I think that we *could*... maybe. My question is, where is the balance between saving money/ trying to live on as little as possible, and value? For example, I (like a lot of MDC'ers, I think) spend a lot more on groceries than I absolutely have to, because I buy grass-fed beef, organic dairy and eggs, etc. (etc etc etc.) If I stopped doing that and started going to Wal-mart for the absolute cheapest-per-pound stuff I could buy, it would cut our food bill drastically, but at the cost of going against my personal values. Similarly, I plan to SAH once our baby is born. In my case, it won't make a huge financial difference one way or the other, because what I take home = cost of daycare anyway, but even if I were making more $$ I'd want to, again based on what I value, what I think is important. Same thing goes for charitable contributions, tithing, etc. Basically, we all spend money in ways that reflect our personal belief systems.
Now don't get me wrong, DH and I still blow a lot of $$$ on trivial, frivolous stuff, that we could cut out easily (and will have to, once I stop working). And if it came down to it and we HAD to live off of $1,200 a month instead of $2,400, (e.g.) then I would do whatever it takes to do so-- what choice is there, then? But I wouldn't want to try to do that NOW, at the cost of everything that is important to me. I guess what I'm saying is, we don't live on 50%-- or 60% or 70%-- but it's not just because we spend mindlessly, needlessly. There is some thought involved, YK?
We have an average income and an average priced home, and we don't have a lot of luxuries. But the student loans are going to do us in.
