Why are single 30+ women portrayed as 'desperate'?

ntlbell

CDfm wrote: »

I am not posting for a debate on the rights and wrongs simply pointing out that couples need 2 salaries to win nowdays.

you only need two salaries if

you want to keep up with the jones's

you still want 3/4 holidays a year

you want a 4 x 4 and renew it every 12 months

if your planning your kids (i know it doesnt always work out that way) you can get prepared finiancially for 1 to give up work or to even work part time... etc

the reason doesn't seem to just to have the two salaries it's usually one doesn't want to give up they're career and if that's the case then they should wait imo untill they're ready to make some sacrafices

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

That's not what you said at all, you were claiming that women retired out of choice to raise a family, whereas the reality as I already pointed out on the previous page was that gender discrimination inherent in the state forced them to give up their careers.

I use racy language to emphasise meaning - there may have been gender discrimination -but the result of equality has to change pay structures.A consequence has been thew need for two salaried families.

But do some women raise families because they dont want to work.

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

I use racy language to emphasise meaning - there may have been gender discrimination -but the result of equality has to change pay structures.A consequence has been thew need for two salaried families.

But do some women raise families because they dont want to work.

Racy language? Your defence of your position becomes more and more shaky.

CDfm

ntlbell wrote: »

you only need two salaries if

you want to keep up with the jones's

you still want 3/4 holidays a year

you want a 4 x 4 and renew it every 12 months

if your planning your kids (i know it doesnt always work out that way) you can get prepared finiancially for 1 to give up work or to even work part time... etc

the reason doesn't seem to just to have the two salaries it's usually one doesn't want to give up they're career and if that's the case then they should wait imo untill they're ready to make some sacrafices

I think you are assuming high status lifestyles

but eliminate all lifes luxuries and it would be true for a lot of couples

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

Racy language? Your defence of your position becomes more and more shaky.

not really brian - i am not used to the correct phrases -but i want to get my point accross

ntlbell

CDfm wrote: »

I think you are assuming high status lifestyles

but eliminate all lifes luxuries and it would be true for a lot of couples

If you take two people earning the average ind wage which is 35k? so 70 between them and if they're married the extra take hom via the extra tax credits

that's about 5k a month

you're telling me these two people couldn't get finanicially prepared to survive on one income for 4-5 years ? if you take out most luxries that's a fair whack of change tbh..

Stheno

ntlbell wrote: »

I don't think a child be brought up by a stranger in a creche, I'm not disaproving of women who do it I'm disaproving of parents who do it.

This is a view I would hold, and a reason I never had children, partly to do with my having worked in jobs which required me to travel a lot so I was away from home a lot and couldn't imagine not seeing a small child for several days at a time at a time when three or four days mark very big developments for a small child be it smiling, talking, crawling whatever, I would have missed all of those "little" things.


It's partly influenced by my childhood where my mother ran a business from home and minded all of us ten kids, and my dad worked and helped out with the home business, but they were always there, always encouraged us, were always available to accomodate our many trips/outings/sports/debating/youth clubs.

Blinking hard work now that I work full time and have to just manage a home

When I say partly, it's very much a small element of why I've never had kids, fundamentally I'm far far too selfish to take on the responsibility of having kids, but given that I'm an adult and have sexual relationships, it's something I've thought long and hard about, and were I ever to have a child, I would like that child to have a parental figure at home for at least the first three years of it's life.

Call me old fashioned, naive, innocent, quote studies at me all you want, it's what I believe, and my views haven't changed in nearly twenty years

In that context, given that I'm 35, I can understand how women of my age, who want children, and MIGHT have a similiar opinion that I have, might want a partner to faciliatate/support that, which in the current economic climate of the past few years, and especially the past few months, is darned hard, and how they might then come across as desperate.

Edited to add: I don't think that even on 35k, you'd get any benefit from extra tax benefits (i.e hitting the 41% threshold), and secondly, a single income couple on 35k would take home about €2700 max a month (including all benefits). In that context assuming a mortgage payment of min. €1000 a month, that's €1700 a month/€425 a week, to live on and pay all bills, might sound a lot, but imo it's not much for two adults and a child, especially given the high cost of medical care, food bills, utility bills etc, I may well be wrong, but if you are a couple and both were earning the AIW, a fifty percent drop in income, and the cost of a child would be very very hard work imo.

That's not a lot for a couple with one child to live on imo?

CDfm

ntlbell wrote: »

If you take two people earning the average ind wage which is 35k? so 70 between them and if they're married the extra take hom via the extra tax credits

that's about 5k a month

you're telling me these two people couldn't get finanicially prepared to survive on one income for 4-5 years ? if you take out most luxries that's a fair whack of change tbh..

Do you know any women or couples who actually planned like that?

Does anyone?

ntlbell

CDfm wrote: »

Do you know any women or couples who actually planned like that?

Does anyone?

I did.

and in the process now again...

ntlbell

nouggatti wrote: »

T


Edited to add: I don't think that even on 35k, you'd get any benefit from extra tax benefits (i.e hitting the 41% threshold), and secondly, a single income couple on 35k would take home about €2700 max a month (including all benefits). In that context assuming a mortgage payment of min. €1000 a month, that's €1700 a month/€425 a week, to live on and pay all bills, might sound a lot, but imo it's not much for two adults and a child, especially given the high cost of medical care, food bills, utility bills etc, I may well be wrong, but if you are a couple and both were earning the AIW, a fifty percent drop in income, and the cost of a child would be very very hard work imo.

That's not a lot for a couple with one child to live on imo?

When you're married is it not combined?

My point is tho if they're on 35k each and married you have a combined tax credit so 70k and the increased tax break as it's about 40 in the high no?

this would surley give them 5k or more a month...

if they have a mortgage of 1k lets give another 1k for food and bills etc and 500 for whatever

leaves you with 2.5k a month

if you can put that 2.5k away every month for two years in a high intrest savings account would give you 60K plus the interest.

now you have a number of options you can put the 60k off the mortgage and reduce the monthly payments given you more spendable income a month

or you can use it to pay your mortgage off over the 4 years which would be about 48k or so leaving you with your full wages + 400e a month etc etc

I'm sure crafity frugals could come up with much better ways this is just one of the top of my head..

no one says it's easy but if it means you can bring up your own kids and not pawn them off on some stranger it must be worth it

as lets face it when you take child care etc out of the avg ind wage there doesn't be much left anyway

Wibbs

CDfm wrote: »

Do you know any women or couples who actually planned like that?

Does anyone?

Yep. I know a few. Both couples and single mums that have brought up and are bringing up their kids on less, much less in one example. Hefty mortgages, hefty car and home improvement loans seem to me to be the biggest drain on resources I've noticed. I could be way off base, but I think a lot of people have forgotten how to be frugal or even god forbid save for a rainy day. The current downturn is showing that up. I certainly see it with people I know.

ntlbell

Wibbs wrote: »

I could be way off base, but I think a lot of people have forgotten how to be frugal or even god forbid save for a rainy day. The current downturn is showing that up. I certainly see it with people I know.

I'd say your far from way off base, your hammer is on the nail..I'd say the head of the nail has been hit

CDfm

ntlbell wrote: »

I did.

and in the process now again...

they should get rid of the lucy kennedy show and give you the spot instead.

can you do a living frugally thread

ntlbell

CDfm wrote: »

they should get rid of the lucy kennedy show and give you the spot instead.

can you do a living frugally thread

I have no idea who she is so I don't know if I should be insulted or not

CDfm

ntlbell wrote: »

I have no idea who she is so I don't know if I should be insulted or not

Lucy K is an RTE TV presenter with an orange tan.

That she might talk sense like you do takes a leap of imagination that even I cant fake:)

ergo

pink fluffy bunny wrote: »

I am a homeowner and so are all my single female friends, we have a problem finding men who own their homes. After 3 years of datin, i only met one guy who had his own house. i found it all very disturbing tbh

sorry for the slight bump, I read this comment the other night but didn't have a chance to respond

as a 30 year old male I'm certainly happy not to be a homeowner at the moment, means I can live where I want and not worried about neg equity etc. I have a decent profession which, fortunately for me, won't be affected too much by the recession, at least half of my 30 year old friends are in the same boat, what's the rush to buy?

As for original topic, well it's down to biology isn't it, and peer pressure. And that is life really I suppose

ntlbell

ergo wrote: »

sorry for the slight bump, I read this comment the other night but didn't have a chance to respond

as a 30 year old male I'm certainly happy not to be a homeowner at the moment, means I can live where I want and not worried about neg equity etc. I have a decent profession which, fortunately for me, won't be affected too much by the recession, at least half of my 30 year old friends are in the same boat, what's the rush to buy?

As for original topic, well it's down to biology isn't it, and peer pressure. And that is life really I suppose

people mistake having a mortgage for owning their own home, a lot of people seem to forget the bank owns it.

I don't consider owning a home till the last payment is paid.

CDfm

ntlbell wrote: »

people mistake having a mortgage for owning their own home, a lot of people seem to forget the bank owns it.

I don't consider owning a home till the last payment is paid.

oh but you do - if it is repossesed and the banks sells it for a loss -you are liable for that loss.

ntlbell

CDfm wrote: »

oh but you do - if it is repossesed and the banks sells it for a loss -you are liable for that loss.

I think you'll find you don't.

if it was your house you owned it it was ALL YOURS how could someone else repose it?

I'll ask anyone that has a mortgage to show me one thing.

The deeds.

This is where the realisation usually kicks in.

Yes that's right, the bank has them and will have them till the last payment.

that's the day it's YOUR home.

CDfm

ntlbell wrote: »

I think you'll find you don't.

if it was your house you owned it it was ALL YOURS how could someone else repose it?

I'll ask anyone that has a mortgage to show me one thing.

The deeds.

This is where the realisation usually kicks in.

Yes that's right, the bank has them and will have them till the last payment.

that's the day it's YOUR home.

Thats interesting.

My understanding is that the a mortgage has several parties - however the property is security for the loan and repossessioin can only occur if certain undertakings on repayment or whatever are not made. So you are still the legal owner. The deeds are now normally held by the purchassors solicitor and the charge recorded in the Land Registry. So a bank will be a preferential creditor before anyone else in the case of a loan going in to default.

Legally you are the owner and the bank a secured creditor.

Thats my understanding - any of the legal bods posting may have a better explanation.

ntlbell

CDfm wrote: »

Thats interesting.

My understanding is that the a mortgage has several parties - however the property is security for the loan and repossessioin can only occur if certain undertakings on repayment or whatever are not made. So you are still the legal owner. The deeds are now normally held by the purchassors solicitor and the charge recorded in the Land Registry. So a bank will be a preferential creditor before anyone else in the case of a loan going in to default.

Legally you are the owner and the bank a secured creditor.

Thats my understanding - any of the legal bods posting may have a better explanation.

what good is a bit of paper in a bank safe saying you're the owner when a few months out of work and you could lose the home and possibly in a **** load of debt? does that sound like security to you?

when you get a car loan the bank pays for the car you drive the car if you cant keep up the payments the bank takes the car back and sells it.

so it wasn't really your car it was the banks car and will be untill the day the last payment is paid

so it's not TRULY your home till you have paid for it, nothing is yours that someone else can take away

CDfm

ntlbell wrote: »

what good is a bit of paper in a bank safe saying you're the owner when a few months out of work and you could lose the home and possibly in a **** load of debt? does that sound like security to you?

when you get a car loan the bank pays for the car you drive the car if you cant keep up the payments the bank takes the car back and sells it.

so it wasn't really your car it was the banks car and will be untill the day the last payment is paid

so it's not TRULY your home till you have paid for it, nothing is yours that someone else can take away

You do have a negative view of the world:pac:

ntlbell

CDfm wrote: »

You do have a negative view of the world:pac:

What's negative about it?

Buy a house with your own money its yours

buy it with someone elses it's not.

this is not negative it's just the reality of the situation lol

Nevyn

Yes you don't own it out right but it is a hell of a lot more secure then renting esp if you have or are planning on having kids.

Curlypinkie

ntlbell wrote: »

what good is a bit of paper in a bank safe saying you're the owner when a few months out of work and you could lose the home and possibly in a **** load of debt? does that sound like security to you?

when you get a car loan the bank pays for the car you drive the car if you cant keep up the payments the bank takes the car back and sells it.

so it wasn't really your car it was the banks car and will be untill the day the last payment is paid

so it's not TRULY your home till you have paid for it, nothing is yours that someone else can take away

I totally agree.
I know a lot of friends who want to set me up with their single male friends (oh, how I hate that btw) mention:
He has a good job, an apartment/house, a nice car...
It just puts me off right there and I get a slight gastric reflux just thinking about those selling points of a man. Usually they're in so much debt they don't even realise they're not that much of a "catch" at all in fairness.

As a side note, would I ever go out with someone's male friend?
Only if the description goes: He's Sh*t-hot... sadly wimmens rarely use that expression bout their male friends. That might also be a reason to why they're still just male.... friends.