Is 400 enough for two dc?

[Lipperfromchipper]

Just a Christmas question, dc are 6 and 4,
I have spent about 320 so far and was thinking if I spent another 80 between them on stocking fillers that would be plenty?? But I’m getting cold feet about that!!? How much have you spent on two dc of similar ages??

I try to spend as little on tat for my 2 as I can, but this year am buying them both electric motorbikes.

@Ravingstarfish I’m bitter and miserable that Santa never visited me as a child and now I’m with a sex pest husband. Should I LTB?

It's your hard earned cash, not mine.
You choose how you spend it.
It's probably best that the bills are paid, enough money to put food on the table etc but if it makes you and your family happy, spend your money your way.

People who just spend money for the sake really piss me off.
Get your kids some gifts they want or will use.
So many things barely get used, there's no point.
Materialism is so stupid.

@Higgeldypiggeldy35 I really like that idea!

@Ravingstarfish What was "bitter and miserable" about Mum918's comment? Perhaps I'm reading it wrong but it looked like a fairly harmless joke (who here isn't sick of posts about DHs and their mysterious hobbies!) and a fair point about those with less disposable income not being able to quibble over expensive consoles.

I'm genuinely surprised by the number of posters who think £30-50 per child is impossible, when several others have given very comprehensive lists of the lovely gifts they buy for this amount.

Op I believe what you’ve spent is reasonable. It’s your money, spend it how you like. Most would hate me if I disclosed what I have brought my two dc. However I don’t care. We work hard for it and my dc are not spoilt. They appreciate what they are given and respect their property.

@smoresmores If you think people "choose" to have less money to spend on their children you need to take a look around you at the society we live in. Nobody chooses to be in poverty, however much the Daily Mail tries to insist otherwise.

@NoGuarantee
Take your point about buying trends to a certain extent.
But take issue with the work shoes example. A pair costing £100 would need at least £20 a year in repairs making them more expensive than the cheap shoes in the long term .

@HobbyUnenthusiast .

Not sure if you've RTFT but I'm referring clearly to the people bragging above they privately educate their children but spend £30.

Are you spending for the sake of spending @Lipperfromchipper? I'm so glad we don't do Christmas presents and buy what we need throughout the year.

Fair enough, I've been following the whole thread but it does get complicated with multiple conversations! (I don't know if it's different on a web browser but on the app replies to specific posters aren't threaded either)

I thought you were implying that if your mum could afford x amount then anyone who can't must be doing so out of moral superiority. My apologies if I misunderstood.

I think we've spent just under £200 on our 5 month old plus we've bought a high chair.

Thank we got given so much for her when she was born it's nice to be able to buy what we want to buy her sometimes, not that we don't appreciate it.

She's our first too so i enjoy spoiling her... not that she'll understand, she'll probably just try and eat the wrapping paper

I think it did sound really bitter and not in the least bit jokey actually. I definitely did not laugh.

@NoGuarantee - I'd love a link to that article if you can find it?

There are some tight arses on here!

I can’t understand why people give their children underwear etc for Christmas. That’s not a gift, it’s a basic essential item that is a parents job to provide.

Someone on my Facebook has bought their child a bed for Christmas as he has outgrown his toddler bed. A bed is again an essential item that a parent should provide it’s not a bloody gift!

@Celebelly oh I LOVE Woden toys, my dc still have theirs! And love them!! Enjoy your dd’s first Christmas!

@titnomatani hell no 🤣! I already have everything except their “stockings” I’m not aiming for 80 on the stockings (x2) as such, just thinking that would be my max budget I suppose! if I spend less that’s great!

I tend not to shop for Christmas using monetary values, rather, I base it on what they want. £80 on stocking fillers seems like a lot. I usually go into Flying Tiger and get a few bits from there. I’d estimate maybe £10-20?
But to answer the question, to me £400 doesn’t seem like “too much” and certainly not if you can afford it. I wouldn’t be going into debt for it though.

@Evilmorty A dry sense of humour clearly lost on some Mumsnetters. Does your husband cycle though?

I think it's relative.

My DS is 3 and it looks like he's been hugely spoilt (he has I suppose)
He's got a chromebook, a tricycle, colouring pencils, a mini skateboard and some dress up bits.

Older DS is 5 and he has a new skateboard with a ramp, board games, dress up, wooden toys, skateboarding lessons and an absolute tonne of stickers.

I feel 'bad' that the 5 year old hasn't had as much spent on him as the 3 year old. They're both autistic and my 5 year old is non-verbal and his interests are never quite concrete, except for the skateboard. We're winging it with all of his extra bits except for that but the 3 year old is autistic too and has hyperlexia. He's quite confidently reading and spelling and has been for about a year. He's now using a laptop better than most adults I work with
He's constantly typing and writing little sentences to himself, hence the chrome book. The tricycle is because he was severely physically behind and has only just shown an interest in anything remotely like that (he can't even do a ride on toy, for context!)

But we can afford it, we treat our nephew and niece as well. We're also giving toys to charities and shelters and that sums up to about 3 figures. I think getting what your children are interested in is MUCH more important than the amount you spend. If our children only loved play doh and crayons, that's exactly what they'd be getting.

Just to put this out there. When I was younger, there was me and 3 siblings so money wasn't ever fluent but we were never skint. One year I got a soft toy, playdoh and a keyboard (a kids one). Probably cost about £30 altogether. I played with that keyboard for 4 years! The soft toy was on my bed every morning after making it for maybe 10 years and the playdoh got played with until at least the next Christmas. My dad then got a new job one year and we got 'spoilt'. I got expensive trainers, a Nintendo and something else. The trainers were wrecked in a week and my almost cried saying she wished she'd bough a pair from asda instead to get wrecked and I spilt Ribena all over the Nintendo weeks after getting it. It wasn't a good Christmas! I will always remember the year I got the keyboard, teddy and playdoh. Of course I was excited opening the Nintendo and stuff but it was short lived. My parents realised it was better to spend less on presents and keep the money for days out instead!

Someone on my Facebook has bought their child a bed for Christmas as he has outgrown his toddler bed. A bed is again an essential item that a parent should provide it’s not a bloody gift!

In fairness, a bunk bed is on my Dds Christmas list (what is it with kids and bunk beds?). I've explained that there won't be room on Santa's sleigh for such an item. If she still wants it for her birthday, she's getting one. I might also take the opportunity to decorate her room.

But take issue with the work shoes example. A pair costing £100 would need at least £20 a year in repairs making them more expensive than the cheap shoes in the long term
It is also having £100 to spare to buy the shoes.
@titnomatani

@NoGuarantee I'd love a link to that article if you can find it?
It was Terry Prachett the real one.

Quote below.
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

It was an article, I said it mentioned the boots. It was about the working classes need to spend money on premium brands whereas middle middle and upper middle can brag about saving money in pound stretcher or savers or whatever. I'll keep looking