To think that families who construct their lifestyle around two incomes are living very precariously?

[Circumlocutious]

I’m talking situations where the two incomes are absolutely essential to paying the mortgage and bills. A situation where there is no ‘give’, no flexibility: what if there is a chronic illness in the family, one person can no longer work, school closures (well, you’re seeing it now)? Isn’t this a precarious way to live?

I get that sometimes there may be no other choice, especially when saving up for mortgage. But often it seems like people’s lifestyle - the house they choose to buy, the size of their mortgage, the area they live in, their cars, the schools they pay to send their children to - have adapted to fit around two full incomes, even when they could have made different choices. Many people live fancy lifestyles with no room for error. They can’t scale back their spending without making major changes, eg moving house, which are harder to do once you’re used to your current lifestyle.

AIBU to say that more couples should aim to contain family spending to the level of one earning partner? Is this unrealistic?

I get you OP. I really do. BUT my DH and I have had the misfortune of being two youngish (30s) people, where illness has struck and now, despite both of us earning good salaries, we make financial decisions that can only only be supported by one of those salaries, as the ongoing life if one of us, is not guaranteed.

If that had not of happened, we probably would be taking life for granted in the same way everyone else our age, that we know, does, because that is how we work.

You could argue that single people should therefore not take on a commitment like a mortgage, as nothing is guaranteed for those people either. Life, whatever we do, is a risk.

Don't forget the tax implications either, 2 people earning 50k each will bring in 6.2k & get CB, 30 hours & tax free childcare vs 1 earner on 100k bringing in 5.5k

We both work. We can pay our key bills on either salary (I can't cover childcare costs but you could argue we wouldn't need childcare if I wasn't working). Not much left for anything but survival mind. It was a pretty conscious choice for us (our mortgage broker was at pains to tell us a lot of people in our situation would be borrowing far more to get their dream property.) we run pretty rubbish cars. We (normally) take nice holidays but nothing extravagant.
but I still think we're pretty lucky to have the choice tbh. Most people don't.

@Nicknacky

So you aren’t practicing what you preach then. Got it.

OK...thanks for your contribution.

I think you sound wise, rather then jealous OP! We buy most things secondhand outright (car, phones, clothes). Being a couple able to live on a single income means the option for no childcare costs either. But our mortgage is small, which helps.

@Comefromaway

We thought we were going to have to claim on dh’s income protection (we still may in the future, he recovered enough to go back to work but he has a chronic illness and recently had a flare up).

It still only covers 60% of income and only after 6 months off sick.

You need a better policy. We lived most of our married life in a way the OP is handwringing about. However we have always had income protection, permanent disability and life insurances.

Our income protection is 90% for 24mths. I would think if you can’t work after this you’d be fighting to roll over to the permanent and total disability which would pay out enough to cover mortgage etc. When we set all of that up with an advisor, once upon a time pre-kids and at the same time as getting the mortgage, they worked it on spend and factored in things like private school for anticipated kids, holidays etc.

Of course, that all falls down should one person, wife or husband, run off leaving the family and completely screw the budget. But then where does that all end - never get a mortgage in case one person has an affair, never have kids in case....

Agree that you get more take home money with 2 people earning a particular amount than one person earning it, and more flexibility if both part time. You can get life insurance.

I meant income protection

& 2 employers contributing to a pension

@Ruled

Let me guess, you're a SAHM with a high earning husband trying to justify your choices, right?

This - with bells on.

I think you are being rather naive to think it world be possible to live and raise a family off one income.

I understand what you mean, OP, and DH and I have done something similar. We both work full-time but have taken out a smaller mortgage than we could afford so that either of our incomes can cover mortgage, food and all bills should one of us lose our jobs. We also have a savings cushion that we don't touch and no credit card debt. Some of it is good fortune but I think most of it is living within our means and spending wisely. We could have a much nicer house/car/phone if we chose to.

Going to look up Elizabeth Warren's two-income theory - sounds interesting!

Unless you could survive on one part time salary then you are in exactly the same position as most people. If you can then you are obviously in a very well paid position or have extremely low out goings such as you don't have a mortgage and have a large savings pot to dip into.

I don't disagree with the theory of living within your means & saving for a rainy day. I just don't think it's a realistic option for many these days.

Unrealistic!! So unrealistic imo.
That sounds bloody marvellous Haha, I would love that kind of security. But it's just not realistic for like 50% of people in this country without living off benefits. It sounds a bit like your a bit detached from reality OP. I had to move out young and rent, I rent in an area that's not cheap! Move? We cant afford to move and be too far away from work as I walk to work.. I cant afford another car.. do you see what I'm getting at? I honestly thought that would be obvious. There is literally no option for a lot of people, it's not like we chose to live life on the edge financially. It's the hand we have been dealt and all we can try to do is improve and earn more money as we go. I found your post a little condescending... I understand maybe it's more targeted at people who spend a lot as they go but I feel its painting with a broad brush. I will also say I feel a live a very comfortable life, I can go out for coffees, get a couple takeaways here and there, do days out, I've got a nice flat. I'd rather live as well then painstakingly save ever single penny for a house I'll never be able to afford.

If it was possible to live off one salary I wouldn’t need top up benefits as a single parent. Unfortunately the cost of housing alone means it just isn’t possible unless earning quite well, which many aren’t. 2 salaries aren’t an option, they’re a necessity.

Most families have to construct their lifestyles around two incomes, or live in a tent in the woods. Most families don't have the luxury of constructing a lifestyle on one income at all. I don't know your situation, but it is obviously far, far better than the majority of people's. Good for you, but don't get preachy at those who do need two incomes to simply have a decent, not luxurious, life.

Unrealistic!! So unrealistic imo.
That sounds bloody marvellous Haha, I would love that kind of security. But it's just not realistic for like 50% of people in this country without living off benefits. It sounds a bit like your a bit detached from reality OP. I had to move out young and rent, I rent in an area that's not cheap! Move? We cant afford to move and be too far away from work as I walk to work.. I cant afford another car.. do you see what I'm getting at? I honestly thought that would be obvious. There is literally no option for a lot of people, it's not like we chose to live life on the edge financially. It's the hand we have been dealt and all we can try to do is improve and earn more money as we go. I found your post a little condescending... I understand maybe it's more targeted at people who spend a lot as they go but I feel its painting with a broad brush. I will also say I feel a live a very comfortable life, I can go out for coffees, get a couple takeaways here and there, do days out, I've got a nice flat. I'd rather live as well then painstakingly save ever single penny for a house I'll never be able to afford.

I'm single so only rely on me. I got made redundant after 9 years and my pay out was pitiful (3k ish), it's really made me evaluate how precarious it is being single. Luckily I got a job within 6 weeks but I now have three part time jobs (teaching) which takes me up to about 60hrs a week. If I lose one or possibly two of these jobs I would scrape by to pay my rent and bills so feel I have done what I can to mitigate. I save as much as possible in case I ever get into that position again. I could just do two jobs and work 40 hrs a week but the extra work/money gives me my safety net.

Must be nice up in your ivory tower. Some people have no bloody choice. Just be grateful and you do you and butt out of other people's business.

Get a grip and live in the real world op. You sound very privileged and clearly have no concept of jut how privileged you must be to even ask such a question.

It’s a nice idea but don’t think a lot of couples starting out have a choice these days with the high cost of housing.

@princessandthedragon

No, there are no bells going off I’m afraid. That’s not my situation in the slightest.

Incidentally I don’t think a SAHP is a reliable insurance policy in case the main earner loses their job (getting back into work can be difficult, time consuming and often means accepting a junior-level role that isn’t enough to maintain an existent lifestyle).

Interesting to hear different perspectives anyway.

Yes, put women back in the kitchen and the utility room and the nursery, where they belong. Jeez.

I don't want to live in a tent which is what we could afford on one salary.

I'm thinking perhaps you've always been fairly wealthy and don't know how the other half live?