Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sorry guys, but this one was not serious. I got such a pasting on the other thread I thought I would run this one. It was discussed hypothetically betwen some friends of ours recently.


I have only two children - both girls, and to be honest it would be both or none as most people suggested, if I wanted to spend my money that way, which I prob wouldn't.


Rosie made me laugh. And yes my wife says I'm sexist too.


Made for a good thread though - lots of responses in a short time.

send the best looking girl, she can then get married to someone with money quick, then pay for a top education for the children of her siblings and then also pay for her siblings to leave work and study, OU or something, in later life. Plus the Parents of her rich husband may be a right fruity pair of swingers then you and your hub could find yourself in some big stately home in years to come dressed as victorian parlour slaves havin a right bubble !


christ its so simple, i wonder why i bother !

Send all three kids to the local state school and, if you have any spare cash, add some additional learning where or if needed...

music, languages, extra help if not doing well in a specific subject, etc...


Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As far as I know, the Boy will have little

> "comparitve" choice, the keyword imo being

> "comparitive"...its extremely rare for a Boy to

> choose anything other than a Career.

> This may influence your decision.


In 1 out 5 households (within a male and female relationship) the woman is now the main breadwinner and 1 in 5 men are now the primary carer of children within families in the UK.


"Double the number of UK men now earn less than their partners"

http://news.scotsman.com/womenandwork/Double-the-number-of-UK.3586428.jp


so TLS maybe men have more 'choices' that you think!

or are we still here???

http://www.kennesaw.edu/hss/wwork/bibliography/images/wwork2.jpg

Mick,


Completely agree with previous posters as being all or nothing. You will create such issues between your children and besides, it's nice to have them all at the same school. Agree with charliecharlie that you can then splurge on extracurricular activities like music, dance, drama, football and also buy that baby grand piano so they can practice and/or build a football pitch in garden for your son.


Hope this isn't a wind-up?! :)


Best,

-C

Posted by: Mick Mac Yesterday, 07:27PM

Sorry guys, but this one was not serious. I got such a pasting on the other thread I thought I would run this one. It was discussed hypothetically betwen some friends of ours recently.


I have only two children - both girls, and to be honest it would be both or none as most people suggested, if I wanted to spend my money that way, which I prob wouldn't.


Rosie made me laugh. And yes my wife says I'm sexist too.


Made for a good thread though - lots of responses in a short time.



Often worth reading the thread, C.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Very happy to add my recommendation for Leon, who has now helped me out twice. Prompt, efficient and helpful.
    • Today we are seeing the impact of increased taxes (employers NI) with tje UK unemployment rate rising  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxrp7znkdlo Unfortunately, to increase tax burdens will see the economy stall or a recession, as Angelina says, cutting spending, whilst painful short term, is a good way to bring down government borrowing.  True, we don't want to see cuts to services but there are other areas of government spending that can be reduced and with AI impacting all jobs across all businesses, maybe it will also reduce overall staffing costs. 
    • or cut costs.  The cost of debt is a huge burden, it cannot be increased.
    • Yes, they should clearly have been more honest on taxes before the election and not backed themselves into a corner. After 14 years of mismanagement and decline, they have to invest and at the same time start to bring borrowing down (otherwise they continues to be at the mercy of the bond markets). Continued cuts / degrading of public services is counter productive (a successful economy and society needs good infrastructure, education and health care).  The single biggest thing they could do to immediately improve growth would be to rejoin the single market, but I appreciate that is difficult politically.  So if you can't significantly boost growth short term, can't cut too much further, and need to raise money without borrowing, that only really leaves taxation.    Of course, where best to target those taxes - that's the real question.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...