Money and Savings

FURET

Sam Kade wrote: »

Not exactly but as you should know not everyone think alike one spouse could be excellent at managing money the other might not and think money will come out of thin air to pay bills. When the two of them sit down to sort it out it will end up with endless arguments and getting nowhere.

Marriage is a huge decision usually with life-long consequences. If money and savings are very important to a person, then that person should probably only marry a partner who has a similar attitude to money and who shares the same financial aspirations. Doing so saves not only money, but also sanity and stress and arguments and resentment, and maybe even the marriage itself.

Sam Kade

Celly Smunt wrote: »

In that case the responsible one should grow a pair, seperate their funds bar the bills and not complain about being broke after they've put themselves in a position they have control of to fix.

Another example of people being stupid with money is people buying a cup of coffee every day. Thats (conservatively) 1.50 per cup.Thats (conservatively) 400 per year.Thats 4000 over 10 years on cups of coffee.

Cigarettes would be a better example than the coffee eg. 30 cigs/day €13.50 that's €4927.50/year over 10 years €49,275 + the damage to your health.

FrStone

Ann Landers wrote: »

If you have rent and living costs, plus the unforeseen costs life throws up, you'll have no savings on social welfare.

Unforeseen costs? What you get sick and need to go to the doctor? Oh wait I have a medical card to cover it. Medication? Is it only €2 for it?

My family all work - we pay €144 every month on medication. In our last tax return we had over €6,000 paid out in GP fees, consultant fees and medication (it would be even more if we were without health insurance). Lets add to that, that for myself and my sibbling there was €5,000 paid out in College Fees just to get to college. I work through college because I don't get any grant - ask any of my friends who get a grant and they'll tell you they wouldn't have time to work...

Yeah life is so difficult on the dole - free money and you don't have to work a day in your life.

It does my head in that the middle class get caught for everything in this country and then people who spend vast amounts of time on benefits have the cheek to say we have it easy.

Sam Kade

FURET wrote: »

Marriage is a huge decision usually with life-long consequences. If money and savings are very important to a person, then that person should probably only marry a partner who has a similar attitude to money and shares the same financial aspirations. Doing so saves not only money, but also sanity and stress and arguments and resentment, and maybe even the marriage itself.

In the real world it isn't that simple unless you live with your future spouse for 10 years before getting hitched which still wouldn't guarantee it.

FURET

Sam Kade wrote: »

In the real world it isn't that simple unless you live with your future spouse for 10 years before getting hitched which still wouldn't guarantee it.

It depends on one's temperament perhaps. But it is that simple if you know what you want and are adamant about it.

Larry Wildman

You can save a lot by cutting down your midweek spending...I was spending €3.50 each morning on a smoothie, €7.50 a day on coffee and €10 a day on lunch.

That's €400 a month which is ridiculous.

Bubbaclaus

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

I just can't understand how people manage their money so poorly in this country

Neither can I.

I lived in Dublin for a year (all of 2013) on a salary of ~20k, and I built up savings of 4k during the year.

So I basically spent 16k during the entire year. I was entirely self sustaining and received no money from anywhere/anyone else during that period.

shopaholic01

[QUOTE=Ah-Watch;90011513I'm out of college a year and a half and paid my way through for absolutely everything and I mean everything bar my registration fees which the parents paid. I paid for rent, books, food, bills , every type of transportation inc car tax insurance (yeah maybe say it's not a necessity but it kinda was for where I went to college and the car was 12 years old ) any extra help such as grinds etc. I think it gave me a good grasp on supporting myself financially in life. I worked 1 day a week at €69.20 and still put myself through college somehow. A year and a half on I have into 5 figures saved. I live down the country so haven't high rents to be paid that you'd have in Dublin, but that's luck really. [/QUOTE]

So, you paid for all of that on €69.20 a week? Even if you lived in your car I don't see how that's possible, unless you were paid in elastic money.

FURET

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Another example of people being stupid with money is people buying a cup of coffee every day. Thats (conservatively) 1.50 per cup.Thats (conservatively) 400 per year.Thats 4000 over 10 years on cups of coffee.

One fellow I know redecorated his bathroom last month for 4000 euro and was bemoaning the cost. Yet he buys a broadsheet every single day and has done so (he says) for the past 30 years...(and never really reads it anyway).

My parents planted a load of fast-growing evergreens around the house in the mid-80s rather than planting a lower-maintenance beech hedge or even a wall. Every year for the last 15 years at least it's cost them around a grand to maintain the hedge.

They also built their house 10km from the nearest town, meaning they've been running two cars for the past 25 years and spending vast sums annually on fuel.

Decisions (including ones like having x kids and getting married to a person who is financially careless) have consequences, so if you want to have money, it's really important to compute, project, and run various contra-scenarios for almost every type of transaction. It's a habit that's worth getting into. All those ill-spent euros could have been put to work, compounding on themselves year on year.

Misty Moon

Talib Fiasco wrote: »

I'm just about to leave my teen years and I have five figures in a savings account that won't need to be touched for some time hopefully.... I have to laugh at my friends too sometimes. They haven't a penny of savings yet they still go out weekly and spend crazy amounts of money on drink etc. yet always struggle to pay pills and complain how broke they are.... Now I myself spend a fair bit on nights out but that's because I can afford to. If I had less than a grand to my name I would be seriously considering every euro I spend never mind no savings.

Try and keep that attitude about saving, it'll stand to you in the end.

I was pretty good with money as a teenager, paid for most of my own stuff. Lived at home during college but paid for most of my own books, bus ticket and so on (even though my dad was happy to pay, I hated asking for money, especially if I had it). I didn't earn much as I was working for my dad - if I'd worked the same hours somewhere like Dunnes, I'd have been rolling in it. Everything was fine until I started working full-time. I just never really managed to get my head around proper budgeting and even though I heard things like you should always save 10% or you should always have 6 months worth of salary saved for emergencies, none of that seemed even remotely possible. And that was my big mistake really. Instead of thinking it was irrelevant and impossible for me (like a lot of people are doing in this thread), I should have sat down and figured out how to make it possible. Yes, there are some people who really, genuinely have cut every corner they can already and really are struggling, but it's not half as many of you as you'd like to think. Even if I had managed to put one euro aside every week since I got into debt, I would now have something like 800 euro saved. There's always something that can be done.

After a couple of years I'd gotten a credit card (for going on holidays), which I didn't manage to pay off immediately and from then on everything just went downhill. Mostly because for a few years I just kept going as if I wasn't in debt at all. And sure, it was the late nineties and weren't we all doing so well anyway (except I wasn't actually one of those people earning mad money for being an IT consultant or anything like that). I'll be 40 this year and when I get paid next week I will use most of my salary to clear my overdraft and finally, finally for the first time since 1999 be completely debt-free. The only silver lining, I tell myself, is that since I always had some debt I never actually bought a house (although I was very tempted and did even try and find out a couple of times how much of a mortgage I could have gotten - the fact that banks would have even contemplated giving a mortgage to someone like I was then blows the mind!). So at least I'm not stuck in a house worth half what I paid for it.

Larry Wildman

Petrol vs diesel cars is a good example.

Diesel cars are generally cheaper to run and cheaper to tax.

However, they now command such a premium that for low mileage city dwellers they can make little sense.

Ann Landers

FrStone wrote: »

Unforeseen costs? What you get sick and need to go to the doctor? Oh wait I have a medical card to cover it. Medication? Is it only €2 for it?

My family all work - we pay €144 every month on medication. In our last tax return we had over €6,000 paid out in GP fees, consultant fees and medication (it would be even more if we were without health insurance). Lets add to that, that for myself and my sibbling there was €5,000 paid out in College Fees just to get to college. I work through college because I don't get any grant - ask any of my friends who get a grant and they'll tell you they wouldn't have time to work...

Yeah life is so difficult on the dole - free money and you don't have to work a day in your life.

It does my head in that the middle class get caught for everything in this country and then people who spend vast amounts of time on benefits have the cheek to say we have it easy.

Nice rant but if you read back you'll notice I never said the middle class had it easy.

Celly Smunt

Larry Wildman wrote: »

Petrol vs diesel cars is a good example.

Diesel cars are generally cheaper to run and cheaper to tax.

However, they now command such a premium that for low mileage city dwellers they can make little sense.

For the sake of 5 cent per litre I still cringe at the thought of buying a brand new diesel car.

FrStone

Ann Landers wrote: »

Nice rant but if you read back you'll notice I never said the middle class had it easy.

You did imply that it was tough for those on benefits.

It has also been a recurring theme throughout this thread from some posters.

Larry Wildman

Celly Smunt wrote: »

For the sake of 5 cent per litre I still cringe at the thought of buying a brand new diesel car.

I was looking at decent second hand cars a while back and the petrol vs diesel price differential was circa €5k.

The annual motor tax was a couple of hundred cheaper for the diesel.

I live in Dublin and do very little driving.

Petrol cars can be cheaper...

Stavros Murphy

Robson Lobson wrote: »

How is that creating money? They move money around, they don't create it.

Are you serious? Really?

Celly Smunt

Larry Wildman wrote: »

I was looking at decent second hand cars a while back and the petrol vs diesel price differential was circa €5k.

The annual motor tax was a couples of hundred cheaper for the diesel.

I live in Dublin and do very little driving.

Petrol cars can be cheaper...

Cheaper to maintain
Better to drive
Cheaper to repair
Less likely to cause trouble
Quicker

Unless you're motorway driving (or even at that) there is no reason a commuter needs a diesel car.

roro1990

I'm on around 2,000 per month but I reckon I save 500 of it max. Still living at home so I pay 400 a month rent, 87 upc, 400 on weekends, 120 on lunch at work, 100 on travel then 200-300 on random ****. If I simply cut out drinking and brought in packed lunches I could easily save an extra 250 per month.

Ann Landers

FrStone wrote: »

You did imply that it was tough for those on benefits.

It has also been a recurring theme throughout this thread from some posters.

It IS tough on people on benefits a lot of the time. That doesn't mean it isn't tough on earners. People on dole don't automatically qualify for rent allowance. Even if they do, depending on where they live, they'll likely have to supplement it. Not all medicines are free for medical card holders, dental services even less so. For many social welfare recipients, living costs will eat up all their dole with nothing left for unforeseen events (which you seem to think are only medical in nature and that only earners suffer ) You think I'm implying that only people on social welfare have it tough. Well, you seem to be implying that social welfare recipients in general are delighted with their predicament. Please, only a tiny amount of welfare recipients wouldn't rather be working.

Electric Sheep

Sam Kade wrote: »

In the real world it isn't that simple unless you live with your future spouse for 10 years before getting hitched which still wouldn't guarantee it.

I can't imagine marrying someone I knew so little about. It sounds like those people who run up huge credit bills then blame the bank. You have a responsibility to yourself to do your own due diligence work.

FURET

I'm attaching a handy budget planner that I use to see what things are costing me on a weekly, monthly and annual basis. I also use it to crunch numbers before I make big decisions with regard to vacations or children or big purchases in general. The numbers in the excel are for illustrative purposes only; change them and add new rows as you see fit.

Electric Sheep

FURET wrote: »

I'm attaching a handy budget planner that I use to see what things are costing me on a weekly, monthly and annual basis. I also use it to crunch numbers before I make big decisions with regard to vacations or children or big purchases in general. The numbers in the excel are for illustrative purposes only; change them and add new rows as you see fit.

My goodness, are you asking irish people to actually financially plan? They will now accuse you of being stingy or peeling oranges in you pocket:rolleyes:

mickydoomsux

roro1990 wrote: »

I'm on around 2,000 per month but I reckon I save 500 of it max. Still living at home so I pay 400 a month rent, 87 upc, 400 on weekends, 120 on lunch at work, 100 on travel then 200-300 on random ****. If I simply cut out drinking and brought in packed lunches I could easily save an extra 250 per month.

Roughly just under half you income goes on things you don't need.

400 on weekends? Jesus wept.

roro1990

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Roughly just under half you income goes on things you don't need.

400 on weekends? Jesus wept.

Just to be clear that's 400 on weekends over the course of a month. I still think I do better than most people my age at saving. I've ~4300 in the bank which isn't too shabby. Although I'll spend about 3 grand on travel in october.

FURET

roro1990 wrote: »

Just to be clear that's 400 on weekends over the course of a month. I still think I do better than most people my age at saving. I've ~4300 in the bank which isn't too shabby. Although I'll spend about 3 grand on travel in october.

You've posted these details here so I assume you don't mind others commenting on them. I don't mean to throw advice at you because I know you didn't ask for it or need it, but your position is an interesting one because you're actually at a potentially very pivotal phase in your financial future (assuming you're 24), and I'd say a lot of people in their early 20s are in this position at some stage and then lose the momentum and opportunity. Some of the choices and habits you make now can improve your position for the long-term. Here's what comes to mind:

• What are you spending the 400 on? It amounts to 20% of your income.
• After you return from traveling, what will be left of your 4300 savings?
• I'd be inclined to take a close look at the "random sh*t" you're spending each month. You should watch stuff like this like a hawk as it's where frivolous habits can develop which can become ever-more damaging as you get older and you have more to spend.

If I were in your position, I'd quarantine your current savings in a savings account and add a bit to it every month until you have 10-12k. Granted it won't earn anything much for you as rates are paltry, but it can be left fully intact for when you return from your travels and you might need some of it. If you do need some of it then, make sure you top it back up pretty quickly. This is your emergency fund.

An emergency fund is really intended for times when you're unemployed or in a transitional phase or for serious crises. It's your buffer. It means you're not surviving from paycheque to paycheque - that's NOT a position you ever want to be in, especially down the road when you may have dependents and other commitments. For anyone who wonders how on earth anyone can accumulate between 3-6 months expenses, this poster already as 2 month's worth. It helps to start young. Having such a fund can be a HUGE help in later life. It is the stash that means the loss of a job won't set you back and it's the stash that means you can afford to put a bigger percentage of your monthly earnings regularly into a pension fund or some other *good* investment.

Seriously. If you invest 200 per month into a sensible pension fund now at 24 vs starting at 34, the difference over time thanks to compound interest is simply staggering. And naturally as your earnings grow, the rate of your funds also grows. Mighty oaks...

I would also consider getting some private medical insurance if you don't already have it.

Now, from May to September, I'd build up the 3k that you need for travel. You can easily do this based on the figures you provided.

Scotborn76

Had much when I came here but its been eaten away by various stuff including your open taxes and stealth stuff.
Mind you, I blew a few quid on the drink also so only my own self to blame really! I could be worse off LOL.

sopretty

I'm sorry, but you are one smug little upstart!

Try being a single parent, working full-time, upwards of 40 hours per week, with unpaid overtime.

I think my take home pay was 470 per week.

Outgoings were:

Rent: 120 p/w
Childcare (1 child): 150 p/w
Transport: 30 p/w
Food/Groceries: 100 p/w (1 adult, 1 child)
Electricity: 15 p/w
Heating: 20 p/w
Phone: 10 p/w
Savings: zero p/w
TV licence: 3 p/w
Clothes (none for me lol, children grow though haha): 5 p/w
Remainder: Random unexpected outlays.

roro1990

FURET wrote: »

You've posted these details here so I assume you don't mind others commenting on them. I don't mean to throw advice at you because I know you didn't ask for it or need it, but your position is an interesting one because you're actually at a potentially very pivotal phase in your financial future (assuming you're 24), and I'd say a lot of people in their early 20s are in this position at some stage and then lose the momentum and opportunity. Some of the choices and habits you make now can improve your position for the long-term. Here's what comes to mind:

• What are you spending the 400 on? It amounts to 20% of your income.
• After you return from traveling, what will be left of your 4300 savings?
• I'd be inclined to take a close look at the "random sh*t" you're spending each month. You should watch stuff like this like a hawk as it's where frivolous habits can develop which can become ever-more damaging as you get older and you have more to spend.

If I were in your position, I'd quarantine your current savings in a savings account and add a bit to it every month until you have 10-12k. Granted it won't earn anything much for you as rates are paltry, but it can be left fully intact for when you return from your travels and you might need some of it. If you do need some of it then, make sure you top it back up pretty quickly. This is your emergency fund.

An emergency fund is really intended for times when you're unemployed or in a transitional phase or for serious crises. It's your buffer. It means you're not surviving from paycheque to paycheque - that's NOT a position you ever want to be in, especially down the road when you may have dependents and other commitments. For anyone who wonders how on earth anyone can accumulate between 3-6 months expenses, this poster already as 2 month's worth. It helps to start young. Having such a fund can be a HUGE help in later life. It is the stash that means the loss of a job won't set you back and it's the stash that means you can afford to put a bigger percentage of your monthly earnings regularly into a pension fund or some other *good* investment.

Seriously. If you invest 200 per month into a sensible pension fund now at 24 vs starting at 34, the difference over time thanks to compound interest is simply staggering. And naturally as your earnings grow, the rate of your funds also grows. Mighty oaks...

I would also consider getting some private medical insurance if you don't already have it.

Now, from May to September, I'd build up the 3k that you need for travel. You can easily do this based on the figures you provided.

Yeah I am indeed 24. The 400 quid a month pretty much goes on nights out to be honest. The random **** is usually purchases of clothes or birthday presents for people. After I return from travelling I should have about 6k in savings because of extra money built up between now and then. I'm not sure what kind of savings account to put it into though? And I also don't know what constitutes a sensible pension fund. I'm not very well informed on these things.

mickydoomsux

sopretty wrote: »

I'm sorry, but you are one smug little upstart!

Try being a single parent, working full-time, upwards of 40 hours per week, with unpaid overtime.

I think my take home pay was 470 per week.

Outgoings were:

Rent: 120 p/w
Childcare (1 child): 150 p/w
Transport: 30 p/w
Food/Groceries: 100 p/w (1 adult, 1 child)
Electricity: 15 p/w
Heating: 20 p/w
Phone: 10 p/w
Savings: zero p/w
TV licence: 3 p/w
Clothes (none for me lol, children grow though haha): 5 p/w
Remainder: Random unexpected outlays.

What about your single parent allowance and childrens allowance and whatnot?

Not a fortune, but it is still an income.

sopretty

mickydoomsux wrote: »

What about your single parent allowance and childrens allowance and whatnot?

Not a fortune, but it is still an income.

I was paid children's allowance, as are all parents. 150 p/m at the time. Eaten up fairly lively!!!

I did not qualify for any single parent allowance as I was working full-time and was over the income threshold. It was all on me babes!

Thargor

Why are the poll results hidden? Never saw that before...

Sam Kade

Electric Sheep wrote: »

I can't imagine marrying someone I knew so little about. It sounds like those people who run up huge credit bills then blame the bank. You have a responsibility to yourself to do your own due diligence work.

Well good for you, however people can change.

harvester of sorrow

Why are the poll results hidden???????????

Micky Dolenz

Thargor wrote: »

Why are the poll results hidden? Never saw that before...

harvester of sorrow wrote: »

Why are the poll results hidden???????????

Poll starter set it up like that.

Can you see it now?

A_Sober_Paddy

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Poll starter set it up like that.

Can you see it now?

Sorry I made the error, I thought the private function was to hide who voted in which category

Galwayguy35

I've a few euro in the Bank, not too much because I used a lot of my savings building the house.

It's good to have some savings when you need them but no point being the richest man in the graveyard either.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

crazygeryy wrote: »

Why? How much have you got saved?

About 30 times that!

Robson Lobson

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

Are you serious? Really?

What you explained didn't describe money creation.

The One Doctor

I've changed my position regarding savings in the last 6 months and quintupled the amount I have in the credit union. Just as well, because I just found out that a baby will arriving in December.

Sam Kade

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I've a few euro in the Bank, not too much because I used a lot of my savings building the house.

It's good to have some savings when you need them but no point being the richest man in the graveyard either.

It's no fun to live with a miser but it's great to be related to one.

There are a few misers on this thread I know people that scrimped and saved all their lives most living in misery only to leave it all behind them for someone else to spend. A man like the above told me that when he was young he thought money would make him happy but said when he had money that wasn't the case. He died at 80 leaving over £1m after him.

You need to watch your spending but you also need to live.

FURET

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It's good to have some savings when you need them but no point being the richest man in the graveyard either.

You often hear that, but what does it really mean? Does the fact that we die make the accumulation of wealth pointless? If that's the case, doesn't it make everything else pointless, too?
So:

• There's no point being the fittest man in the graveyard
• There's no point being the most well-traveled man in the graveyard
• There's no point being the most educated man in the graveyard
• There's no point being the best athlete in the graveyard

...and so forth.

I think it's nonsense. The reality is that everyone since the Bronze Age knows you can't take it with you. But those who work hard at building wealth build it so that they can enjoy the things it brings them and their families during life, and probably take a lot of comfort in knowing that those left behind are well provided for.

Sam Kade

FURET wrote: »

You often hear that, but what does it really mean? Does that fact that we die make the accumulation of wealth pointless? If that's the case, doesn't it also make everything else pointless too? So:

• There's no point being the fittest man in the graveyard
• There's no point being the most well-traveled man in the graveyard
• There's no point being the most educated man in the graveyard
• There's no point being the best athlete in the graveyard

...and so forth.

I think it's nonsense. The reality is that everyone since the Bronze Age knows you can't take it with you. But those who work hard at building wealth build it so that they can enjoy the things it brings them and their families during life, and probably take a lot of comfort in knowing that those left behind are well provided for.

All the above that you mentioned you cannot leave behind you, that's the difference.

FURET

Sam Kade wrote: »

All the above that you mentioned you cannot leave behind you, that's the difference.

Wealth creation is a pursuit.
Education is a pursuit.
Travel is a pursuit.
Athletic excellence is a pursuit.

If one of these pursuits (wealth creation) is ultimately pointless purely because we are going to die, then all other pursuits are too. We lose our money when we die. We lose our memories when we die (thereby all our travel and educational experiences). We lose our athleticism when we die.
It makes no sense to insinuate that it's pointless trying to become rich because you can't take it with you.
The phrase "no point being the richest man in the graveyard" is a deepity. No one cares about riches in death. People get rich because it means something to their lives. Very few people are buried with their money. It usually goes to living relatives.

Sam Kade

FURET wrote: »

Wealth creation is a pursuit.
Education is a pursuit.
Travel is a pursuit.
Athletic excellence is a pursuit.

If one of these pursuits (wealth creation) is ultimately pointless purely because we are going to die, then all other pursuits are too. We lose our money when we die. We lose our memories when we die (thereby all our travel and educational experiences). We lose our athleticism when we die.
It makes no sense to insinuate that it's pointless trying to become rich because you can't take it with you.
The phrase "no point being the richest man in the graveyard" is a deepity. No one cares about riches in death. People get rich because it means something to their lives. Very few people are buried with their money. It usually goes to living relatives.

That's great as long as you aren't living in misery to leave it behind you. Not many people earn enough to get rich without living in misery.

Larry Wildman

What about being in a position to send one's relative to Mount Sinai or the Mayo Clinic for cutting edge treatment for some terrible ailment?

For me that's one of the big attractions of being wealthy because I have witnessed this.

Being able to write a €100k cheque for medical treatment can mean the difference between life and death.

FURET

Sam Kade wrote: »

That's great as long as you aren't living in misery to leave it behind you. Not many people earn enough to get rich without living in misery.

I don't necessarily agree, especially if we're talking about college-educated, healthy citizens of the first world.

If you're focused, strategic, ambitious, judicious, patient and competent, and can recognize and seize opportunities, it should be possible.

Larry Wildman

Sam Kade wrote: »

That's great as long as you aren't living in misery to leave it behind you. Not many people earn enough to get rich without living in misery.

What's your definition of rich?

Robson Lobson

Sam Kade wrote: »

That's great as long as you aren't living in misery to leave it behind you. Not many people earn enough to get rich without living in misery.

If you live in "Misery" you probably aren't rich. Being rich allows you to take care of those you love and to enjoy things that you couldn't otherwise. Being rich is not a pointless pursuit, especially if you enjoy your job.

A_Sober_Paddy

sopretty wrote: »

I'm sorry, but you are one smug little upstart!

Try being a single parent, working full-time, upwards of 40 hours per week, with unpaid overtime.

I think my take home pay was 470 per week.

Outgoings were:

Rent: 120 p/w
Childcare (1 child): 150 p/w
Transport: 30 p/w
Food/Groceries: 100 p/w (1 adult, 1 child)
Electricity: 15 p/w
Heating: 20 p/w
Phone: 10 p/w
Savings: zero p/w
TV licence: 3 p/w
Clothes (none for me lol, children grow though haha): 5 p/w
Remainder: Random unexpected outlays.

This is the thrid time i've had to say this...

The people I'm referring too are people who aren't parents, the mates of mine are people who work full time and are always broke with no savings.

With regards to people with kids...If your not in the position financially to have a kid I just don't understand in this day and age why you'd have a child, children are proper expensive, If i ever was to have children i'd do everything possible to have myself in the best possible financial position which people in ireland don't seem to think is important

DeanAustin

Christ. Thought I was good with money but some people in here take it to a different level. I'm all for planning in case you lose your job or having some money for the inevitable unforeseeable expense but that doesn't mean sacrificing any bit of pleasure or luxury that you could have now. I'd rather try and strike a balance but each to their own.