More kids?
Posted by: Rasher on 15 July 2004
Tell me guys - Is having three kids over two much different? Like holidays and restaurants and days out etc etc etc.
Is there little practical difference, or is it all change?
Is there little practical difference, or is it all change?
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by Derek Wright
It is one extra to lobby for you to be put in the cheapest care home so as to ensure that there is some money to share out after you have gone. <g>
Charitably one could say that there will be one extra person to share out the long term care that you will eventually need.
Derek
<< >>
Charitably one could say that there will be one extra person to share out the long term care that you will eventually need.
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by domfjbrown
...and another £2600 in nappies and set up costs, and 50% extra in kiddy payout for food etc.
Any more than none is too many for me, but that's just me!
Don't forget you'll probably also need to upgrade the house (extra bedroom) and add more kiddiproof(TM) safeguards to your hifi and music
__________________________
Don't wanna be cremated or buried in a grave
Just dump me in a plastic bag and leave me on the pavement
A tribute to your modern world, your great society
I'm just another victim of your highrise fantasy!
Any more than none is too many for me, but that's just me!
Don't forget you'll probably also need to upgrade the house (extra bedroom) and add more kiddiproof(TM) safeguards to your hifi and music
__________________________
Don't wanna be cremated or buried in a grave
Just dump me in a plastic bag and leave me on the pavement
A tribute to your modern world, your great society
I'm just another victim of your highrise fantasy!
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by seagull
Obviously you will have to pay for three kids when you go anywhere (though many places do family tickets which would be the about the same as two adults and two kids).
Holiday accomodation can be more tricky depending on age and gender of the kids and where you wish to stay. Most hotels seem to cater for 2+2.
You will need a bus to transport them around, again depending on whether you need to take pushchairs etc.
It will greatly increase the parent taxi duties as they get older.
If they are girls you will be expected to stump up for weddings etc.
There will be more fights about who has the best room.
If they are girls (or increasingly boys these days) there will be a queue for the bathroom (unless you go for the multiple bathroom option but then that is more cleaning for Mrs Rasher; how many wcs should anyone have to clean regularly).
We stuck with 2; one of each, 11 years apart but that's another story...
Holiday accomodation can be more tricky depending on age and gender of the kids and where you wish to stay. Most hotels seem to cater for 2+2.
You will need a bus to transport them around, again depending on whether you need to take pushchairs etc.
It will greatly increase the parent taxi duties as they get older.
If they are girls you will be expected to stump up for weddings etc.
There will be more fights about who has the best room.
If they are girls (or increasingly boys these days) there will be a queue for the bathroom (unless you go for the multiple bathroom option but then that is more cleaning for Mrs Rasher; how many wcs should anyone have to clean regularly).
We stuck with 2; one of each, 11 years apart but that's another story...
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Three children?
I can barely eat three weetabix.
Regards
Mike
Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.
I can barely eat three weetabix.
Regards
Mike
Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by Steve G
I've stuck at 2 but 3 isn't too bad as many normal (e.g. not people carrier) cars these days have 3 3-point belts in the back.
We tend to go gite/cottage type holidays and an extra kid wouldn't significantly affect the costs. The main reason I have for not having any more (other than the missus and I being too old now) is the school fees. Another £75000-£100000? no thanks...
We tend to go gite/cottage type holidays and an extra kid wouldn't significantly affect the costs. The main reason I have for not having any more (other than the missus and I being too old now) is the school fees. Another £75000-£100000? no thanks...
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by seagull:
If they are girls (or increasingly boys these days) there will be a queue for the bathroom (unless you go for the multiple bathroom option but then that is more cleaning for Mrs Rasher; how many wcs should anyone _have_ to clean regularly).
We've ended up with as many bathrooms as people in our house now. It's the only way...
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by domfjbrown
quote:
Originally posted by Steve G:
The main reason I have for not having any more (other than the missus and I being too old now) is the school fees. Another £75000-£100000? no thanks...
Sod that - that's what secondary education under income tax is for. There are no jobs at the end of many university courses now anyway!!! (tongue in cheek of course)
my brother foolishly had FOUR kids, him and his wife are both teachers, and it's bedlum. BTW - they only have 2 bathrooms too - he he! Lucky for them the eldest kid is a dude and 13 - they have 2 of each... Fools...
__________________________
Don't wanna be cremated or buried in a grave
Just dump me in a plastic bag and leave me on the pavement
A tribute to your modern world, your great society
I'm just another victim of your highrise fantasy!
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by bigmick
The key is the age difference between them. I personally think that any less than 3 years age gap is a nightmare, which of course is compounded by each extra addition.
A colleague has 3 kids under age of 4 due to older spouse/ticking clock trouble and they freely admit that the third was the straw that broke the camel's back. Two arms, three kids and one waking the other, then the other appears to be the nub of the problem. And they had to get a bloody MPV almost immediately as they suddenly realised that three seats wouldn't fit across back seat. I note that as of the last one, he is first in the office and last to leave at night.
If >3 years, no real problems and if you can get real value out of those painful initial expenditures like pram, car seat, cot towelling nappies etc.
A colleague has 3 kids under age of 4 due to older spouse/ticking clock trouble and they freely admit that the third was the straw that broke the camel's back. Two arms, three kids and one waking the other, then the other appears to be the nub of the problem. And they had to get a bloody MPV almost immediately as they suddenly realised that three seats wouldn't fit across back seat. I note that as of the last one, he is first in the office and last to leave at night.
If >3 years, no real problems and if you can get real value out of those painful initial expenditures like pram, car seat, cot towelling nappies etc.
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Superfly:
My Bro in Law and sis decided 3 was enough. So he decided to have the male chop. 3 days b4 the op he was told my sis was pregnant.
Poor bastard.
With my luck we'd decide to have one more and it'd turn out to be triplets!
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by bigmick:
A colleague has 3 kids under age of 4 due to older spouse/ticking clock trouble and they freely admit that the third was the straw that broke the camel's back.
One of my colleagues (who's about 10 years older than me) already had a step-daughter of 12 and a kid of about two when his wife was pregnant again a couple of years back. We were driving back from a meeting when he got a call from his wife telling him the latest scan showed twins. I laughed so hard I nearly crashed the car...
With 4 kids, 3 of them quite young, he's very restricted in a lot of ways. He's had to extend the house, they run three MPV's (a Scenic, a Galaxy and one of the big Chryslers) and holidays are a nightmare for both hassle and cost.
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by bigmick
Yeah Steve, my three years rule of thumb falls apart with twins, as does all one's financial plans. In that situation, nobody could blame the chap for leaving a note and a neatly folded pile of clothes on the beach.
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by Bhoyo
Rasher:
I have three kids. The difference is waaaay bigger than going from one to two. For a start, they now outnumber you!
But, as you have guessed, it's more about change than major, insurmountable practical problems.
Ironically, when you realise that you're now living in chaos, and it's completely beyond your control, you end up relaxing and worrying less.
If I could have had more, I would have done so.
Anyway, the fact that you're even asking the question means number three is only a matter of time.
As always, all the best,
Davie
I have three kids. The difference is waaaay bigger than going from one to two. For a start, they now outnumber you!
But, as you have guessed, it's more about change than major, insurmountable practical problems.
Ironically, when you realise that you're now living in chaos, and it's completely beyond your control, you end up relaxing and worrying less.
If I could have had more, I would have done so.
Anyway, the fact that you're even asking the question means number three is only a matter of time.
As always, all the best,
Davie
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by Steve G
Davie - only 3 kids? The Pope will be chasing you to find out why...
BTW What's your view on the transfer situation at the moment? What a boring close season it's been so far.
BTW What's your view on the transfer situation at the moment? What a boring close season it's been so far.
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by Bhoyo
quote:
Originally posted by Steve G:
Davie - only 3 kids? The Pope will be chasing you to find out why...
I'm distressed at the lack of transfer activity. Seeing Larsson in Portugal illustrated graphically how hard it will be to replace him.
At this stage, I'm sorry to say, it looks as if Rangers are doing the better rebuilding job.
Davie
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Bhoyo:
I'm distressed at the lack of transfer activity. Seeing Larsson in Portugal illustrated graphically how hard it will be to replace him.
I'm sure there are deals in the pipeline but the Celtic squad looks very thin at the moment. Until Maloney is fit there appears to be no cover up front, plus it's not yet clear what stage Hartson is at in his injury recovery. With Mjalby gone and Kennedy injured there is no cover in the centre of defence plus they're still short a left back (and have been for years) and replacements for Lambert and Liam Miller.
With the 1st 11 on the park Celtic would still be a decent enough side but even a couple of injuries would have them in bother.
quote:
At this stage, I'm sorry to say, it looks as if Rangers are doing the better rebuilding job.
I've been quite impressed with the signings so far and I'll be even more so if we can get a decent left back and left sided midfielder using the cash from the Arteta sale.
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by matthewr
Surely the *only* story in Scotland is ICT's glorious assualt on the SPL?
/////Old Fim Obsessives\\\\\
Matthew
/////Old Fim Obsessives\\\\\
Matthew
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by Bhoyo
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Surely the *only* story in Scotland is ICT's glorious assualt on the SPL?
_/////Old Fim Obsessives\\\\\_
Matthew
I agree. It's a great story - and may mean there's less shame in crashing out in the cup against them in the future!
But isn't this thread meant to be about kids?
Davie
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by Rasher
Thanks guys.
I suppose I'm really thinking that holidays over the pond would be more difficult and another may actually stop them happening, which would be tragic. I keep thinking of hotel room arrangements for some stupid reason - stuff like that. Like Seagull says, everything seems to be geared for 2+2 - restuarant tables, cars, travel deals, houses. I also feel torn when spending time with my 2 year old boy and feeling I should be with my 6 year old girl. I don't want to spread myself too thin and be less close to any of them.
Fortunately it would be a girl - just one. Don't ask how we know - it hasn't happened yet. It isn't inevitable.
It's a tough one - life is very easy at the moment and we don't need to have three - one of each is so perfect.
She would be quite dark, with curly long hair and be delicate build. She would be a bit of a scamp too and quite cheeky. Difficult to say no, but practically it isn't what we need.
Not easy. I'm not good at life changing decisions.
I suppose I'm really thinking that holidays over the pond would be more difficult and another may actually stop them happening, which would be tragic. I keep thinking of hotel room arrangements for some stupid reason - stuff like that. Like Seagull says, everything seems to be geared for 2+2 - restuarant tables, cars, travel deals, houses. I also feel torn when spending time with my 2 year old boy and feeling I should be with my 6 year old girl. I don't want to spread myself too thin and be less close to any of them.
Fortunately it would be a girl - just one. Don't ask how we know - it hasn't happened yet. It isn't inevitable.
It's a tough one - life is very easy at the moment and we don't need to have three - one of each is so perfect.
She would be quite dark, with curly long hair and be delicate build. She would be a bit of a scamp too and quite cheeky. Difficult to say no, but practically it isn't what we need.
Not easy. I'm not good at life changing decisions.
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Surely the *only* story in Scotland is ICT's glorious assualt on the SPL?
ICT's first SPL game is at Livvie so I might attend.
Posted on: 16 July 2004 by Derek Wright
What surprises me in the replies is that in other threads there is quite a strong eco theme , anti conspicuous consumption (eg SUVs etc,) low energy transport eg cycling, is that no one has discussed the impact on the earth's resources if the Rashers of this world breed more than an heir and a spare - over the next few generations the third one's descendants will tip the earth into a precipitous decline of excess CO2 and depleted resources.
Breeding even the heir is drastic decision that is taken too lightly by most people.
Derek
<< >>
Breeding even the heir is drastic decision that is taken too lightly by most people.
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 16 July 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Derek Wright:
Breeding even the heir is drastic decision that is taken too lightly by most people.
My country is one of the few in the world with a declining population so we're being positively encouraged to breed!
Posted on: 16 July 2004 by seagull
quote:
My country is one of the few in the world with a declining population so we're being positively encouraged to breed!
That's because they're all down here telling us how great Scotland is!
How did a thread about kids end up about the SPL?
Posted on: 16 July 2004 by Derek Wright
quote:
My country is one of the few in the world with a declining population so we're being positively encouraged to breed!
Which is fine as long as they stay in the country - if they wander off - then becoming the worlds breeding hotspot is no benefit to Scotland and a disadvantage to the rest of the world.
Perhaps quality of life should be improved to encourage migration into the country and encourage the people to stay in the country.
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 16 July 2004 by Rasher
That is an extremely good point Derek, and one that used to be one of my own personal bandwagons. So why did I forget it in this instance?
If the population declines, then surely that is to the good of the planet, and the only reason for being encouraged to breed would be from government wishing to balance the books on the pension fund crisis.
I am going to take this on board. Thanks Derek.
(You guys are great - I knew it would be worth a post)
If the population declines, then surely that is to the good of the planet, and the only reason for being encouraged to breed would be from government wishing to balance the books on the pension fund crisis.
I am going to take this on board. Thanks Derek.
(You guys are great - I knew it would be worth a post)
Posted on: 16 July 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Rasher:
If the population declines, then surely that is to the good of the planet, and the only reason for being encouraged to breed would be from government wishing to balance the books on the pension fund crisis.
That's definitely the situation up here. Scotland isn't currently overpopulated anyway but I like the general idea of having less people about. The mid-term issues with pensions etc are a concern however and Scotland would probably have more of a need to raise the retirement age, if the general health of the population could support it (which I'm not sure it does).