But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Do whatever you two are happy with. I don't think it's financially sound, and it may very well hurt your retirement down the road.
Quote from: Statefarm on February 02, 2015, 07:24:13 PMBut I'd try to bring in two incomesWhy?
Quote from: Snake on February 02, 2015, 07:32:40 PMQuote from: Statefarm on February 02, 2015, 07:24:13 PMBut I'd try to bring in two incomesWhy?More disposable incomeMore money to put aside for future schoolingUnless the wife makes big bucks.
Quote from: Statefarm on February 02, 2015, 07:35:17 PMQuote from: Snake on February 02, 2015, 07:32:40 PMQuote from: Statefarm on February 02, 2015, 07:24:13 PMBut I'd try to bring in two incomesWhy?More disposable incomeMore money to put aside for future schoolingUnless the wife makes big bucks.I should have probably mentioned that, in this scenario, the wife makes quite a good amount of money. Otherwise I would obviously be out there working to help out.
Quote from: Snake on February 02, 2015, 07:36:32 PMQuote from: Statefarm on February 02, 2015, 07:35:17 PMQuote from: Snake on February 02, 2015, 07:32:40 PMQuote from: Statefarm on February 02, 2015, 07:24:13 PMBut I'd try to bring in two incomesWhy?More disposable incomeMore money to put aside for future schoolingUnless the wife makes big bucks.I should have probably mentioned that, in this scenario, the wife makes quite a good amount of money. Otherwise I would obviously be out there working to help out.Gold digger huh
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 02, 2015, 07:08:54 PMDo whatever you two are happy with. I don't think it's financially sound, and it may very well hurt your retirement down the road.Why wouldn't it be financially sound?
Quote from: Snake on February 02, 2015, 07:32:57 PMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 02, 2015, 07:08:54 PMDo whatever you two are happy with. I don't think it's financially sound, and it may very well hurt your retirement down the road.Why wouldn't it be financially sound?Because trying to support two adults and several kids on one salary is difficult.
Quote from: Snake on February 02, 2015, 07:32:40 PMQuote from: Statefarm on February 02, 2015, 07:24:13 PMBut I'd try to bring in two incomesWhy?Splitting economic burden can factor in longer marriages. I'm a proponent of individual choice, so I agree with the concept.
Quote from: Epsira on February 03, 2015, 12:41:33 AMQuote from: Snake on February 02, 2015, 07:32:40 PMQuote from: Statefarm on February 02, 2015, 07:24:13 PMBut I'd try to bring in two incomesWhy?Splitting economic burden can factor in longer marriages. I'm a proponent of individual choice, so I agree with the concept. In my head the marriage last until we both die. I still believe that when you marry, that's it. Unless someone dies, you're with them until that point. My significant other would have to understand and agree to that.
Quote from: Snake on February 03, 2015, 12:45:26 AMQuote from: Epsira on February 03, 2015, 12:41:33 AMQuote from: Snake on February 02, 2015, 07:32:40 PMQuote from: Statefarm on February 02, 2015, 07:24:13 PMBut I'd try to bring in two incomesWhy?Splitting economic burden can factor in longer marriages. I'm a proponent of individual choice, so I agree with the concept. In my head the marriage last until we both die. I still believe that when you marry, that's it. Unless someone dies, you're with them until that point. My significant other would have to understand and agree to that.It's a personal choice in that regard."Til death do us part" implies when one of the two dies. But hey, I could easily see someone never marrying again after losing the love of their life.
Quote from: Val 'Ketam on February 03, 2015, 02:08:17 AMQuote from: Snake on February 03, 2015, 12:45:26 AMQuote from: Epsira on February 03, 2015, 12:41:33 AMQuote from: Snake on February 02, 2015, 07:32:40 PMQuote from: Statefarm on February 02, 2015, 07:24:13 PMBut I'd try to bring in two incomesWhy?Splitting economic burden can factor in longer marriages. I'm a proponent of individual choice, so I agree with the concept. In my head the marriage last until we both die. I still believe that when you marry, that's it. Unless someone dies, you're with them until that point. My significant other would have to understand and agree to that.It's a personal choice in that regard."Til death do us part" implies when one of the two dies. But hey, I could easily see someone never marrying again after losing the love of their life.I've been told I have antiquated notions of romance before because I believe in "the one" (or, "the few"). So I would only really marry someone if I thought they were one of "the few", and if they died I don't think I would be able to survive, let alone find another "one".Anyways, we're getting off topic and I'm getting sad about things that haven't even happened.
Quote from: Snake on February 03, 2015, 02:35:35 AMQuote from: Val 'Ketam on February 03, 2015, 02:08:17 AMQuote from: Snake on February 03, 2015, 12:45:26 AMQuote from: Epsira on February 03, 2015, 12:41:33 AMQuote from: Snake on February 02, 2015, 07:32:40 PMQuote from: Statefarm on February 02, 2015, 07:24:13 PMBut I'd try to bring in two incomesWhy?Splitting economic burden can factor in longer marriages. I'm a proponent of individual choice, so I agree with the concept. In my head the marriage last until we both die. I still believe that when you marry, that's it. Unless someone dies, you're with them until that point. My significant other would have to understand and agree to that.It's a personal choice in that regard."Til death do us part" implies when one of the two dies. But hey, I could easily see someone never marrying again after losing the love of their life.I've been told I have antiquated notions of romance before because I believe in "the one" (or, "the few"). So I would only really marry someone if I thought they were one of "the few", and if they died I don't think I would be able to survive, let alone find another "one".Anyways, we're getting off topic and I'm getting sad about things that haven't even happened.I also believe that there's few people whom I could have successful romantic relations with. But I'm also content if that person doesn't exist, because to a certain extent that sentiment is characterized in mind. If I actually met someone like that I don't think I'd marry them, and certainly not have children.I'm someone who doesn't take marriage very seriously despite it retaining relevancy.Sorry to derail more.Blame my rampant weebism.
Though the mother should be there during the infancy and young ages.
Quote from: Snake on February 03, 2015, 03:22:27 AMQuote from: challengerX on February 03, 2015, 03:01:41 AM Though the mother should be there during the infancy and young ages.Interesting. To what extend do you think she should "be there"? Along the lines of seeing your kids when you get home from work, or were you thinking something more prominent?Obviously she should be there full time during infancy and ideally when they're very young. It's very important psychologically for the baby and child. The father is important too, but it's fine if he's gone for longer portions of the day. But it's important that dad is around too.
Quote from: challengerX on February 03, 2015, 03:01:41 AM Though the mother should be there during the infancy and young ages.Interesting. To what extend do you think she should "be there"? Along the lines of seeing your kids when you get home from work, or were you thinking something more prominent?
Quote from: Snake on February 03, 2015, 03:28:22 AMQuote from: challengerX on February 03, 2015, 03:25:45 AMQuote from: Snake on February 03, 2015, 03:22:27 AMQuote from: challengerX on February 03, 2015, 03:01:41 AM Though the mother should be there during the infancy and young ages.Interesting. To what extend do you think she should "be there"? Along the lines of seeing your kids when you get home from work, or were you thinking something more prominent?Obviously she should be there full time during infancy and ideally when they're very young. It's very important psychologically for the baby and child. The father is important too, but it's fine if he's gone for longer portions of the day. But it's important that dad is around too.Why is it more important for the mother to be there full-time and not the father? Couldn't they be interchangable in the psyche of the children?[Genuine question, I want to make sure I've covered all my bases when planning my future.]No. The mother being around full time during infancy is the way we've always done it. I mean the kid can't suck on your nipples. A mother is a mother. There's no substitute. Now, when they aren't infants? A loving parent is a loving parent. Doesn't matter.
Quote from: challengerX on February 03, 2015, 03:25:45 AMQuote from: Snake on February 03, 2015, 03:22:27 AMQuote from: challengerX on February 03, 2015, 03:01:41 AM Though the mother should be there during the infancy and young ages.Interesting. To what extend do you think she should "be there"? Along the lines of seeing your kids when you get home from work, or were you thinking something more prominent?Obviously she should be there full time during infancy and ideally when they're very young. It's very important psychologically for the baby and child. The father is important too, but it's fine if he's gone for longer portions of the day. But it's important that dad is around too.Why is it more important for the mother to be there full-time and not the father? Couldn't they be interchangable in the psyche of the children?[Genuine question, I want to make sure I've covered all my bases when planning my future.]
Quote from: Epsira on February 03, 2015, 02:42:04 AMQuote from: Snake on February 03, 2015, 02:35:35 AMQuote from: Val 'Ketam on February 03, 2015, 02:08:17 AMQuote from: Snake on February 03, 2015, 12:45:26 AMQuote from: Epsira on February 03, 2015, 12:41:33 AMQuote from: Snake on February 02, 2015, 07:32:40 PMQuote from: Statefarm on February 02, 2015, 07:24:13 PMBut I'd try to bring in two incomesWhy?Splitting economic burden can factor in longer marriages. I'm a proponent of individual choice, so I agree with the concept. In my head the marriage last until we both die. I still believe that when you marry, that's it. Unless someone dies, you're with them until that point. My significant other would have to understand and agree to that.It's a personal choice in that regard."Til death do us part" implies when one of the two dies. But hey, I could easily see someone never marrying again after losing the love of their life.I've been told I have antiquated notions of romance before because I believe in "the one" (or, "the few"). So I would only really marry someone if I thought they were one of "the few", and if they died I don't think I would be able to survive, let alone find another "one".Anyways, we're getting off topic and I'm getting sad about things that haven't even happened.I also believe that there's few people whom I could have successful romantic relations with. But I'm also content if that person doesn't exist, because to a certain extent that sentiment is characterized in mind. If I actually met someone like that I don't think I'd marry them, and certainly not have children.I'm someone who doesn't take marriage very seriously despite it retaining relevancy.Sorry to derail more.Blame my rampant weebism.I'm sorry, you confused me. You're saying that if you met someone who could be "the one", you wouldn't be with them?[While I do enjoy the deralied conversation topic, but it's not relevant to the OP. I'm sure we're bound to get some more romance-themed threads as we near VDay.]
What is your opinion on stay-at-home dads?
