If you were to adhere to that dumb rule, it’s based on income, not income minus expenses.
Comment on Priorities
OldChicoAle@lemmy.world 1 day agoIt’s supposed to be 3x pay checks right?
I live paycheck to paycheck so someone better do the proposing to me
humorlessrepost@lemmy.world 1 day ago
BigBenis@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The idea that you’re “supposed” to spend $X on a ring is absurd. Are you getting engaged to show off your wealth or to commit to a relationship? What does spending excessive amounts of money on a trinket have anything to do with the latter?
Furbag@lemmy.world 1 day ago
That advice was likely a holdover from the time when wedding rings were essentially insurance for the wife if her husband died suddenly - sell the ring and be able to live for a while on that money while you search for a new husband.
Now that women are, y’know, allowed to work for a living rather than being forced into homemakers, it makes a lot less sense for the wedding band to be outside of one’s means to purchase.
I just tell people to buy what looks nice to them and is in budget. My wife has a gold band with some inscribed decorations, and I have a band of silver and inlayed meteorite. They were both under $1000. No need for flawless diamonds, rare stones or precious metals. We’re happy.
BigBenis@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Oh wow, that’s actually a really neat fact and explains a lot. TIL!
imsufferableninja@sh.itjust.works 22 hours ago
It’s from a debeers ad
OldChicoAle@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I think society cares more about the cost of the ring than my partner and me. Outside of joking, I’d spend a lot on a ring for my lover. I mean we both owe the mortgage after we marry right? It all evens out eventually.