Saving or building, which is more sensible?

Your model results in a) a large tax back payment and b) 2 years of tax prepayments. That was the case for us. Therefore, please suggest this trick only if you can afford the positive parental allowance effect afterwards.

This is only partially correct. If the working parent switches to tax class IV during the receipt of parental allowance and has the usual advertising costs and special expenses (commuting costs, church tax, health/pension insurance contributions, donations, etc.), a refund should still be possible. Only if parental allowance is received and the man or woman then switches to class III is a back payment very likely. The prepayments due to receiving parental allowance can be reduced to zero with two simple sentences to the tax office. Often a phone call is also enough.

Best regards

Something like that can be easily settled with "we discuss every purchase together".

Of course not like that at all. Then you simply didn’t understand my amusing examples.

You can’t debate whether or not you should nail a pudding to the wall. There is only one answer to that.
Such discussions would always follow the same pattern, always the same person wants something, always the other says no, the best relationship can’t withstand that over years.

But we do discuss joint purchases or, for example, vacations. Those are also paid for together.

But should I discuss every time what to do about the many bad ideas that are implemented annually in our consumption behavior and then returned 99% of the time or sold at a loss the following year? I already know what happens anyway.
That way I can come home relaxed and be surprised by what new thing there is again and bet on whether it will be returned quickly or end up in the later sale. Almost nothing remains.

Why should I participate in this rinse-and-repeat? I save myself discussions, the run to the parcel station, the hassle with online retailers, I’m relaxed, and there are no reasons for friction.

Of course not like that. Then you simply did not understand my amusing examples.

You can’t discuss whether you should nail a pudding to the wall or not. There is only one answer to that.
Such discussions always follow the same pattern, one always wants something, the other always says no, even the best relationship can’t withstand that over the years.

We do discuss joint purchases or holidays, for example. Those are also paid for together.

But should I discuss every time what to do with the many bad ideas that we annually implement consumption-wise and then 99% get returned or sold at a loss the following year? I already know what will happen.
This way, I can come home relaxed and be surprised by what new things there are again and bet whether it will be quickly returned or end up in later sales. Almost nothing has stayed.

Why should I participate in this reheating process? I save myself discussions, running to the pickup station, the trouble with mail order companies, I’m relaxed and there are no reasons for friction.

Oh... so the exercise bike for 2.5k€ was a joint purchase after all , well then.

My wife came along with a Thermomix about 2 years ago. It was hinted at but not agreed upon. As "revenge," there was then a new iPad without necessity.

To get serious again... such a handling of purchases only works if both have similar consumption behavior. If one is consumption-hungry and the other is frugal, then of course there will only be trouble with our model.

Such an approach to purchases only works if both have similar consumption habits. If one is consumption-crazy and the other is frugal, then of course there will only be trouble with our model.

Thank you. That's how it is, and instead of having trouble, we simply follow a different model that takes the greatly differing behavior into account. What only makes me angry is having to hear that this would not be love.

then the home trainer for €2.5k was a joint purchase after all, well then.

Cross trainer AND weight bench were purchased, despite sport reluctance, along with the associated useless nutritional supplements, argument: you just can't do sports without them... In the end, they were admired from the couch.

Honestly, I could have written this as a script in advance on how it would turn out. If I seriously discussed something like that, one of us wouldn't be alive anymore.

Your model results in a) a large tax back payment and b) 2 years of tax prepayments. That was the case for us. Therefore, please suggest this trickery only if you can afford the positive parental allowance effect retroactively.

Yes, that is of course true. However, you must be sufficiently liquid for that.

I told you, stupid women when they let themselves be treated like that. totally naive and 1960s-like

So, if I respond to your language, it's the stupid man with his stupid remark at the beginning, right? Whether the woman lets it happen is a different matter. And if yes, then probably because it's silly to react to every stupid remark.

I find your examples really amusing. Such things can easily be resolved with "we discuss every purchase together."

Phew, where is any individuality in that? Everyone is allowed to pursue their hobby or interests, please? Why must one defend a purchase that is paid for by one's own earnings? Just because you are married doesn't mean you have to share the same opinion or live the same life.

As "revenge" there was then a new iPad without cause.

Ridiculous... revenge... next comes the question of guilt.

There was not only a generational change, but also significant changes in lifestyle, etc. Values have also changed. That is due to many things, and whether we approve of it or not: we all have to live with it and recognize that the newer generations are different in their structures. For example, we have to be much more flexible for work today and live with rapid changes. When you were 30, it was not like that yet. That also influences life ties. Due to many changing life experiences, variable opportunities and work environments, breakups, separations, and divorces now happen much more frequently. The social court (SK) can’t do anything about it, neither the stupid man nor woman, it just is. says it nicely too: it is an art to tolerably deal with the quirks of the other instead of constantly replacing all people because of their quirks or always getting really annoyed about them.