Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Not Me Officer
    • By Not Me Officer 12th Jul 17, 9:36 PM
    • 247Posts
    • 31Thanks
    Not Me Officer
    Having a child and saving for retirement. Advice from parents & non parents alike?
    • #1
    • 12th Jul 17, 9:36 PM
    Having a child and saving for retirement. Advice from parents & non parents alike? 12th Jul 17 at 9:36 PM
    As you can probably tell, I've been having the discussion with my wife about the idea of a child. I'll stress early in this post that if we have one it'll be only one (unless it's twins or something from the start). I know 'they all say that' but let's go with there being one for the purpose of this.

    I also know there's no bigger hit on retirement planning but i'm not talking of putting aside the absolute maximum in life, doing without for 30-40 years just so i can have a rich retirement.

    Hopefully my aim is clear but it's about finding the balance.

    We are seriously considering having a child. I am here in this thread to discuss with people i don't know because people we do know i think are giving terrible advice. Especially my wife's workmates. "you think too much about it, if you want it just do it". Yes and deal with the consequences later when it's too late? Our view is better to be informed first. We don't like the "i want so i will have" attitude & instead we're more like - "i want but can i actually have....".

    So on to the topic of retirement....

    One of the main points, perhaps even THE main point for having us so unsure is the impact it'll have on our retirement.

    * I'm 34, my wife is 35.
    * I currently have about £9000 in a SIPP with Cavendish plus £1500 in a workplace pension which has minimum contributions paid in. My wife has £7500 in a S&S ISA with less than £1000 in a workplace pension as she joined later (also minimal contributions).
    * I earn about £20.5k gross per year, my wife about £19k. My wife takes home £1300-£1400 in her pocket each month whereas i'm around the £1400-£1500 in the pocket per month before bills
    * I think our bills total around £1300 per month. I worked it out a few months ago and it was around that figure. If i remember right then i also broke down car insurance and tax into monthly payments to include in that figure.


    A great concern of ours is that we'll have very little money aside in retirement so that our quality of life after work would be poor. We're not big spenders by any means. If anything we're actually quite boring but it works fine for us.

    My wife's parents are now in their 50s and have zero set aside for retirement. They struggled all their lives. There's often times where there's just not a spare £10 in the month ... they had 3 kids. The younger 2 being born after my wife was 11-14.

    My parents i remember also struggling. I remember my mother having 2 jobs when i was quite young. My sister was born as i was 7 and my brother as i was 9. In time we seemed to struggle less but that's just how it seemed to me. This didn't coincide with my dad moving to a super paid job or a huge raise or anything. He would've been paid in his later years similar to what i'm getting now (just for 5 day weeks instead of 6 like me). My mother has zero set aside for retirement. My dad always paid in to his pension and by the end he was able to take a monthly pension that they could live off comfortably enough

    So i guess it can be done, right? He's just not around for me to ask more detailed questions and my mother left all the money side to him.



    My wife would be off work for [unknown time period] so the £1300 off my wage leaves not a lot left. I understand that the child gets older obviously and costs change, wife can [at some point] go back to full time work which at that point [whenever that may be] would help ease things.


    So yeah really with the kind of income we have, with our ages and what we have set aside already (not much) i don't know if it's possible to set aside a reasonable amount for retirement. I'm not expecting to be able to draw on £30k per year obviously.

    So is it? Those who may have made it this far and are on similar income - are you/was you able to do it?

    I know of others who have just had kids who either get paid the same as we do or less who are still able to buy things, but it makes me wonder if they only live for the present and not the future and what sort of existence they're in line for come retirement.



    Of course ...... i could get to that retirement day & then drop dead the very next day which would make all this concern about retirement pretty pointless. Shame i don't have a crystal ball.



    Sorry for waffling on so much but i'm struggling to type out what's going through my head at the moment. We know what we want, we just want to be able to afford it .... without the cliche of "you just manage" like some magic trick occurs at the end.
Page 1
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 12th Jul 17, 10:38 PM
    • 6,883 Posts
    • 7,324 Thanks
    AnotherJoe
    • #2
    • 12th Jul 17, 10:38 PM
    • #2
    • 12th Jul 17, 10:38 PM
    So every month you have a net income of c £2700 and expenditure of c £1300.

    Whats happening to the £1400 difference ? Its obviously not going into pensions or savings.

    Anyway, I would say, if you aren't that fussed and getting a decent retirement is your top priority, forget about having a child. Indeed the mere fact you have to ask, says you shouldn't.
    • Not Me Officer
    • By Not Me Officer 12th Jul 17, 11:18 PM
    • 247 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    Not Me Officer
    • #3
    • 12th Jul 17, 11:18 PM
    • #3
    • 12th Jul 17, 11:18 PM
    So every month you have a net income of c £2700 and expenditure of c £1300.

    Whats happening to the £1400 difference ? Its obviously not going into pensions or savings.

    Anyway, I would say, if you aren't that fussed and getting a decent retirement is your top priority, forget about having a child. Indeed the mere fact you have to ask, says you shouldn't.
    Originally posted by AnotherJoe
    We started putting aside for retirement when we were 28 & 29 although only a very small amount (£100pm) because we were saving for our first house at the same time but we at least wanted to start putting aside.

    When we got the house we ran in to problems that story short took a couple of years and a lot of money to sort out. All in all we probably spent about £10k putting problems right which could've gone elsewhere. That had us totally spent up to the point where we went minus, only by £500 or so but we went minus (we're in the plus now though). Workplace pensions began and all in all i was probably putting 15-20% into my plan (workplace pension and S&S ISA at the time).

    Then through a lack of understanding on what really would be best we delayed a bit further before last month i bought some books & then had more confidence to take out a SIPP and manage it myself without paying an IFA to do it for me. Contributions were increased for both of us.

    That is why it "obviously isn't going into pension" as it was going into the house for a couple of years.

    Now we have money going into our retirement plan (pension for me, S&S ISA for wife), money going to build a 3 month emergency pot (which we're just about at) and just general savings.



    Though at nowhere did i say we're "not that fussed" like someone asking if i want to go see a movie this weekend. We'd like kids yeah of course. Is it a great burning desire where nothing else matters in the world? No, but then can all parents say that's the way it was for them? No. Though trust me it is more than just an "i had this idea that i think might be worth a try some day..."

    A good retirement is not my 'top' priority either. I'd like to achieve a balance if that is possible at this stage in life. I'm not sure if it is or not, that is why i'm here to chat with those who will surely have done it (or to a degree) before me.

    To be perfectly honest with you, and it's going to sound very pessimistic but i don't believe i will have a long retirement. I question whether i'll make it there anyway and if i do how long i'll be alive for. Having done the family tree i found that everyone seems to die fairly early in my family. My dad was one of the oldest when he died at 68. From branching out on the tree some did make it beyond that but really not many at all. Others were 40-60 & a lot of it chest/heart issues. My dad only had 3 years of retirement. All that money paid in over the many years ....... but only 3 years of poor health in retirement.

    Some would say well if i'm going to think like that then what's the point in paying in a penny? Well you have to assume you actually are going to make it don't you? And that's the thing - about getting the balance. Enjoying the present while putting in work for the future because you never know.


    TBH i think it's better doing what i'm doing (looking to see whether we can afford a child) than what so many others do (i want therefore i'll have!)
    For example - a family member wanted a child so they had one. Struggled like crazy for money & threw strops to get handouts yet grumbled when those family members were getting involved with the child. Happy to take the money but wanted the family member to not have much/anything to do with the child.
    So what did they do after all this struggling? Yup ... had another because they wanted to. More struggling but they had one because they wanted one. More talk of can't afford leading to more handouts but more complaining about the one doing the handing out.
    And what have they done again? Yes you guessed it.

    So i think at least taking the time to look in to whether we can afford to have one is actually a pretty responsible thing to do to be honest. I don't agree that simply asking the question means we shouldn't have one.
    • cloud_dog
    • By cloud_dog 13th Jul 17, 12:24 AM
    • 3,075 Posts
    • 1,652 Thanks
    cloud_dog
    • #4
    • 13th Jul 17, 12:24 AM
    • #4
    • 13th Jul 17, 12:24 AM
    I understand what you are thinking but to some degree you are over analysing. We went through a similar process where we actually made additional savings because we both agreed that my wife would not go back to work after the birth of our child.

    I'm not commenting directly on you or your situation, after all we are all our own people but, regarding whether you are bothered or not bothered about a child is probably due to an element of 'of course we'll have a child', it's natural everyone has them.

    Regarding the implications of having a child both financially and 'life' wise you will make choices and sacrifices. As a great orator once said... you adapt, you improvise, you overcome.

    Speaking personally, we went through a lot of pain and heartbreak. Knowing what I know now, would I go back and do it all over again, absolutely without a seconds hesitation.

    Financially, you need to try to keep doing what you can (regarding pensions and savings) but you may have to adjust your priorities or time scales.
    Personal Responsibility - Sad but True

    Sometimes.... I am like a dog with a bone
    • Not Me Officer
    • By Not Me Officer 13th Jul 17, 7:05 AM
    • 247 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    Not Me Officer
    • #5
    • 13th Jul 17, 7:05 AM
    • #5
    • 13th Jul 17, 7:05 AM
    I've no doubt the vast majority would do it all over again. Also with so much money that would over the years HAVE to get out the child's way then it's a no brainer that something would have to give somewhere (vs not having a child). That may be retirement, it may be holidays, it may be [many things] or could likely be multiple things. I'm well aware of that fact.

    I read recently about a female couple who retired at 40 due to hard saving. Once reading the article I saw they got at least a combined £70k pa. I was less impressed when I saw that. My point is if we had that money coming in for example (one of them was £40k 'base') then we'd go ahead and wouldn't even ask. But we're not on that, we're on £20.5k & £19k and that's what we have to deal with.

    We're currently aiming at 65 for example. If having a child shifts that to 67-68 (just an example) that's one thing but if it shifts that to 75 (example) then that's totally different.

    And what I'm struggling with is gauging how much that figure will change. Again it's back to balance. We're fine with having to increase it, we accept that, but how far is the question really.

    im sure we would (classic cliche time...) 'just manage' throughout the life of the child, but it's afterwards that I'm struggling to work out right now.
    • k6chris
    • By k6chris 13th Jul 17, 7:37 AM
    • 85 Posts
    • 110 Thanks
    k6chris
    • #6
    • 13th Jul 17, 7:37 AM
    • #6
    • 13th Jul 17, 7:37 AM
    Having a child is both the biggest commitment on time and money you will have and, for me at least, the only thing I ever really wanted to do (we have 3 grown up now). You are very wise to ask about the financial cost. The cost is not in clothes, prams etc, which you often source cheaply second hand and then resell once they have grown out of them etc, or indeed borrow from other parents with slightly older children. The cost partly comes in that you need a house with one more room, a car with a bigger boot, one more place on holiday, a few more tins of food each week and some more presents at Christmas. The main 'early' cost however is the cost of childcare, be that in lost earnings or paying for a nursary place. Tax credits might help, grand parents could help too? It is estimated the cost of a child to 21 is about £10,000 a year - my gut feel is you could sensibly do it for half of that, but I don't have the 'math' to back that up.

    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3448120/Cost-raising-child-spirals-230-000.html

    For me the decision was not really a decision, it was part of my DNA and I was lucky enough to have what turned out to be a good and stable job. Many couples sensibly decide not to have children, either because they want more time, money, or simply don't want kids. If you are both just 'thinking' about it, then perhaps the hard wiring is not there, so I would invoke the rule of my Yorkshire friend 'if in doubt, do nowt'...you have a few years yet.

    A wise thought process, they have a huge finacial impact and I would not for one second change the fact I had (and have) 3 amazing children that still cost me money. Good luck your decision making process.
    EatingSoup
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 13th Jul 17, 8:04 AM
    • 6,883 Posts
    • 7,324 Thanks
    AnotherJoe
    • #7
    • 13th Jul 17, 8:04 AM
    • #7
    • 13th Jul 17, 8:04 AM

    So i think at least taking the time to look in to whether we can afford to have one is actually a pretty responsible thing to do to be honest.
    Originally posted by Not Me Officer
    I agree, its very resonsible, but even so, if you need to even ask if you can afford it that still means (at least to me) that the burning desire isnt there. Otherwise you'd simply accept it meant a lower standard of living both now, and in a later retirement and get on with it anyway.


    I don't agree that simply asking the question means we shouldn't have one.
    Originally posted by Not Me Officer

    I think given what else you say, it does. If you really wanted them, you wouldn't ask, and even if you were just "very keen" (which doesn't come across from your post which is all i can go on) i think your question would have been, "how do i make it work", not "should i make it work".

    You can of course retire later on a lower income, many do but it doesn't sound as if you want to and on your incomes i dont blame you, you will be able to get by but unless you can, say, double your income thats all it would be.

    Perhaps this is the test, if you push back against posts like mine and still go ahead, then you know you "really" want to. But i agree with your financial analysis, it would mean a poorer later retirement and to me that comes across as your reason why you would choose not to go ahead. Not me, you. Maybe I'm reading you wrong though?

    Why not see just how much you can save for the next year or so, by only living on your income, no cheating, put 100% of your wifes income away, and see how that goes. If at the end of a year -18months, thats too hard / unacceptable for the next 10 or so years, and then in retirement, then you know the answer.
    Last edited by AnotherJoe; 13-07-2017 at 8:06 AM.
    • Kynthia
    • By Kynthia 13th Jul 17, 8:13 AM
    • 4,916 Posts
    • 6,899 Thanks
    Kynthia
    • #8
    • 13th Jul 17, 8:13 AM
    • #8
    • 13th Jul 17, 8:13 AM
    Yes it's sensible to look at your finances befire having a child but it's also an emotional decision. The fact is there's a time limit to your decision so at some point you need to take the plunge or it's no longer an option for you. It is also true that people make it work, they become very frugle, they work hard to increase their future prospects, etc. Most people decide that they'd rather be a little poorer than never have a child.

    First thing is to not view your workplace pensions as optional. If you do you'll forever be opting out as times will seem too hard with house expenses, maternity leave, childcare costs, etc. Unless you are going at risk of eviction you keep yiur workplace pension deductions. Then know that there's now 30 hours of free childcare for 2 working parents. So if you need to you can both work from not long after the child's 3rd birthday with the costs of doing so being low.

    So people often earn more as they get older and put more into their pensions once their children are grown. Especially as mortgage payments have usually become a much smaller percentage of their take-home pay.

    It is likely you'll both have full state pensions at spa and you'll be paying no NI or pension contributions on this income and I'm guessing you intend to have paid off your mortgage by then. So have you seen how much this will give you? Plus you'll have whatever pension you've saved.
    Don't listen to me, I'm no expert!
    • Not Me Officer
    • By Not Me Officer 13th Jul 17, 8:19 AM
    • 247 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    Not Me Officer
    • #9
    • 13th Jul 17, 8:19 AM
    • #9
    • 13th Jul 17, 8:19 AM
    Just briefly, since I'm now at work so I'll catch up with the responses since my last post later-

    I sort of have to come and discuss with people who don't really know me at all as I've already tried it with those who do know me.
    The problem there is when I talk about retirement every single one of them says "pensions? What a waste of time" and that is the general attitude across an age range which starts early 20s up to late 40s/early 50s. They all say pensions are a waste of time.

    It's not an opinion I share.

    So I see these people as living for the moment. Sure they can afford (now) but will they be able to afford later? Maybe some will but some for sure won't.

    The one person I do know who is putting aside for retirement and yes there's only one ... never ever wanted kids and had the snip in his late 20s so he isn't much to go off either.

    Which is why I'm here asking you guys.
    • Not Me Officer
    • By Not Me Officer 13th Jul 17, 8:22 AM
    • 247 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    Not Me Officer
    Oh and some of these people have plenty of kids. The most is 9. There's a 7 & some 5s in there and then on to the usual 3s, 2s & some 1s.
    Many have a household income similar to mine, some more and some less but many similar.

    And they can all afford which as I say makes me sure I will be able to afford ... in the present.

    It's just afterwards I question.
    • Spreadsheetman
    • By Spreadsheetman 13th Jul 17, 8:39 AM
    • 35 Posts
    • 26 Thanks
    Spreadsheetman
    .....
    The problem there is when I talk about retirement every single one of them says "pensions? What a waste of time" and that is the general attitude across an age range which starts early 20s up to late 40s/early 50s. They all say pensions are a waste of time.

    It's not an opinion I share.
    Originally posted by Not Me Officer
    Well, it's a simple question they need to ask themselves - are they 100% sure that they can remain employed until they receive their state pension at 67-70 and then live off £160/week for the rest of their life after that?

    If the answer is "no" then they have to think about pensions (and savings).
    • justme111
    • By justme111 13th Jul 17, 8:54 AM
    • 2,700 Posts
    • 2,599 Thanks
    justme111
    Dear HMO. I do not think you approach the issue from a correct angle ; moreover , I do not think you should think of it at all now. Plenty of people live on state pensions. You will have more because whether you have children or not you are and will be saving for retirement , question is just in number of how much more. So you are not going to be hungry. You would not ask whether you should eat or save for retirement as not eating is not an option. It is the same with children for many people who you somewhat judgementally implied do not think. As previous poster written , "it was in her DNA". So implying or saying they are wrong is wrong. Another analogy - you would not have sold your kidney and your arm and lived without them to fund retirement, would you ? You would find the suggestion sick and an aberration. So would many people find your suggestion of it being an option to not have children due to impact on retirement planning.
    People have reasons for not having children which I understand but negative impact on retirement which you have not even calculated on not one of valid ones methinks. The fact that you are having discussions about children (while you do not have desire to have any at present) tells me your wife wants them. This wish is going to get stronger with time , it just started , you just done a nest. If I am right not having children is not going to be an option because it will be a necessity for your wife. She probably does not say so now because it just started or because she tries to persuade you gently. She may not leave you if you say "no" to children but her life could have had a major unhappiness in it - one more spoon of jam daily in retirement is not worth living life in emptiness.
    Now , going to your question- what is your Number and how you planning to achieve it ? How much do you spend now apart from mortgage and savings? Cost of a child upbringing - up to you to a large extent. I would say 6k yearly. (Deduct child benefit - 5k). May be you will have some other benefits - check them. That is without loss of earnings. This part you can calculate depending on how long your wife would stay home , what her maternity pay would be , what her part time ( as I assume she would go part time) income would be and how much childcare would cost or may be between her working part time and extended family you would not need any ?
    • LHW99
    • By LHW99 13th Jul 17, 9:05 AM
    • 805 Posts
    • 625 Thanks
    LHW99
    I would say, with your income, you are, like us, looking at a small family. IMO a moderate income doesn't equate to hordes of kids, and in any case (again IMO) I do not believe that in this day and age we have a right to increase the global population at will.
    I suspect we have had a similar average income level to what you are likely to expect over your working lives.
    We both intend to work a little beyond our current SPA's (so probably to around 68), although we could go next year when OH reaches his - we run a small company nowadays so have a choice here.
    Our parents both struggled, and although our income was never generous, we were always better off than they had been.
    It is easier IMO to cope when children are small, as they are perfectly happy as babies / toddlers with hand-me-downs and (safe) 2nd hand equipment. Costs really begin to mount as they get older and demand "everyone else has...". You and your wife need to support each other absolutely on what they can / can't have, maybe having a list from which things can be "called down" for birthday etc gifts.
    However, we found you can still save, prioritising pension just a bit more than other things.
    Many of our friends seemed to regularly change their furniture, kitchens, bathrooms, carpets. We didn't. Things were as far as possible kept until they wore out.
    We had less expensive holidays - off season when children were below school age. Self-catering / camping / UK when older.
    The children were both given a small amount of pocket money "as of right" (very small!) but could earn extra for good school results and doing small jobs around the house, and we helped them get weekend jobs when they were old enough, and charged a small amount of what they earned as "rent" - they got it back as a lump when they left school.
    We have a number of smaller pensions + SP for when we do finish work, and expect these to bring in around £30k total by then, which will be plenty, as there will be no mortgage to pay.
    Yes things have been hard at times. But even with no kids you may well go through that if one of you became seriously ill, or became redundant unexpectedly, and those can hit you without giving time for any planning.
    If you would be resilient enough to cope with those sort of emergencies, then, if you actually want children, you should be able to cope there too.
    • OldMusicGuy
    • By OldMusicGuy 13th Jul 17, 9:25 AM
    • 89 Posts
    • 132 Thanks
    OldMusicGuy
    I think you are very wise to think about it and ask these questions. The main reason I say that is because you are both older. The "just do it" approach tends to apply when you are younger (in your 20s) when you can take so much in your stride. You are both in your mid 30s so having a child has more risk and you will be older parents so it can be hard. We had our only child when we were both 38 and it was hard going at times.

    Having a child can be expensive. It is the things like school trips, hobbies, sports and stuff that mounts up and is hard to budget for. For example, our son got into hockey and played in goal. I had no idea how expensive hockey goalkeeping gear is! Now you could say either "don't play that game" or "use the nondescript kit the school/hockey club has" but that would have prevented him from doing something he really enjoyed and actually got very good at. Plus of course there's the endless ferrying around to matches and training sessions.

    So I think you will find as your child gets older the costs will mount up so it's likely you won't be able to save as much. This may push out your retirement date so you do need at least to think about that. Ultimately though it may be down to your wife like Justme111 says. I never wanted children and my wife always said she did not either but in our late 30s her attitude changed and I wasn't given much choice in the matter! I don't regret it btw but I do wish I had planned better for retirement earlier in life.

    The other big choice is how many children do you have. The more you have, the more the costs will go up. OK there are some "economies of scale" as the economists say but 2 is going to be more expensive than 1. We started late so decided to stick with just one child and we are glad we did. Partly that was to keep the financial burden down and offer our son more choices but mainly it was because we both found the early years very hard going and neither of us wanted to go through that again.

    No easy answers but it is a really good idea to do some planning and anticipate what the impacts will be.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 13th Jul 17, 10:24 AM
    • 2,405 Posts
    • 3,344 Thanks
    Malthusian
    Well, it's a simple question they need to ask themselves - are they 100% sure that they can remain employed until they receive their state pension at 67-70 and then live off £160/week for the rest of their life after that?
    Originally posted by Spreadsheetman
    I agree. Especially with the "ask themselves" part. As in, they need to ask the question, not you. Never try to help someone with their finances unless it is someone you care about or they ask for it. Unless you want to make yourself het up over this kind of response, or you want to swank about how much more responsible you are than them. Nobody in the history of finance has ever responded to this conversation by saying "wow, you're right, I do actually need to save for retirement, I'll start right now", they just dig their heels in. They only start saving for retirement when they have a lightbulb moment in the middle of the night, and they won't thank you for it.

    If someone has 9 kids they're probably happy to live frugally and whatever they have when they retire will feel like a king's ransom when they've not got 9 kids to spend it on, even if it's just State Pension. There is probably an element of "the kids are my pension plan" as well. And if they they own their own house they're almost certainly going to realise significant capital when they move to a smaller one. Downsizing is widely overrated but while the average person with 2.2 kids usually has much less scope for it than they think, that doesn't apply to someone with 9.
    • atush
    • By atush 13th Jul 17, 3:09 PM
    • 16,095 Posts
    • 9,802 Thanks
    atush
    I think you are doing the right thing and thinking about this.

    But while you are thinking, bank your wife's entire salary and live on yours. In cash savings (if you dont have 3-6 months expenses saved) and then into S&S isas.

    This will mean not only can she take 18 months off (if you take into account maternity pay) with no drop in income, you will see if you can afford to live on your salary alone.

    Kids are expensive. I had 3, 2 of which were twins. Which meant i had to buy ANOTHER of everything incl cot, pram, basket car seat etc, and a sofabed (as had to gt rid of double bed in spare bedroom for their 2x cots). My annual nappy bill alone was ridiculously huge. So when I was 7 months, I started bulk buying them in different sizes on sale bogof or 2 4 1. And stacked them in the corner of their room (up to the ceiling lol).

    But it can be doable if you save and plan. So get saving and planning.
    And agreeing about doing it, how you will do it etc.
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 13th Jul 17, 4:08 PM
    • 6,883 Posts
    • 7,324 Thanks
    AnotherJoe
    Oh and some of these people have plenty of kids. The most is 9. There's a 7 & some 5s in there and then on to the usual 3s, 2s & some 1s.
    Many have a household income similar to mine, some more and some less but many similar.

    And they can all afford which as I say makes me sure I will be able to afford ... in the present.

    It's just afterwards I question.
    Originally posted by Not Me Officer
    Depends what you mean by "afford".

    You can afford kids on the dole, plenty do. Thing is, do you want to?
    Do you want to afford them when just getting by?
    The answer to those could be yes or no, thats a matter only you can say.

    You focus on retirement but seems to me if you did have kids the next ten years would also be like living on retirement wages also. As I said, try living on your wage for the next year and see what thats like.
    • ex-pat scot
    • By ex-pat scot 13th Jul 17, 5:00 PM
    • 202 Posts
    • 220 Thanks
    ex-pat scot
    Some things in life you purchase when (and ideally only when) you can afford them.
    Some / most decisions can be amended. If you have overstretched yourself on buying an asset (car / house) then you can sell that asset, albeit often suffering transaction costs & losses, and mitigate any future financial stress.


    However children most spectacularly do not fall into that camp.


    They are one of the very few "we will have it and somehow make it work" type decisions. A bit like marriage (and possibly pet ownership).


    Frankly, if you tried to make a rational business case for having a child, then noone would ever have one.
    Think "spectacular cost". Double it. Again. And Again. just when you think you have possibly nailed or worked out the costs, something will come along to blindside you.


    I think we are given temporary custody of children as a wry exercise in humility - both in puncturing the pompous illusion that we are grown up and mature, know what we are doing, can work out tricky stuff (so then how hard can it be to work out how to bring up a baby - easy! People have been doing it for thousands of years!), and in the futility of financial (and other) planning.


    Life becomes a whirlwind.
    No peace.
    Little sleep.
    General confusion.
    Panic at the responsibility.
    Always Being Wrong. About Everything.
    No money.
    Need a bigger car.
    Ditto house.
    Stuff breaks. Constantly. Especially the expensive stuff you might have once cherished (camera, stereo, TV, house).
    Carnage in 5 seconds when you turn your back.
    Unbelievable mountains of laundry.
    Having A Social Life is only for the non-parents in the house.
    Known only as "X's parent" - I have forgotten my own name.
    Premature baldness, ageing.
    Being entirely inured to bodily functions.








    BUT


    It's actually quite fun, if a little tiring sometimes. Really!


    (I have 4, including 3 teens. It's never quiet. I earn a fortune and don't see a penny of it for myself. I wouldn't have it any other way)
    • chiefie
    • By chiefie 13th Jul 17, 5:52 PM
    • 285 Posts
    • 295 Thanks
    chiefie
    If someone said to me I could win £100 million on the lottery but not have my kids I would keep the kids. I suspect any parent would. It's not a financial decision but of course you will have to work out how to get by. Start with cutting back on non needed expenditure (take always, sandwiches for lunch, foreign hol) - analyse your expenditure now.
    • Not Me Officer
    • By Not Me Officer 13th Jul 17, 8:37 PM
    • 247 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    Not Me Officer
    The fact that you are having discussions about children (while you do not have desire to have any at present) tells me your wife wants them. This wish is going to get stronger with time , it just started ,
    Originally posted by justme111
    I'm going to put this one in its own little quote.

    Why? Because so far i'm getting the vibe that because i haven't created this thread saying ... hey help me i want kids no matter what, i'll do anything to make it happen, literally anything .... that it must auto-mean that i don't really want them.

    Then we progress to talking about kidneys and the like and i'm thinking really? How far can we take this?

    But the above quote is perfect for me. Can i just ask you if you don't mind .... what brought you to that conclusion? I sensed some real Sherlock Holmes work going on there so what brought you to declare that?



    As for it being wrong that i am implying other people are wrong to not think about it. I personally believe that is a case of looking for something that isn't even there. I'm well aware that some people both online & offline take great exception to how much i think about things. That's their decision & thinking about things is mine. Likewise if someone doesn't think about retirement & just goes ahead having a child. It doesn't effect me so i'm not saying it's wrong. It's their decision not mine. I'm just saying that it's not the way i would do things. I think things through thoroughly. Always have done. I over analyse so i'm told very regularly. But that's me. People tell me like i'm wrong. Maybe they're wrong for implying i'm wrong? But anyway i never implied these people are wrong at all, i just said it wasn't my way. You were the one who basically said i was wrong.

    What i will say is wrong is the relative i mentioned. Complaining non stop about no money, getting hand outs (no problem) but then their relatives who are doing the handing out - they start to complain about them being involved in the childs life. So basically what they want is for this 'bank' to just quietly hand money out but keep their mouth shut, stay in the background. That is what i think is wrong.

    Just going out and having children with no thought for later life that's no more wrong than being a chocoholic or whatever. Please don't tell me what i mean, leave that to me


    But still, tell me how you came to that conclusion about my wife if you don't mind?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

864Posts Today

7,271Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin