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
    • 280Posts
    • 49Thanks
    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 2
    • Not Me Officer
    • By Not Me Officer 13th Jul 17, 8:51 PM
    • 280 Posts
    • 49 Thanks
    Not Me Officer
    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.
    Originally posted by AnotherJoe
    Yes but not necessarily would be my reply to that.

    I agree - the burning desire (where nothing else matters in the world) is not there, but that also doesn't mean that we don't want one. it also doesn't mean that it'd be wrong to have one. Not everyone would make the decision to go ahead and deal with the low standard of living for the remainder of their lives. I'm sure there's enough people out there who do want children but just can't handle how much they would financially struggle.

    I spoke with someone today who has a number of children. They're of a similar age. I asked them how they're set up for later life. When they stop working how are they putting aside to be comfortable to a level they'll be happy with.

    Their response?

    "F# that SH#! I don't worry about that. I'll deal with that when it comes".

    And like i say, if these people and myself drop dead the day of retirement then not putting away worked out perfectly, right? But.........what if?

    It also makes me wonder if this is a typical attitude of the working class. It seems to be of the people i know. Or is it only as you work higher up the food chain that their pay allows them to also put aside whereas people on a wage like our household are more limited and are therefore more likely to live for the present? I don't know i'm just rambling and guessing.

    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".
    Are you a solicitor?
    As said, my head is all over at the moment with all these thoughts running through it and trying to work things out and you want to pull me up over how i've worded something?

    And i'm the one over analysing?

    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.
    That's better. Something i can work with. Ok obviously it's not great news for us but i'm asking the experts (those who've been there & done it) if it can be done on our situation really so thanks, i appreciate your view. Genuinely.

    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?
    I think partly you are because it seems you're over analysing what i'm saying.

    There's things i didn't put in there. The sleepless nights, the troubles that develop as the child ages, so on and so forth because i believe we can handle these. Of all the 'worries' the only one i'm not really sure about is retirement which is why i'm here asking questions.

    So just because it's my only question doesn't mean it's the 'main' priority in life. It just means it's the one i don't feel i've figured out yet.

    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.
    Not a bad suggestion actually.
    That said, we only have a 12 month window due to our age, but it's a good idea.
    • justme111
    • By justme111 13th Jul 17, 8:53 PM
    • 2,856 Posts
    • 2,745 Thanks
    justme111
    What do you mean - how did I come to the conclusion that your wife likely to want children ?
    I would be happy if I was wrong in my guess that you thought people who did not consider not having children due to their impact on future retirement were wrong. Just the tone of your post made me think that , apologies if I was wrong.
    • Not Me Officer
    • By Not Me Officer 13th Jul 17, 9:09 PM
    • 280 Posts
    • 49 Thanks
    Not Me Officer
    I would say, with your income, you are, like us, looking at a small family.
    Originally posted by LHW99
    We're looking at only one child So about as small as you can get.

    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.
    I'll probably get called harsh here or criticised in some way but they would get the same thing that my wife and I both got growing up.
    You want something you have to go out and earn it. (I'm talking more teenage years here as i suspect that's when the greater costs come). Our parents couldn't afford to hand out to us all the time.
    I remember i used to get £5 a month pocket money. My friends got £5 a week. They had the top labels where i didn't. If i wanted something then i had to work for it. I got a job aged 14 and earned more than any of my friends at the time (how things change). And our child would be brought up that way also.
    Some may over analyse what i say here and think i'm cold hearted and wouldn't even buy the child presents for Xmas etc, instead they'd be sent out to work but i think you get where i'm coming from with me saying they'd be taught the value of money.

    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.
    That's a very interesting comment you make.

    A good workmate of mine is regularly doing exactly what you just said. His view on pensions? "Waste of time" was one phrase. "My money is in my house" was another (his house is not worth £500k btw).
    An aunt of mine was also doing just that.

    However my parents did exactly what you said you did/do. I still remember the carpets on the landing and in my bedroom were the same carpets when i was mid to late 20s as they were when we moved in there as i was 2. They'd worn through so bad in parts you could see the backing. Ok maybe you weren't that bad but i get your point. And the result? We were able to go away on modest holidays from when i hit 12 years of age and my dad as i said was able to put away in his pension to give a comfortable life after work.

    Thanks. It's reassuring to read.


    We had less expensive holidays - off season when children were below school age. Self-catering / camping / UK when older.
    I'm responding to you as i read your post and yes that's exactly how we did it.


    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.
    What is an SP?
    If our mortgage lasts the term then it should be paid off when i turn 60, my wife 61. We did it over 30 years instead of 25 as we needed the lower monthly payments at the time.

    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.
    That is a concern of mine. My wife has been quite good medically but i've often had problems here and there which does worry me. As of right now i'm perfectly fine but i just had a bad run.



    Anyway thank you very much for your post. Much appreciated.
    • justme111
    • By justme111 13th Jul 17, 9:10 PM
    • 2,856 Posts
    • 2,745 Thanks
    justme111
    You asking why working class people with children do not generally worry about pensions - the answer is simple : they have so little disposable income after tax NI mortgage payments and children's expenses that state pension after ll of those go is a treat for them. Somebody already answered this question in this thread , you missed it.
    • Not Me Officer
    • By Not Me Officer 13th Jul 17, 9:16 PM
    • 280 Posts
    • 49 Thanks
    Not Me Officer
    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.
    Originally posted by atush
    Also thanks to you.

    That's the pair of you made that decision and the more i think about it the more i think it's a very good one. Even from not having a child standing. Could we just live off 1 wage? It's an interesting thought and I think we should see if we can do it.

    Worst case scenario is we fail and dip into my wife's wage.
    Other than that is we save a full wage so will have a nice amount built up over time.



    Though your post did make me wonder - you mentioned so many nappies and a huge bill ... did you not have those terry towelling ones rather than disposable? I've heard they've changed from when i was a kid when they resembled pretty much just a tea towel. All news to me.
    • Not Me Officer
    • By Not Me Officer 13th Jul 17, 9:19 PM
    • 280 Posts
    • 49 Thanks
    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.
    Originally posted by AnotherJoe
    Well judging by their holidays and weekend activities i'd say they were not living the millionaire lifestyle but were comfortable.

    But it's all about priorities and how people manage their own. Like the poster who said about the material possessions and holidays. My friends were always going abroad for their holidays, I was always in caravans and tents. Sure at times i wished i could go abroad too, only natural for a kid, but i always enjoyed my holidays too and the things we did on them together as a family.
    • Not Me Officer
    • By Not Me Officer 13th Jul 17, 9:40 PM
    • 280 Posts
    • 49 Thanks
    Not Me Officer
    What do you mean - how did I come to the conclusion that your wife likely to want children ?
    I would be happy if I was wrong in my guess that you thought people who did not consider not having children due to their impact on future retirement were wrong. Just the tone of your post made me think that , apologies if I was wrong.
    Originally posted by justme111
    Look, apologies also. It's no good me taking that tone with you either.

    I'm fine with a lot of things but certain things do grate very quickly on me. One of them is people saying i mean something when i don't, i mean something else - this is both online and offline. Another thing is (online) like i mentioned earlier - picking apart my selection of wording. Personally i think that's going a bit far. It's like being in a courtroom where they're trying to flip everything on you.

    Anyway i'll apologise for it.



    To give you a bit of background info....

    I always wanted kids. 3 was my number growing up. Maybe because my parents had 3, although due to the gaps i feel like an only child. I always wanted a brother and sister to share my time with. I was never a "i want kids more than anything else in the whole world" person but then i never get emotional like that about anything. My wife says i'm broken as i never feel 'excited'. Sure i look forward to events but i don't do a fiery ball of emotion. Maybe that comes from my dad.

    So yeah, i just wanted children.

    I met my wife some 14 years ago. She never wanted kids. There's also a huge gap between her and her siblings but unlike me she never wanted them and didn't like that they were around.

    At some point between 14 years ago and 2 years ago, we briefly spoke about children here and there. I explained how i wanted them (this was before i even got in to money saving and waaaaaaaaay before i even thought about retirement - that's for old people right?), i asked my wife to consider it but that if she still decided no then i would respect that. She asked me to let her think about it in her own time which i did.

    On and off for the past couple years (since we got our own place) we'd spoken about it. She started thinking maybe it wouldn't be so bad which progressed to days where she thought it'd actually be quite nice followed by days where she felt that our freedom was a better option.

    And that's how it went. Constantly going from one thought to another like a see-saw.

    I've seen her with kids and she's great, although she feels awkward and self conscious. Funny that because that's how i feel around kids. Her workmates say she's great with kids (has to deal with them at her work at times).

    On paper we're good to go. We're mid 30s, we're not scraping by but we're not loaded by any means.
    As said earlier - we're actually a little boring, so we wouldn't be giving up a social life. We're actually socially awkward so it can't impact on a life you have with friends if you don't have friends - but we're both fine with all of that.

    The only things we'd really be giving up is 'freedom' to do what you want when you want, but we can accept that, and then there's the money - hence me being here.

    And still as time goes on it's the see-saw. One day of yes that would be really great followed by ...... but it's a scary thought, what about the disruption to my current life, what if it doesn't work out .... followed by ahh but it would be so rewarding, so on and so forth.


    Everyone thinks it'll be my wife wanting them because she's female and it's what females do but that's not how it is at all.

    So anyway there you go for a bit of background.
    • Not Me Officer
    • By Not Me Officer 13th Jul 17, 9:45 PM
    • 280 Posts
    • 49 Thanks
    Not Me Officer
    You asking why working class people with children do not generally worry about pensions - the answer is simple : they have so little disposable income after tax NI mortgage payments and children's expenses that state pension after ll of those go is a treat for them. Somebody already answered this question in this thread , you missed it.
    Originally posted by justme111
    I've read a whole bunch so you'll have to forgive me for missing it.

    Still, i've debated with these people at work before. I think it's quite ignorant. I ask them why pensions are so bad but they don't really offer anything back. It would be better if they'd say that they'd like to set aside but simply don't have the money. My sister is like this. She sets aside £60 a month as that's all she can afford currently. She started out by saying what's the point, it's so little that it's worthless until i went through it all with her and explained how £60 is £60 more than £0 and that £0 in will guarantee £0 out. I didn't want either my brother or sister to make my mistake so i made sure they at least started young (19 & 20).
    • LHW99
    • By LHW99 13th Jul 17, 10:47 PM
    • 963 Posts
    • 813 Thanks
    LHW99
    I remember i used to get £5 a month pocket money. My friends got £5 a week.
    Lucky you, mine only got to that level (and we are talking over 10 years ago) the year before they left school - paid monthly, and no top-ups.

    SP is State Pension - its unlikely (though I guess not impossible) that they will axe it completely by the time you get there, but its a basic income to which any of your own pension saving gets added - a sort of leg-up into retirement. You can keep an eye on how much you are accumulating at
    https://www.gov.uk/check-state-pension
    • bigadaj
    • By bigadaj 13th Jul 17, 11:01 PM
    • 10,708 Posts
    • 6,997 Thanks
    bigadaj
    You asking why working class people with children do not generally worry about pensions - the answer is simple : they have so little disposable income after tax NI mortgage payments and children's expenses that state pension after ll of those go is a treat for them. Somebody already answered this question in this thread , you missed it.
    Originally posted by justme111
    Generally true though I'd say that for many it's more rent than mortgage payments. Increasing house prices and an inability to save for a deposit means that owning a house can be a pipe dream for an increasing number, and not owning a mortgage free property at retirement is almost as big an issue as not having a decent pension or other income stream.
    • justme111
    • By justme111 14th Jul 17, 8:14 AM
    • 2,856 Posts
    • 2,745 Thanks
    justme111
    NMO, tx for apologies and for a long letter. Of course it can be different to what I guesses so I should have said it was a guess. I always used to feel awkward around children as well and wanting them was not in my DNA , there was no overwhelming tenderness when my daughter was given to me in a hospital. She grown on me later, I am very glad I had her. As one gets older one feels about things differently. Shame by that time the clock often has stopped . You do not even know whether you would be able to conceive - many people do not have that choice and your wife is not that young.
    Re living on one salary for a trial - why would you , wife would get maternity payment , would not she? You obviously would not be able to live on one salary only as your bills equal to one salary and you have food and other miscellaneous expenses on top. Why would someone even suggest it - don't people read the authors posts and just write the same no matter what particular numbers are?
    • Suffolk lass
    • By Suffolk lass 14th Jul 17, 8:26 AM
    • 1,557 Posts
    • 17,918 Thanks
    Suffolk lass
    We are 25 years older than you and your wife, and were in roughly your position at roughly your age. We have one Son (now 25) and we really struggled when he was little. We had no nearby relatives and at 35, no contemporaries with babies I could split responsibilities with. I returned to work when he was three months old (end of paid maternity leave) and put him into nursery. I paid most of my salary until he started school, paying for nursery and baby-sitters and my husband paid the bills and living expenses. I also felt self-conscious, inadequate and inept around babies but they are quite robust and it didn't matter.

    After he started school it was better - swaps with other parents and holiday play schemes, coupled with time at Grandma's or Grandma coming to stay helped hugely, together with the occasional single parent holiday (we took our leave at different times to minimise costs and cover the holidays) and staggered working days to cover drop-off and pick ups.

    Now I am looking towards retirement and the fact i kept paying into my pension has stood us in good stead. My husband changed career in his forties and so his pension position is multi-faceted. He pays into a teacher's pension now but had a private pension that we set up after we met.

    It has worked for us. Paying bills, economising where we can (and others have described) doesn't make your life less rich, just different. We have also overspent at times and had to manage debt down. I don't regret having our Son. He enriches our lives and we would not change our decision. Financially we are better off now, and our earnings make our life a comfortable balance.

    Like I say, I would not change our decision.
    MFiT T4 #2 update 42.67% after Q7 £5,465 behind where I should be
    Save £12k in 2017 #64 - £9,260.94 saved (84.19%) after October - my annual target is £11,000
    OS Grocery Challenge 2017 budget of £3,600 £3000 (reduced from Apr) - 78.56% including stores after October
    My DFD is http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5593594
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 14th Jul 17, 9:00 AM
    • 7,599 Posts
    • 8,196 Thanks
    AnotherJoe
    Re living on one salary for a trial - why would you , wife would get maternity payment , would not she? You obviously would not be able to live on one salary only as your bills equal to one salary and you have food and other miscellaneous expenses on top. Why would someone even suggest it - don't people read the authors posts and just write the same no matter what particular numbers are?
    Originally posted by justme111
    Well, I'm one of the several people who suggested it so iI'll tell you why. It may be that the wife cannot work, or has to take a lower paid job, or effectively earns a much reduced wage because of childcare costs, or simply decides once baby is here that actually she'd like to be a full time mum. You never know about the latter until it happens despite intentions beforehand.

    So a trial while they have the freedom to experiment is a much more prudent approach than blithely assuming that wife will get maternity pay same as full current wages and that everything will go back to as was within a year. As said wife may even decide she would rather care for her own child for the first few years even if a full wage is available. And it's not as if she is on such a high salary that childcare costs will still leave her with a substantial take home pay if she does plump for childcare.

    So, as a test of how they would cope and also feel living on that single salary ('feel' because they would have to be much more careful than now) and that would also give a guide to their income in retirement, and since such financial matters were key to the OP, it's the whole basis of the post, it seems a reasonable approach to me, and not one to be dismiss out of hand on the basis that nothing will change after after having kids.

    So, that's why, HTH
    • Triumph13
    • By Triumph13 14th Jul 17, 9:58 AM
    • 1,104 Posts
    • 1,355 Thanks
    Triumph13
    As said earlier - we're actually a little boring, so we wouldn't be giving up a social life. We're actually socially awkward so it can't impact on a life you have with friends if you don't have friends - but we're both fine with all of that.
    Originally posted by Not Me Officer
    Having children can often be one of the best ways of making friends as you end up meeting loads of people who by definition have a major part of their life in common - from NCT ante natal groups through to play dates, the school gate. PTA, etc, etc. If you're lucky your kids themselves will become your good friends too. Kids fundamentally change your social life, but by no means do they end it.
    The finances are an issue, but there are many different ways that people cope. You almost certainly won't be able to retire as early if you have kids than if you didn't, but most people who have kids will tell you that the compensations are more than worth it.
    • justme111
    • By justme111 14th Jul 17, 10:16 AM
    • 2,856 Posts
    • 2,745 Thanks
    justme111
    Another Joe, he was questioning retirement, not how they would cope now. So sughestion of living on one wage has nothing to do with the original query. If one would want to see how they would cope now which is a different topic then the reasonable start would be to see what their income and expenditure with a child would be , not try wild guesses that the wife will never work again. By the numbers op provides the whole of one salary goes on bills. How suggesting they try to live on it makes sense?
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 14th Jul 17, 10:26 AM
    • 7,599 Posts
    • 8,196 Thanks
    AnotherJoe
    Another Joe, he was questioning retirement, not how they would cope now. So sughestion of living on one wage has nothing to do with the original query. If one would want to see how they would cope now which is a different topic then the reasonable start would be to see what their income and expenditure with a child would be , not try wild guesses that the wife will never work again. By the numbers op provides the whole of one salary goes on bills. How suggesting they try to live on it makes sense?
    Originally posted by justme111
    I think i said it, but if i didn't, I'll say it now, his income in retirement would be roughly equal to his income with one salary, if he doesn't fancy that lifestyle, with a child it may well arrive a LOT sooner than retirement.
    • justme111
    • By justme111 14th Jul 17, 10:58 AM
    • 2,856 Posts
    • 2,745 Thanks
    justme111
    I must have missed it then - how have you come to that number ?
  • jamesd
    There were two main things beyond prudence that struck me about your question: her age and your incomes.

    You wrote about a one year time window so you're probably aware of the risks to the health of both child and mother from delay, as well as the decreasing chance of conception. So no need to write more about this than agreeing that you do have a time limit.

    Incomes offer more possibilities. It seems likely that you will end up receiving working tax credit if she isn't working and there's a child. One interesting feature of WTC is that pension contributions increase the WTC payments because the contributions are deducted from the income used in the calculation.

    So a strategy to consider is to make pension contributions at a high enough level that your household qualifies for the maximum possible amount of WTC now. That's a tougher test than one income, which better reflects the financial strain of relying on them with a child as well. This can also eliminate your income tax bill by taking your incomes down to within the personal allowance.

    The WTC is on top of the pension tax relief so draw a bit on her savings to get maximum WTC if that's what it takes. It's more free money and you deserve the extra help.

    If you had more time I'd suggest a strategy of max WTC for a year or three then none but maximum savings to accumulate a reserve of savings to draw on, then repeat. It's an approach that can produce a major boost to eventual income for those with low incomes in only a few years if it's done early enough for compounding investment growth to work its magic.

    Your wife having £7500 in an ISA may be a problem because of savings limits for some benefits. Something to check to see whether you might get reduced council tax, say.

    Each ten thousand Pounds of lump sum invested for 33 years at a growth rate of 4.5% after inflation would produce a pot of 44 thousand at say age 68. Allowing for the usual preference for income when young and declining spending as people age about six percent of that rather than the usual four percent might be taken as income. So £2640 a year. Pretty good result from about one year's effort. You might be able to manage twice that or a bit more. Not at all bad as a top up to about eight thousand each in state pensions.

    So far as the workplace pensions go, try to always do the maximum that gets employer matching. Might be the minimum the law forces the employer to do. By 2018 the legal requirement for employee, employer and tax relief will be eight percent of the relevant band of pay unless the employee opts out. I'll assume that the band is fourteen thousand and that's a regular monthly contribution of 93. Over the same 33 years that produces a pot of 84 thousand. Well worth having.

    Since children don't appear instantly you might be able to do the max WTC thing for two or even three years, depending on when conception ends up happening. An excellent boost.

    The median average pensioner household income is around 23 thousand a year. You appear to have the potential to get to that level with a bit of initial determination and fairly modest ongoing cost, helped by means tested benefits. Given what appears to be possible I don't think that concerns about eventual retirement income should be a barrier provided you're willing to make the initial substantial commitment and ongoing smaller one.
    Last edited by jamesd; 14-07-2017 at 1:36 PM.
    • atush
    • By atush 14th Jul 17, 4:32 PM
    • 16,334 Posts
    • 10,081 Thanks
    atush
    Also thanks to you.

    That's the pair of you made that decision and the more i think about it the more i think it's a very good one. Even from not having a child standing. Could we just live off 1 wage? It's an interesting thought and I think we should see if we can do it.

    Worst case scenario is we fail and dip into my wife's wage.
    Other than that is we save a full wage so will have a nice amount built up over time.



    Though your post did make me wonder - you mentioned so many nappies and a huge bill ... did you not have those terry toweling ones rather than disposable? I've heard they've changed from when i was a kid when they resembled pretty much just a tea towel. All news to me.
    Originally posted by Not Me Officer
    No, I never used towel nappies. One, they leak. 2 I am a scientist, so know what others dont. The chemicals used to clean and sterilize them, are worse for the environment than the other type of nappy.

    3 they are messy, smelly and inconvenient. The best way to do it that way, is old school and have a nappy service that delivers cleaned ones and takes away the soiled ones.

    What we need to do going forwards, is to use the soiled nappies for energy. So scientists in that area- get cooking!

    once you try to feed and change a baby at 3am (or even 2) in the dark, you wont be thinking of terry towel nappies i assure you!

    Could we just live off 1 wage? It's an interesting thought and I think we should see if we can do it.
    I think you have to do this. If you cant live off one wage, for at least a bit, then you cant afford to have a child as she will need to be off work for at least 2 months. Most people take longer, what will her work offer her as paid Maternity leave?

    But at least if you save between now and the birth of any baby, she should be able to take of a year or two if she wants to.

    i had a professor at UNI who was a real taskmaster. She was pregnant and we used to joke she would have the baby on a friday night, and be back at work on Monday. In the end, she did take a whole week off lol. Actually, the isnt quite true. She had the baby on a friday night and came back the next friday so only took 4 days off
    • Not Me Officer
    • By Not Me Officer 15th Jul 17, 11:24 PM
    • 280 Posts
    • 49 Thanks
    Not Me Officer
    Re living on one salary for a trial - why would you , wife would get maternity payment , would not she? You obviously would not be able to live on one salary only as your bills equal to one salary and you have food and other miscellaneous expenses on top. Why would someone even suggest it - don't people read the authors posts and just write the same no matter what particular numbers are?
    Originally posted by justme111
    Well yes.
    I didn't take their suggestion as literally living on the one income even though their posts suggested that.
    I know we would be eligible for maternity pay. Apparently we wouldn't qualify for tax credits or whatever it's called due to my wage.
    My wife would also go back to work full time (her choice through necessity) as soon as would be possible. I don't know when that would be. I guess perhaps at age 4 when the child goes to primary school. Maybe before if possible.

    But yeah i would have to calculate my wage plus the maternity pay and then use this as a figure to live off month-to-month to see if we could do it. That would be the idea.
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

129Posts Today

2,225Users online

Martin's Twitter