Can I afford to quit

cfw1994

Whiterose23 said:

coyrls said:

Whiterose23 said:

Why is there always the assumption that children will cost a fortune as they get older? ..... my life has only become easier financially since they turned 16.

Isn't that a contradiction?  The OP would have to cover 16 years before their life became easier financially.  Their child is under one year old.

I was referring more to the fact that parents seem to think it’s their responsibility to pay for a child’s first car/pay them through university. Of course there are costs through school/hobbies etc, but these can be managed on a budget.

There is an expectation that an earning parent will help students through university.  Not tuition fees, of course, but often several thousand towards living.    & I know some parents who fail to do that.   Which can be very hard for their still-dependant offspring!

Whiterose23

cfw1994 said:

Whiterose23 said:

coyrls said:

Whiterose23 said:

Why is there always the assumption that children will cost a fortune as they get older? ..... my life has only become easier financially since they turned 16.

Isn't that a contradiction?  The OP would have to cover 16 years before their life became easier financially.  Their child is under one year old.

I was referring more to the fact that parents seem to think it’s their responsibility to pay for a child’s first car/pay them through university. Of course there are costs through school/hobbies etc, but these can be managed on a budget.

There is an expectation that an earning parent will help students through university.  Not tuition fees, of course, but often several thousand towards living.    & I know some parents who fail to do that.   Which can be very hard for their still-dependant offspring!

I agree and if my son goes to uni I will help him but he is also expecting to work part time and may apply for funds to help pay his living fees as well.

wannabe_a_saver

Whiterose23 said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

Whiterose23 said:

Why is there always the assumption that children will cost a fortune as they get older? The food bill may increase yes, but nothing else needs to.
My two both had Saturday jobs at 16 which paid for most of their needs. One left school with good GCSE and A Level results and is now working in an NHS Apprenticeship, whereas the other is undecided about university yet but will be applying for a student loan if he decides to go down that route.
They've both already saved up enough for their first cars and my life has only become easier financially since they turned 16. If my son goes to uni he fully expects to work part time to help make ends meet.

I suppose it depends how bothered you are about being able to take them on nicer holidays, or enable them to take up the hobbies they want to without having to stress too much about cost.  

Hobbies and holidays can be just as enjoyable on a budget. No need to be splashing out on all inclusive every time you go away. And if the hobby is an expensive one, find one that isn’t.

But what if the child absolutely loves and has a talent for the expensive hobby?  Would dad not feel guilty that the only reason child can't pursue something they love is that dad wanted to retire at 42?

Whiterose23

My point is that children can grow up healthy and happy with one or two hobbies and basic holidays. The trend of paying for expensive hobbies I think is more about the parents competing and keeping up with each other.
The OP could build in an increasing budget to cover these eventualities in his retirement planning.

GeordieGeorge

Whiterose23 said:

GeordieGeorge said:

Whiterose23 said:

Why is there always the assumption that children will cost a fortune as they get older?

Because people are aware of hobbies, school uniforms and trips, sports and increased appetite.

Are you honestly claiming that you spent no more feeding your children at age thirteen than at age two?

If you read on I did say food costs increase. I doubt the OP is so naive that he thinks his food bill will stay the same when his child is 12 rather than one years old. 

Clothing as well, but there are means and ways of budgeting for holidays, hobbies, food and clothing. My point was more about parents who expect to pay their children through university etc.

But no-one was talking about that. The claim was that children don’t cost more as they grow from being babies, and they clearly do.

And no, there aren’t ways of budgeting to pay for these things if you’ve arranged your life around having only enough to scrape by without those costs, which is the whole thing that people were counselling against.

Whiterose23

GeordieGeorge said:

Whiterose23 said:

GeordieGeorge said:

Whiterose23 said:

Why is there always the assumption that children will cost a fortune as they get older?

Because people are aware of hobbies, school uniforms and trips, sports and increased appetite.

Are you honestly claiming that you spent no more feeding your children at age thirteen than at age two?

If you read on I did say food costs increase. I doubt the OP is so naive that he thinks his food bill will stay the same when his child is 12 rather than one years old. 

Clothing as well, but there are means and ways of budgeting for holidays, hobbies, food and clothing. My point was more about parents who expect to pay their children through university etc.

But no-one was talking about that. The claim was that children don’t cost more as they grow from being babies, and they clearly do.

And no, there aren’t ways of budgeting to pay for these things if you’ve arranged your life around having only enough to scrape by without those costs, which is the whole thing that people were counselling against.

I took it for granted the OP had factored in the costs of a growing child re a few hobbies/food etc ... why on earth wouldn’t they? I’m referring to the oft-seen comments on here about ‘paying kids through university’ and funding other elements of their lives as young adults they should be funding, or at least part-funding, themselves.
Going back to the original post, I would have thought it was entirely doable but think a part-time job would be sensible for a while to prepare for unforeseen issues.

Langtang

MX5huggy said:

michaels said:

MX5huggy said:

Your child has not started eating..... my 7 year old eats about £1100 per month on her own. 

Really - we have 12, 15 and 16 yos and a total monthly food bill of about 500.

 No it just seems that way. 

The phrase my mother used to use was that I would “eat her out of house and home”

Langtang

Whiterose23 said:o

GeordieGeorge said:

Whiterose23 said:

GeordieGeorge said:

Whiterose23 said:

Why is there always the assumption that children will cost a fortune as they get older?

Because people are aware of hobbies, school uniforms and trips, sports and increased appetite.

but there are means and ways of budgeting for holidays, hobbies, food and clothing. My point was more about parents who expect to pay their children through university etc.

But no-one was talking about that. The claim was that children don’t cost more as they grow from being babies, and they clearly do.

And no, there aren’t ways of budgeting to pay for these things if you’ve arranged your life around having only enough to scrape by without those costs, which is the whole thing that people were counselling against.

Going back to the original post, I would have thought it was entirely doable but think a part-time job would be sensible for a while to prepare for unforeseen issues.

What would happen if their child, or children turned out to be a budding Jessica Ennis, Andy Murray, Pippa Funnell or even Lewis Hamilton! Where would the funds for those activities come from or would you just say to your child “Sorry son, you’ll just have to become a footballer like everyone else”

OP, I echo the above posters who say find something that you enjoy working at. Chop & change. Trial and error. There must be something out there that will crank your handle. None (few) of us enjoy working, but we do it -  for varying reasons. I changed from a stressful job that I hated, to a menial job that still payed the bills. 

Whiterose23

What would happen if their child, or children turned out to be a budding Jessica Ennis, Andy Murray, Pippa Funnell or even Lewis Hamilton! Where would the funds for those activities come from or would you just say to your child “Sorry son, you’ll just have to become a footballer like everyone else”

 I would say preparing your finances for the minuscule chance your child might be the next Andy Murray is a bit extreme. But I guess I would say, have some money put away, and jump that bridge when/if it comes to it. Even the most hard-working people couldn't necessarily afford hobbies like this. And if they become a footballer like everyone else ... then they'll be very rich!

Ultimately, talent shines through and if they've got what it takes, they'll get there anyway .... and if they have a special talent they could apply for a scholarship (if the above unlikely scenario becomes a reality).

GeordieGeorge

Whiterose23 said:

GeordieGeorge said:

Whiterose23 said:

GeordieGeorge said:

Whiterose23 said:

Why is there always the assumption that children will cost a fortune as they get older?

Because people are aware of hobbies, school uniforms and trips, sports and increased appetite.

Are you honestly claiming that you spent no more feeding your children at age thirteen than at age two?

If you read on I did say food costs increase. I doubt the OP is so naive that he thinks his food bill will stay the same when his child is 12 rather than one years old. 

Clothing as well, but there are means and ways of budgeting for holidays, hobbies, food and clothing. My point was more about parents who expect to pay their children through university etc.

But no-one was talking about that. The claim was that children don’t cost more as they grow from being babies, and they clearly do.

And no, there aren’t ways of budgeting to pay for these things if you’ve arranged your life around having only enough to scrape by without those costs, which is the whole thing that people were counselling against.

I took it for granted the OP had factored in the costs of a growing child re a few hobbies/food etc ... why on earth wouldn’t they?

Because they explicitly say otherwise in their original post.

I’ll leave it there, you are being utterly ridiculous, ignoring what was written by the OP in order to try to pick an argument.