Company Directors & CSA

Dancing_Shoes

I have 2 children and they live a fairly comfortable lifestyle but they certainly don't cost me anywhere near that amount per month and if things were tight they would have to cut back on clubs, extras etc. It is very hard to work out an "average" for raising children because people have different priorities in what their children "need". I think being realistic that is an obscene amount of money to be spending on 1 child and many people won't have the ability to spend that.

speedster

Soubrette wrote: »

Just lost my long post - how annoying :rolleyes:

A recent study shows the cost of raising an average child to age 21 is £193,772 which is about £768pm. Apparently having more than one child doesn't save that much using economies of scale. Poorer families spend a larger proportion of their income on raising their children.

Not sure if they used the mean/median or mode but if the mean or mode then more than 50% of kids will have more than that spent on them (eg more people earn below the average wage than above it because it's calculated using the mean)

The other thing I said was the your PWC is obviously a bit stupid - she's looking forward to a life of minimum wage and poverty once the children have left full time education. More fool her.

Sou

£768 a month my arzzz.

i dunno which pompus, stuck up muppet came up with those figures.

absolute tosh, that means my kids cost me £2304 a month. i'd be lucky to earn that.

the main one people don't realise is that, whether you have kids or not, you pay rent, council tax, food, gas, electric, water, phone etc, etc.

for this "survey" to be accurate, you would have to subtract your normal living costs as if you didn't have kids.

i'm guessing the figures would be more realistic at around the £200 per month, per child. and that's being generous.

Soubrette

The findings come from the fourth Cost of a Child survey from London Victoria Friendly Society and are based on an ICM poll carried out last month.

From the Timesonline http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article632126.ece

I'd be interested to see any counter evidence apart from your own intuition as to how much a child costs - I know that my two cost approx £7500 for the pair last year (£312pm each) and they lead a pretty frugal life with a few luxuries. This was direct costs only - no electricity, extra petrol costs etc and missed out anything I paid for which I couldn't remember such as days out, little presents etc. So no living costs were included except 25% of our food bill (they have small appetites but probably eat somewhere between 25-33% but I wanted to be scrupulously fair when presenting it to the ex as proof of what our children had cost). They cost more in electricity and the 16 year old often cooks her own meals separately for now. My two don't but parents often come home and find the heating put on after school and their kids swanning around in t-shirts so I don't really buy the argument that 4 can live as cheaply as 2.

I do think that children get more expensive as they get older - it's much harder for example getting your 12 year old to wear hand me downs as opposed to your 2 year old

for this "survey" to be accurate, you would have to subtract your normal living costs as if you didn't have kids.

Actually wouldn't it be even more accurate if they compared a group of couples with no children compared to a group of couples with children and worked out exactly how much better off one group was compared to the other?

This survey does not take into the account the opportunity cost of looking after your children.

Sou

Soubrette

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

U have 2 children and they live a fairly comfortable lifestyle but they certainly don't cost me anywhere near that amount per month and if things were tight they would have to cut back on clubs, extras etc. It is very hard to work out an "average" for raising children because people have different priorities in what their children "need". I think being realistic that is an obscene amount of money to be spending on 1 child and many people won't have the ability to spend that.

Apparently at least 50% of people do though.

Sou

Dancing_Shoes

If you aren't including electricity etc then I just don't know how you spend that figure....what are you including?

For us our total food bill is £400 per month but that allows for alchohol etc, we have after school clubs but they are around £30 max per term. The only other extras are clothes and days out but most of that is free as we are an outdoors type of family so tend to walk or do the parks. I know for a fact that our pwc doesn't spend this figure on her kids. I made a quick call to my best mate and she couldn't stop laughing because she thought I was winding her up she reckons her 3 kids don't get that spent on them as that would be half of their monthly income.

LizzieS_2

speedster wrote: »

the main one people don't realise is that, whether you have kids or not, you pay rent, council tax, food, gas, electric, water, phone etc, etc.

Of course you do, but unless you squash the little darlings into a small space, don't ever clean them or their clothes, ban them from having electrical items etc...... those costs are much higher when you do have children.

If I had stayed in my first home (pre children), I would be at least £600pm better off financially (that is not even including the food).

kelloggs36

The number of loads of washing increases dramatically with children - the costs of running the machine 12 times per week plus the washing powder/capsules and fabric conditioner costs me a fortune! Without children I could reduce this by 5/6.

speedster

kelloggs36 wrote: »

The number of loads of washing increases dramatically with children - the costs of running the machine 12 times per week plus the washing powder/capsules and fabric conditioner costs me a fortune! Without children I could reduce this by 5/6.

eh?? i've got 3 under 9 here and 2 adults and i thought we were bad at 5 or 6 loads a week. i think you need to check your wash basket. it sounds like my mates mrs!!

she washed, dried and ironed a pile of clothes for their ungrateful snotty teenager and left a pile on the bed. next day the pile had moved to the floor and then back into the laundry!! needless to say, mum went ape and pocket money that week went on wash powder!!

speedster

also, even another fiver a week on wash powder and a tenner on electric will only be £60 a month, max.

still cant see where this £768 a month comes from.

speedster

LizzieS wrote: »

Of course you do, but unless you squash the little darlings into a small space, don't ever clean them or their clothes, ban them from having electrical items etc...... those costs are much higher when you do have children.

If I had stayed in my first home (pre children), I would be at least £600pm better off financially (that is not even including the food).

have you been spying on me?? :eek:

we have a 3 bed now which costs £1100 a month now. our first house would be about £750 now, but then it's worth more being bigger so i will benefit from owning a better house anyway, so i cant see that side of the arguement either.

it's like upgrading a car. it's better and therefore worth more when you sell it, so you cant blame your kids for you having to buy a bigger house.