Christmas presents

[Humptydumptyisanumpty]

Sorry this is so early to be discussing Christmas but we have the same argument every year about present buying and I want to know who you think is being unreasonable.

DH has 2 dc both teenagers now and we have one ds together. Every year he spends around 200/300 on his dc presents, buying laptops or the latest games console etc. Now I wouldn't have a problem with this is he contributed to our ds presents but he doesn't. I have to start saving in September to buy all his Christmas and birthday presents (ds birthday before payday in Jan) and split the pile in half, I usually spend around 250 in total.

I think that he should contribute to all three childrens presents, he thinks that I am doing it anyway and only have to buy for one I am being unfair to expect him to help, as he has more children. I honestly don't see why instead of spending £300 on each dc, he can't spend £250 on the two older dc and give me £100 towards ds, as he is younger and doesn't need as much.

This turns into a row every year, as he then spends at least anther 100 on their birthdays and ds gets nothing from him for either.

Our finances aren't joint, all bills are split equally except for childcare as I earn more and pay for that but once that has been paid for, I have not that much left over.

Am I being selfish in thinking he should help? The argument has been going on so long now that I'm not so sure anymore.

I am aware they are my stepchildren.

I'll speak to dh about maybe doing a joint fund, I suspect this will descend into an argument as I think 300 per child is too much and If I am expected to pay half I think the amount would need to be reduced, say 200 per dsc and 100 for ds for xmas?

Humpty I think you're totally justified in your annoyance.

Your OH has three children and he should be contributing towards presents for all of them.

If I were in your shoes, I'd expect us to pool money together for Christmas and buy all three children's presents out of that.

Could you each put, say, £350 into a pot for Christmas and then use that to buy presents for all of the children?

Ps. It gets on my nerves when people think they 'must' spend X amount on kids' presents.

As someone else mentioned, I understand when it's a games console or a bike or something that just happens to cost that much (if you can afford it of course), but the attitude of "I'm going to spend £300 on each of them" no matter what they actually want is so silly and wasteful.

It shouldn't be about the amount, it should be about the gifts themselves. What is the point in buying gift after gift trying to get it up to the limit?

I think a joint fund is totally fair. It's not like your son is only yours, he's your DP's child too!

I'm with your OH. You don't contribute anything at all towards his children, so it's quite fair, financially, that you should be the one buying your DS presents. I think you are spending too much on him proportionally.
But swing, all three are OP's DP's children, why should he not contribute towards their son? If he has a problem with OP not contributing to her stepchildren's main presents then that should be a separate discussion, he should still be contributing towards his son's Christmas and birthday.

You seem to think that a 3 year old should get as much as spent on them then two teenagers.
OP has been clear that she doesn't want the same spent on her 3-year-old as the teens as she recognises their gifts will naturally be more expensive.

Bloody hell..childcare is an extortionate cost..why doesn't he contribute to that????

You don't need to spend money on your teenage SC..you CAN but its optional not an obligation..he has some nerve to not contribute to his 3rd childs birthday and xmas gifts on your behalf but spend over £300 on each SC..

really the question is WHAT is he contributing towards his DS with you??it sounds like you would be better off financially without him as he would need to pay mainatanance..
And maybe if you split his youngest son would qualify for a birthday present...

I'm sorry OP..your DH is very unfair towards his youngest and you..it's not your fault/responsibility that he has more children than you.. You should not be required to contribute and your son should not be missing out becouse of his fathers poor choices

ps. I earn a reasonable salary but DH and I share childcare costs. I spend money on DSD only if I want to..what he buys for her has no impact on what our son gets from him. We are fortunate not to struggle financially but if he was still paying maintanace(doesn't as DSD lives with us) I would expect our sons financial needs to come first..I really can't imagine him not buying DS a xmas and birthday gifts but spending over £300 on a SC..

Of course he should by his youngest a present , how strange the presents don't even have your name on does he not see you as a family unit, I would be upset if this was my dh. Your poor son I hope this situation changes before he realises his dad chooses to not spend anything on his birthday whilst buying presents for his other kids how awful.

Tbh d's would never know as I wouldn't ever tell him the dh doesn't contribute, so as far as he will ever know is it came from both of us.

're childcare I pay for it all because if he paid half he would have nothing left from his salary, with me paying it and splitting the bills we are left with equal amounts of spending money per month.

Op why should you be left with an equal amount? He has two additional children where does the maintanance money go from? I think that should go from his spending money..

We pay into the joint account proportionally..approx. 50% of our salaries and that covers bills, food, childcare etc.
I have less spending money left than DH with that set up because I earn less..it will change when I progress my career..

Oh and DSD is not funded from our joint account but his..

I don't get why you are subsidising your DH and his children because you happen to have a better job..maybe he needs to work more/find a better payed one if he can't support ALL of his children? And splitting childcare is basic support!!!

I could understand you funding him if he was a stay at home dad and took care of his son, otherwise it sounds very unfair on you and DS.

How many years has he been getting away this? This is absolutely outrageous, he has three children, so should contribute to 3 his children. It's not your fault he has 2 older children to pay for.
A previous poster says they see his point as he will have to shell out more money than you, well yes, thats because you have 1 child and he has 3.
Also, will the step children be getting presents from their mum and her family? If so, then they'll be getting a hell of a lot more than your child will be.
This wouldn't even be a discussion with me, its disgraceful of him.

Oh and I believe posters like swingoffings that say:

"I have two teenagers and spend much much more on them now than I did when they were three. At that age, they were happy with toys from charity, or ebay. The value was irrelevant and I could find great deals. As teenagers, they don't have high expectations, and have fewer gadgets and nice clothes than their peer, but what they need is not something I can just get a bargain on. A football shirt, a laptop, contribution towards driving lessons etc... the cost of these can't be compared with how much you need to spend to please a 3 yo."

have either never needed to send their DC to a nursery or simply forgotten how much it costs as it was that long ago..

I have people in RL telling me all the time how I should enjoy DS when he is small and easy to please and how it will get oh so much more expensive when he is a teen..
I just tell them full time place in a nursery in my area is almost £1000/month. That usually shuts them up.

on another note though if you DS is 3 you might get 30hrs/week free childcare for 38weeks/year so maybe that will leave you with more money for his gifts if his father can't be bothered?

I'm can't really decide on what to do for the best. I don't really agree that he shouldn't pay anything towards ds but at the same time I do think that I shouldn't have to pay for half of his dsc gifts, when I pay for all of ds, all our extended family and he only pays for 2 peoples.

He should be getting the 30 hours childcare but the government has yet to pay my cm, therefore I pay her in full until the funding arrives. Hopefully by November.

It is not so much the actual monetary value, like I said I wouldn't expect to spend the same on ds as teenage dsc but the fact is I do buy them a gift which is more effort than dh makes for ds.

His maintenance comes straight from his salary, so not his spending money, I am not bothered about the childcare, it makes sense for me to pay it because he can't afford too, if he did pay half, I would then split what I had left as I wouldn't want him to have no money for an entire month.

I don't really agree that he shouldn't pay anything towards ds but at the same time I do think that I shouldn't have to pay for half of his dsc gifts, when I pay for all of ds, all our extended family and he only pays for 2 peoples.

You absolutely shouldn't have to do this, you're right.

Honestly it sounds like the best thing you could do is have a talk about a new approach to Christmas gifts. Being generous, perhaps he's never given any thought to how much more you buy than him beyond DS.

I would definitely suggest having joint funds for Christmas gifts, especially as it's not just your DS but also your extended family you're buying for while your DP only buys for two of his children.

OR alternatively if he won't budge, you just tell him that this year he can buy for everyone on his side, and you will buy on yours. Tell him you can't afford to buy everything like you used to. So he can do his mum, dad, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews etc alone. No skin off your nose as you're paying it all already!

It is not so much the actual monetary value, like I said I wouldn't expect to spend the same on ds as teenage dsc but the fact is I do buy them a gift which is more effort than dh makes for ds.

Have you ever broached this with him directly? What did he say?

If you haven't, I'd suggest you do as he may not realise how hurtful you find it.

I'm with your OH. You don't contribute anything at all towards his children, so it's quite fair, financially, that you should be the one buying your DS presents. I think you are spending too much on him proportionally.

Wow what a nasty comment. His children with his ex have both their mum and dad buying presents for them, whereas his child with the op only has his mum buying presents for him. Aged 3 or not that is just not fair. He should want to contribute towards his youngest's Xmas presents.

The more I read this thread, the more sad I find it that your DP doesn't WANT to contribute to his DS Christmas. So what if that would mean he had less spending money than you for a few months? I could not sit there on xmas morning every year as my child opened his presents, knowing they weren't from me, for no reason other than I wanted more money for myself, which is what it basically comes down to, I feel.

Swing just checking you do know the ds is the child of the dp as well. I can't think of why else you would think it OK for him not to buy his child a present.

say 200 per dsc and 100 for ds for xmas?
I personally still think this is totally disproportionate. £100 on a 3yo is a LOT of money. £200 on a teenager is okish. If it was my children, I would spend £50 on the 3yo and £250 on each teenager. Then I would increase the amount as the 3yo grows up whilst reducing again when teenagers become adults and move on with their lives.

Wow what a nasty comment. His children with his ex have both their mum and dad buying presents for them, whereas his child with the op only has his mum buying presents for him. Aged 3 or not that is just not fair. He should want to contribute towards his youngest's Xmas presents
It's not nasty at all. What does it matter than they also get presents from their mum? Come on, is a 3yo really going to feel treated unfairly because their teenager siblings is getting more monetary presents as a whole at Christmas? If so, that would be really sad.

I totally agree that the best way to go about it is to both contribute to a Christmas fund and then divide it so that they are both contributing towards all three children. I just personally don't agree with the amount OP is suggesting and it would seem that neither will her OH, hence this suggestion not resolving the issue.

It's not just Christmas though swing It's Christmas and birthday and 50 for either is not extravagant, however your opinion on whether I spend to much is really not the point, the point is he gives nothing.

Ignoring Christmas then, do you think it's ok for him to spend hundreds on the dsc birthday presents and not even spend a tenner on ds?

What does it matter than they also get presents from their mum?

Of course it matters. Both parents are contributing towards the older children and only one parent is contributing towards the younger child. Going by his logic he could say he's not buying his older children any presents either because their mum is buying them some. He's a tight arse.

I personally still think this is totally disproportionate. £100 on a 3yo is a LOT of money. £200 on a teenager is okish. If it was my children, I would spend £50 on the 3yo and £250 on each teenager. Then I would increase the amount as the 3yo grows up whilst reducing again when teenagers become adults and move on with their lives.

Tbh Swing while I do agree that £100 sounds a lot, my SD is three and the things she asks for would easily add up to more than that if she got even a handful of them. A hatchimal is on her Christmas list and it's £75! 3 year olds are familiar with films and TV shows, they want dolls that cry, they want Disney dress up outfits, they want remote control cars, they want things they see advertised on TV....I'm not saying she should or would get them all, but just demonstrating that actually presents for 3 year olds can be very expensive too.

I think it's completely unfair to say that it would be OK for OP's three year old to only have £50 worth of gifts while the teenagers get £250 each! Surely there are far more equal ways than that if £500+ is being spent at Christmas?!

I think that sometimes one child will naturally receive a more expensive gift that another based on what they've asked for, and I don't think it's necessary to count pennies to ensure all children get exactly the same spend, but I do think it's unfair for OP's DP to be spending so much on two of his children and absolutely nothing on the third.

Would you feel the same way if it the three year old was a OP's stepchild and he was getting no contribution from his dad because he was paying so much for 2 'new' children?

He has three children, he should be contributing equally to each, even if not in monetary terms, at least by bothering to pick some bits out for him.

It's about what the family can afford, and if the family can afford to spend £500+ then that should be shared equally amongst the three children.

OP's DP should 100% be contributing to his own son's Christmas and birthday presents! I think it's bizarre that he doesn't.

It doesn't matter of op wants to spend 1000s of pounds and buy him a golden egg, the fact is he is not buying one of his children anything at all and that is fucked up.

HumptyDumpty, I do agree with you that he should be contributing, but only if you are prepared to contribute towards his kids too.

Really it's about differiencing between how much a child should get from both their parents, and how much is about focusing on a budget per household. It'cant be both though.

So either you agree on a budget you both contribute to with an agreement on how much is spent for each child or you agree on which child you spend on. What I don't think is fair is that he should contribute towards all three children equally whereas you don't contribute anything towards his children. Otherwise, you can then start extending it to the wider family and say that he will only spend money on the family member he is related too and you do the same, and if you have 10 cousins when he only has one, tough. It doesn't make sense from a household budget perspective.

As for what sum is correct to spend on the children depending on the age, I suppose this is something personal and depends on income, family members etc... but just as I refuse to buy the latest gadget to my teenagers, instead focus on necessary presents, I wouldn't buy a three year old the latest age adapted gadget either, especially when they are even more likely to disregard it after only a few months but then I've always been quite against material gadgets.

Would you feel the same way if it the three year old was a OP's stepchild and he was getting no contribution from his dad because he was paying so much for 2 'new' children?
I would still feel it right that the 3yo should get less and I still feel that it's about the balance of budget, so that although I agree a parent should contribute towards all their children, I do think a SP should contribute something towards their SC presents too.

Of course it's not right that your DH does not contribute to DS's present

The emphasis on this site is that all children are treated equally. This thread prompted me to discuss with DH our DC's presents as I've always felt the balance was unfair.

I have a SD 10, my DD 3 & our DS 7 months so different ages which I appreciate, but we have decided to contribute £150 each & spend £100 per child, which obviously may seem a lot to for the little ones BUT I plan to buy educational toys & clothing for them (as we would be buying it anyway) & any money not used (won't buy endless crap) will be put in their savings account. I feel this is the fairest way.

In my opinion of your DH cannot afford to contribute to his youngest DS he should be lowering the amount spent on his eldest DC's.