Gazumping - how immoral!

[nick2 10]

Originally posted by Zebra

Those extra thousands are our babies cot beds instead of just cots (saving us money later) and the chance to have a new carpet in the baby bedroom instead of coping with the dirty old ratty one currently in the house, a new fitted oven instead of the health hazard currently installed.

Even having easy clean lino or laminate in the kitchen so that we don't have to scrape baby mush off the carpet that's in there. It's all important and practical, not luxurious.

 

Not wanting to sound harsh, but I always wonder why people have kids when they can't afford them.

I've also noticed that each child seems to require a move to a bigger house with at least two more bedrooms, I don't know why this is.

[Zebra 10]

We aren't in that position, we live in a rented 2 up 2 down but the second bedroom is tiny and certainly cannot fit 2 babies in. A mortage would prevent us wasting money at least!

The house we want is also 2 bedroomed so your assumptions are incorrect.

We have money in the bank but we aren't stupid enough to spend it all. If the boiler breaks down when we have babies it will be of utmost importance to have it fixed.

If the babies are early and in incubators in the special care unit (and probably will be) we need money to cover my partners income since I have no doubt he would want to be with the babies and not fretting at work.

We will not waste all our money on some blokes greed (it is his second property at least). We are planning for all eventualities and ensuring we are covered in emergencies.

We can afford a house and children, what we cannot afford is the limitless greed of some people.

[spiffymonkey 10]

Originally posted by nick2

Not wanting to sound harsh, but I always wonder why people have kids when they can't afford them.

I've also noticed that each child seems to require a move to a bigger house with at least two more bedrooms, I don't know why this is.

 

Because if you wait until you can afford them the human race would die out?

 

That is rather a stupid sentiment, if I may say so. Having an extra mouth to feed is very expensive whether you are loaded or skint. What do you suggest, move to a big house and get it all kitted out as a dwelling suitable for children and only have kids when you've got it all done and dusted?

 

I take it you don't have kids?

[nick2 10]

Originally posted by spiffymonkey

What do you suggest, move to a big house and get it all kitted out as a dwelling suitable for children and only have kids when you've got it all done and dusted?

 

That would seem like a sensible plan.

[Abdul 10]

Originally posted by nick2

That would seem like a sensible plan.

 

I take it you've never had to deal with the maternal instinct of a female

[Zebra 10]

I cannot comprehend what planet you're on.

If most people get a mortgage in their mid to late 20's on average, settle with a partner in their late 20's early 30's (as is the trend).

Move to a family sized house, work on it, save up again for children and then battle with actually conceiving, then most people would be having kids in their late 30's or early 40's.

There's a reason women are more fertile in their early 20's and why they aren't always later on.

I feel, in our financial position that we have made a very sensible move and planned our finances very appropriately. Also prioritising real needs.

I can think of many people whom this doesn't apply to, those who choose to have children regardless of having a suitable environment and those who get have unplanned pregnancies.

The whole point here is that I have financial morality and carefully planned budgets to care for my family and our immediate needs and emergencies plus a reasonable deposit and some bloke has got £££ signs flashing in his eyes instead of being an upstanding and honourable person.

[nick2 10]

Originally posted by Zebra

Move to a family sized house, work on it, save up again for children and then battle with actually conceiving, then most people would be having kids in their late 30's or early 40's.

 

But lots of people do have kids in their 30's or even 40's.

 

All I'm trying to say is that it might have been a better idea to get everything ready (ie. somewhere to live) for the baby before you got pregnant, then you wouldn't be having the hassle you are now.

 

I realise not all babies are "planned" .

[spiffymonkey 10]

Originally posted by nick2

That would seem like a sensible plan.

 

Sorry, I missed a bit... then find someone who would actually do that, rather than spending the money while they were free to do their thing. If you were going to save up for the costs of a family before starting on the venture, then only the rich or the old would have kids. We'd have a nation entirely comprised of upper class twits or kids whose parent died of old age while they were in nursery school!

[nick2 10]

Originally posted by spiffymonkey

Sorry, I missed a bit... then find someone who would actually do that, rather than spending the money while they were free to do their thing. If you were going to save up for the costs of a family before starting on the venture, then only the rich or the old would have kids. We'd have a nation entirely comprised of upper class twits or kids whose parent died of old age while they were in nursery school!

 

I'm sure there are loads of people who plan to have a child and actually move house first and get the nursery ready before they have the child.

 

I'm not suggesting people pay off their entire mortgage first.

[Kristian 11]

Guys, can we keep this on topic please? The subject is supposed to be Gazumping, not family planning!

[Zebra 10]

Originally posted by nick2

 

All I'm trying to say is that it might have been a better idea to get everything ready (ie. somewhere to live) for the baby before you got pregnant, then you wouldn't be having the hassle you are now.

 

Actually, we wouldn't be in the postition we are now if we'd conceived one child rather than two. Do you suggest I abort one because it's an inconvenience? We live in a house with a spare room, big enough for one baby to sleep etc but no room for toys in the lounge or a place to keep a pram etc

You seem to have missed the point,the property issue is immoral.

We have money and can afford the property, it's GREED we cannot afford.

I feel you have a narrowed view, perhaps you don't have children or a mortgage.

We are in a stronger position than most and yet you criticise that it isn't good enough!

The vendors morals are at fault, not us.

[nick2 10]

Originally posted by Zebra

Actually, we wouldn't be in the postition we are now if we'd conceived one child rather than two. Do you suggest I abort one because it's an inconvenience?

 

Now your just getting hysterical.