The 'cant afford a baby' generation?

TotallyBroke

I think that story about the 17k is what it is going to cost our children to pay for the mistakes that we have made and generations before us.

Babies do not cost much at all. It costs nothing to feed them for the first 6months of their lives IF people breast feed. The amount of solids they eat is minimal after 6months so you won't notice the extra carrot that does 3 meals. You have a small initial layout for washable nappies (some local councils will pay towards this rather than having disposables in the rubbish) but the cost savings are incredible. It costs no more to heat the home than it did before.
A new born baby upto 3 months (unless they grow very quickly) will need a wardrobe consisting of 6 vest, 6 sleepsuits so a costing of £10 in Mr T and other well known supermarkets. Any other things people feel the need to have can be got from freecycle or second hand places. My only brand new purchase would be a mattress.

lynzpower

TotallyBroke wrote: »

I think that story about the 17k is what it is going to cost our children to pay for the mistakes that we have made and generations before us.

Babies do not cost much at all. It costs nothing to feed them for the first 6months of their lives IF people breast feed. The amount of solids they eat is minimal after 6months so you won't notice the extra carrot that does 3 meals. You have a small initial layout for washable nappies (some local councils will pay towards this rather than having disposables in the rubbish) but the cost savings are incredible. It costs no more to heat the home than it did before.
A new born baby upto 3 months (unless they grow very quickly) will need a wardrobe consisting of 6 vest, 6 sleepsuits so a costing of £10 in Mr T and other well known supermarkets. Any other things people feel the need to have can be got from freecycle or second hand places. My only brand new purchase would be a mattress.

These issues have been kicking around MSE for ages- that if you get Handmedowns & second hand stuff babies need not cost that much.

I fear what most people miss when they say that is the cost of childcare.

lostinrates

lynzpower wrote: »

These issues have been kicking around MSE for ages- that if you get Handmedowns & second hand stuff babies need not cost that much.

I fear what most people miss when they say that is the cost of childcare.

And /or loss of income.

galvanizersbaby

lynzpower wrote: »

These issues have been kicking around MSE for ages- that if you get Handmedowns & second hand stuff babies need not cost that much.

I fear what most people miss when they say that is the cost of childcare.

Yes lynzpower, I think you are right it is definately the cost of childcare (you need to be earning enough to cover the cost and then have a reasonable amount left over) that is the main issue if you need/choose to go back to work or alternatively the loss of the 2nd wage if you don't return to the workplace that is the problem for most people.

TotallyBroke

But I have childcare costs as well. What I found was that having all my bills etc and only receiving £100 per week I learned to live on a low budget so when I went back to work and earned a wage even after paying for childcare I still had more to live on.
So the moral is cut back and clear all non essential spending before you become pregnant. It will not be such a culture shock to you then. You don't have to be debt free to have a child but be able to recognise what is needed and what is wanted.

What I do find funny is the number of people that take full maternity benefit of 9-12 months and then complain they cannot manage. You are only stopped from working for the first 2weeks after a baby is born.
So if you are struggling financially go back to work.
I went back to work when my ds was just short of being 4months old. I had no choice if I had not I would've had my house repossed and we would have been homeless.

barnaby-bear

TotallyBroke wrote: »

But I have childcare costs as well. What I found was that having all my bills etc and only receiving £100 per week I learned to live on a low budget so when I went back to work and earned a wage even after paying for childcare I still had more to live on.
So the moral is cut back and clear all non essential spending before you become pregnant.

I think the problem a lot of people have is that in many parts of the country they already need more than one income to meet ESSENTIAL spending - rent, utilities etc.

IsoChick

It's been really good to read the posts on here.

We are a childless married couple. We have a nice enough house with a large garden, 2 cars (1 a company car), pets and livestock, and UK-based holidays. We both work part time on decent salaries, and I grow a lot of own own fruit and veg.

However, there is no way that we can afford to become a 1 income household (or even a 1.5 income household) for me to be able to have a child at the moment. If I were to stop work to have a baby, I'd have to go back to work as soon as SMP stopped. We'd then have to pay a ridiculous amount in childcare, as I'd have to be at work full time.

I can get subsidised childcare through work, but it'd still cost me about £700 a month in childcare, which means I'd have to work full time to afford this. We have no family within a decent distance for childcare.

If I didn't work full time, we would be about £800 a month down - so the mortgage (80% mortgage) wouldn't get paid.

Yes, I know people say we could move house etc, but we have found the place and house that we want to live in forever. Plus, our house is now in negative equity, so we couldn't move if we wanted to!

For us, I know we wouldn't spend loads on clothes, equipment etc, as we're not like that - I'd be happy to use washable nappies, secondhand clothes and equipment.

It's the loss of income that would hit us, and therefore the fact that we wouldn't be able to pay our mortgage, council tax, bills etc that worries me.

It's something we continually talk about, to try and find ways round the problem, but it gets so depressing. I probably spend several nights a month in hysterics about it. Luckily, not a lot of my friends have kids, so I don't feel bombarded with baby-talk

galvanizersbaby

TotallyBroke wrote: »

What I do find funny is the number of people that take full maternity benefit of 9-12 months and then complain they cannot manage. You are only stopped from working for the first 2weeks after a baby is born.
So if you are struggling financially go back to work.
I went back to work when my ds was just short of being 4months old. I had no choice if I had not I would've had my house repossed and we would have been homeless.

A colleague of mine has recently had her 2nd child and is returning to work full time after the 6 months 90% maternity pay as she claims they can't afford to drop to the SMP for the remaining six months.

She did the same thing following the birth of her first child and both her and her husband are high earners so what she means is that they can't afford to run their porsche (they both have company cars in addition) and live in their large property with enough disposable income to suit their spending without her returning to work.
So this is the choice she makes but to listen to her you'd think she really had no choice in the matter

lostinrates

TotallyBroke wrote: »

What I do find funny is the number of people that take full maternity benefit of 9-12 months and then complain they cannot manage. You are only stopped from working for the first 2weeks after a baby is born.
So if you are struggling financially go back to work.
I went back to work when my ds was just short of being 4months old. I had no choice if I had not I would've had my house repossed and we would have been homeless.

I hesitate to respond to this as I don't want my comment to be misinterpreted as critism of anyone- it most definitely is not, and also because I highly admire your sentiment of needing to pay for what you need to spend...but, although you might only have to stop working for two weeks, that doesn't mean the baby only needs you full time for two weeks.

galvanizersbaby

IsoChick wrote: »

It's been really good to read the posts on here.

We are a childless married couple. We have a nice enough house with a large garden, 2 cars (1 a company car), pets and livestock, and UK-based holidays. We both work part time on decent salaries, and I grow a lot of own own fruit and veg.

However, there is no way that we can afford to become a 1 income household (or even a 1.5 income household) for me to be able to have a child at the moment. If I were to stop work to have a baby, I'd have to go back to work as soon as SMP stopped. We'd then have to pay a ridiculous amount in childcare, as I'd have to be at work full time.

I can get subsidised childcare through work, but it'd still cost me about £700 a month in childcare, which means I'd have to work full time to afford this. We have no family within a decent distance for childcare.

If I didn't work full time, we would be about £800 a month down - so the mortgage (80% mortgage) wouldn't get paid.

Yes, I know people say we could move house etc, but we have found the place and house that we want to live in forever. Plus, our house is now in negative equity, so we couldn't move if we wanted to!

For us, I know we wouldn't spend loads on clothes, equipment etc, as we're not like that - I'd be happy to use washable nappies, secondhand clothes and equipment.

It's the loss of income that would hit us, and therefore the fact that we wouldn't be able to pay our mortgage, council tax, bills etc that worries me.

It's something we continually talk about, to try and find ways round the problem, but it gets so depressing. I probably spend several nights a month in hysterics about it. Luckily, not a lot of my friends have kids, so I don't feel bombarded with baby-talk

Is it an option for you both to work full time now in order to get a bit more money behind you? sorry don't mean to be rude - was just thinking as you say you spend several nights a month discussing it.