxuries/socialising so the pattern of spending will change significantly with the lifestyle change that comes with becoming parents.

We also have some savings, which we will use for the benefit of the family to enable me to take 6 months off work.

If we look at the money as shared, regardless of whose name is on the account, does it really matter who saved the savings in the first place?

Shewhowines - DP doesn't have any savings. 4 redundancies in 4 years (just before we got together) saw to that.

Every couple manages the income drop during maternity leave in different ways and as long as you are planning how to manage this together and both parents are happy with their contributions then it's no-ones business how they do it.

I saved up to cover my contribution to the household finances while on maternity leave because

1. pre pregnancy I earned double my DHs salary and I could afford to save and he couldn't
2. DH did not earn enough money for us to manage on his wage + maternity pay.

This does not mean DH was uncommitted or didn't want to contribute to our DD. We still split the costs of everything 50/50 but with the best will in the world there was no-way his salary could cover everything while I was on maternity leave.