When we started putting 80% of my net income into savings. But I kept working anyway.

Anonymous wrote:Could you work part-time? I work 60% and am able to contribute fully to my 401k, and get health benefits.

Me, too.

Anonymous wrote:I would LOVE to stay at home but it would require we quit the kids 529 plans and reduce our other savings outside of our 401K plans (which we both max out). My DH doesn't think doing those things in order for me to stay at home is the fiscally prudent decision. FWIW, staying at home for a few years and then reentering the work force would not be an option given my career. Once you are out, you are out.

So I guess my question is did you have to reduce savings in order to stay home? Or did you only decide to stay at home after making sure your savings goals could still be met?

Live off the designated wohp's salary for 6 months before the designated sahp quits. That way you can see if you are able to do it and you end up with a nice nest egg.

When we decided to have a sahp we had a decent start on retirement and college already saved. We made sure we would still be able to save on the one salary. We were able to save enough to fund 401k to get the employee match and both of our IRAs plus a bit more for college. DH gets a bonus of ~10-15% each year and we used that exclusively for savings for the first few years.

However if I had a career where anytime off would mean it was gone forever, then I would look for part time opportunities instead. Mainly because you can't predict the future and I would want the piece of mind that I could go back if neccessary (at a lower level would be okay).

What % of your HHI is your DHs and what is yours currently?

I prepared financially well before I started staying at home. I started saving for retirement when I was 22 and became a SAHM at age 34. So I had 12 years to save for retirement.

When I decided to stay at home, I was able to still do some work for my company on a part-time basis which helped. Cutting out the commuting and other work-related costs helped, too. I eventually stopped working completely after my 3rd was born.

My savings for retirement has slowed down considerably which is a shame, but having invested in the early years and taking advantage of compounding really made a difference.

Having said all that, I have now been out of my field for over 5 years, and it is very tough to get back in to a professional job now that my children are getting older. I do try to make money on the side and with part-time gigs, but it's not much. Fortunately because of DC real estate, we will be able to afford collge for our children.

We decided to have my wife stay home with the kids. It's costing us a lot of money and I know it would cause an unacceptable amount of money stress for most families that we know.

Is it "worth it" for the long term financial hit? With our HHI <<$100k inside the beltway and trivial savings, we are in the minority in saying that it is.

I SAH and DH makes 65k. We manage without issue. We just bought a house, so we are still working out how much we will have left over each month for savings.

Anonymous wrote:I think having one parent staying at home is the best thing for a lot of families, but I would not do so in the scenario you describe. Staying at home is for rich people (of which I am not one, so I work).

Every FT parent that I know, also works. Thank you.
Having one FT parent is for families who value their family lives more than a big house and a college fund for kids who never learned about sacrifice and living with less stuff.
To each his own.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's incredibly short-sighted not to fund college and reduce your household income, especially knowing you likely wouldn't be able to re-enter the workforce. Your DH is right.

+1

I don't think you can just crunch the numbers on paper; I agree with PPs that you should try actually living on a single salary for a while, and see how it feels.

The future is an unknown--it seems very odd that there is actually a field in which you would NEVER be able to work EVER again if you leave. But if that is the case, what about PT? I went PT 4 years ago when DS was 1 in order to finish grad school and have not worked FT since. We have had some really lean years, including a couple in which I contributed very minimally to my retirement and to our 529s.

I also agree with the PP that this isn't something to strong-arm your partner into. My DH is far more fiscally conservative than I am, so having less money go into long-term savings was hard, but something we agreed on together.

What type of career do you have when you say when you are out, you are out? Just curious....

Anonymous wrote:I think having one parent staying at home is the best thing for a lot of families, but I would not do so in the scenario you describe. Staying at home is for rich people (of which I am not one, so I work).

Staying home is not just something rich people do. Actually most of the stay at home moms and dads I know are struggling or middle class families because they can't afford daycare for more than one kid. There are men at my job making 70k and 80k with stay at home wives.

Op, if your husband isn't on board I would not do it. I have seen resentment from men over their wives staying home when it was not really financially feasible. It's a lot of stress to have all of the financial responsibility on one person. I agree with others try living off just his income for a few months and see how you both handle it.

I would prioritize being with my kids over college savings, but not retirement savings. You've got to take care of yourself first. But if I could fully fund retirement and pay bills on one salary, you bet one of us would stay home. You any ever get these years back, and no one promises you that your kid will be college bound. (I'd be just as happy if my kid grew up to be a plumber or an electrician.)

I'd rather have the years when I can help shape his character, more than pay for undergraduate study. Alas, I can't do either, as we currently aren't making enough to runs our 401k's!

We weighed the cost of daycare. I don't have a job in which I make a lot of money, and returning in a few years should be easy, So, I found some parttime work only, and we are just getting by. So, yes, we reduced savings considerably. I imagine that if I had a great job in which I couldn't return, then it would be a different story. I think your situation doesn't allow you to quit. If you have to reduce your savings so much and will be unable to make up for it in a few years, then you are really putting your whole family in a bad situation.

I decided not to stay home precisely because it would mean that we could no longer save for college or retirement. It's not just how much you value money v. other things--we value education a lot, and it's important for us to be able to support our daughter's education. We also feel that it's important that we be preparing to support ourselves during retirement so that we are not a burden on our daughter.

(It would also have meant a longer commute for my husband b/c we would have to move further out for cheaper housing, and he wouldn't have seen our daughter during the week--not a financial consideration, but an important one.)

Anonymous wrote:I think having one parent staying at home is the best thing for a lot of families, but I would not do so in the scenario you describe. Staying at home is for rich people (of which I am not one, so I work).

Staying at home is not for rich people. There are many people on this board with HHIs between 60K and 100k who have one income and a SAHP. They aren't exactly rich and yet it is the best option for their family based on their priorities and values. However if you aren't rich you do need both parents to be 100% on board as you are going to have to make sacrifices and you can't have one person resenting those sacrifices.

Op you have to sit down and crunch numbers and see what your budget looks like with one income. You both have to be on board with that fiscal picture. In our case we have cut way back on savings to make SAH work but we were both in agreement with that being the priority above money.