To think having a baby doesn't have to be expensive

[annabanana84]

I have just had my coil out as I thought dp and I would like to start ttc. As soon as I got home from having it out, dp started saying we should use condoms until this time next year as babies are very expensive and we don't have money for one. We both work and have a nice lifestyle but do have to watch the pennies. I am 30 and really, really x1000000 broody. I am pissed off at dp, because although babies do cost some money, we will have 9 months to buy all the baby things, even longer if we struggle to Conceive straight away. We will be getting most of the baby things second hand or off freecycle anyway to keep it cheap as possible. I hate the way dp let me get excited and now wants wait - a year! I don't want to get old and not have children :o( I think babies need love more than money and material things anyway!

OP, as I said before not everybody works full time and they still manage to raise their dc.
Yes childcare is expensive but this is obviously a cost you don't have if you don't work, or work pt and share childcare with oh.
I think if you kept your pt work and you weren't over the threshold you would still be entitled to childcare subsidy or UC.
I agree with others though that you can't really rely on benefits, they are handy and certainly help, but as we see now, they can be gone tomorrow.
I don't think it necessarily has to cost the earth to raise dc and if you are prepared to do without some luxuries can be managed on a low income.
There seems like many duel income parents here who can't see that. Just an observation, not judgement.

very unlikely art they will cut down childcare they arent through universal credit. They want many more parents to work. Irs bad for sahms but good for dual earners as dual earners are what the government want.

Come next election who knows who will be in power.

Maybe a gov that doesn't think forcing mothers out to work into crappy jobs that aren't even taxable isn't a good idea.Maybe a gov that thinks parents should save and pay for their own childcare and that subsidising childcare is a luxury the country can't afford.

Love the way those that rely on CB and other benefits are scorned but not those on TC.

Loads of people are pissed off with TC,axing them could be an election winner.

Op when I said scrimp I didn't mean rely on benefits.

They've already cut the maximum childcare element from 80% to 70%, I would not be at all surprised it it goes lower.

I very much doubt that retropear there is no way the country will ever go back to predominantly one worker. Neither party are interested in that happening hence cuts to cb for sahms but not for much richer dual earners.

Didn't say it would.

But given the ageing population,dire state of the NHS etc I'm not so sure frittering money on childcare particularly on jobs that don't give much tax back is feasible.

Also I think all parents (who are voters) enjoy being told what to do as regards their dc.

UKIP does favour sahp,they are gaining in popularity.

Hmm we shall see retropear

Yes we shall.The maj of voters who actually vote are the elderly.

Relying on benefits is foolish.It's one thing missing CB(which will go for everybody eventually) but relying on it for childcare is madness.One strike of a pen and you could be in the shit.

I never, ever thought they would do away with child benefit for some but they have. I'm not sure how the tax credits work but I know they haven't always been around and could be scrapped or changed at any time.
OP you need to talk to your DP and confirm he definitely does want children and then try to start saving. You may be spending on luxuries you could cut back on. Would you like to be married before starting a family?

I'm sure I read the Tories don't like tax credits.

OP, I've said it once and I'll say it again. If he ain't ready to put a ring on it, then he quite possibly ain't ready to be the committed, hands-on, forever-in-your-life father you want (and need) him to be.
You're 30. Put the marriage question on the table before you put the baby question on the table.

Blimey are we in the 50s? Dp and I have been together 25 years(3 children) without a ring.I may not be a fan of marriage but I am of commitment.

I think anyone thinking of having children should work on the proviso that they will get no help from the state so state benefits are a bonus when they are there and you can cope when they are stopped.
Baby stuff isn't expensive but the money lost through not working or childcare costs makes having children expensive.
People do buy too much crap though and many people would rather have a child than more stuff.
I'd want to be married before having kids with a bloke.

Exactly 2 pretty sure they'll all be gone eventually.We'll be lucky if we still have an NHS tbh.

Retro it sounds like your partner is also a fan of commitment . Sounds like you've got a good one there. All I'm suggesting is that the OP should really make sure that his commitment is there for her partner before launching into making babies. In a lot of cases (but not all), an unwillingness to be married can be a red flag that there's a general unwillingness to be a permanent fixture in a family.
But then again, I'm old fashioned that way.

Thing is Kiwi times are a changing.I don't think couples want to get married so much now.

"many dual parents who cant see that"

Morethan, thats a bit pot kettle black re cut luxuries and manage on a low income when you claim tax credits and the former state assistance. If paying for your own children can be done so easily by simply cutting the luxury items why did you need to claim benefits for so many years? Why not simply follow your own advice?

Tax credits are already marked for the chop as they vanish when UC is rolled out to all. I think CB will go to and it truly will be just one benefit with strict conditions so that people cannot use it as a lifestyle choice. Labour have already said they will not undo the cuts or change the plans so its quite obvious voters and the economy want them.

Well my mortgage is only 300 quid Im sure we would survive regardless, but its unlikely to happen anyway.

I think you're wrong and it is very likely to happen.

I think the whole 'it's manageable because of tax credits/CB' argument is kind of neither here nor there. Childcare is expensive - whether you pay for it or the government does - and there are plenty of families who wouldn't qualify for any help so would have to stump up the whole fee, or go the SAHP route and lose one salary.

I agree with all the posters who have said that children tend to get more expensive as they get older. Babies, the clothes, food and baby paraphernalia etc can be as cheap as you can be creative, tbh. So can primary aged children, especially with second hand clothes, free school clubs and so on where those exist (though we don't get many in our area I have to say). But once they are secondary school teenagers it sounds like a whole different ball game. My eldest is 9, so I freely admit I have no experiences of teenage challenges, but just reading the responses of the parents of teenagers on this thread makes it pretty obvious that the older they get the more money they cost!

People who have posted on the thread with comments about how easily things can be managed have been, I think, those with preschool or primary aged DC - ie they only know half of the story. Of course it's easy to do things pretty cheaply if your children are seven and five. But the posters to really listen to are the ones who have seen parenthood right through the teenage years and beyond. They've far more experience than those of us with younger children.

OP, I think there are two potential issues here. Is your DP genuinely worried about money, or is is more that he is worried about the reality of having a baby, committing to a shared future, and all that that would entail? I think you need to have a fairly serious 'are we on the same page with regard to our futures' type conversation to be honest. I hope it all works out for you.

TondelayoSchwarzkopf Do you think your grandmother and mother would have been happier overall if they had chosen to not have children?

What an odd question - what is the point of it?
My GM did not 'choose' to have children - her circumstances dictated it.
My M did not choose to have children in poverty - her circumstances changed.

Back on topic:

We live in a world where luxuries are cheap and necessities are hugely expensive - I could buy my son 3 iPads a month with his childcare bill. We are not far away from welfare stamps and private health insurance in this country. University is for the affluent. Housing is barely affordable for people on an average wage. Food prices will continual to rise as will fuel. The public bill for an ageing population will swallow up the benefits budget and tax credits will likely disappear (with no corresponding rise in NMW or wages overall).

It is ridiculous to focus discussion on charity shop clothes or freecycle or going to the park instead of soft play. The reality is that in the next few years the basic costs of living will be a struggle for most of the population. If you want your child to have a further or higher education, to get braces or glasses if they need them, to live in a safe, warm environment where they have space to do their homework and their hobbies - these are the issues: not whether they have a Bugaboo or a Nintendo DS.

I'm skint all the time can't even afford to have my hair cut until feb pay day because of xmas (SAHM) but I happily go with out to be with my little boy they are expensive even when doing it second hand but it's worth it and they won't be any cheaper in 9 months time.

Everyone's right, babies aren't expensive, children are. But seriously, if we all sat down doing sums before TTC then who would ever have children? We run out of money at the end of every month and sometimes have no bus fare. My husband has a decent job, I don't work, but if I did I'd pay more out in childcare than I could possibly earn. I only have one pair of trousers. But the children don't go without anything in terms of time, love and attention - I dare anyone to say we shouldn't have had them!

not everyone has the 'perfect scenario' which some posters have described. Money isn't everything and there are many amazing parents with happy and loved children out there who are in financial situations that might shock some posters.

I'm currently pregnant with mine and hubby's first baby. We both have professional jobs (joint income of £3'100 per month after tax)but we certainly don't have savings of any kind and we could not run our house on just one salary. Does that mean we shouldn't have a child? Of course not. We manage to pay all our bills, we live a comfortable life and still have a few hundred spare every month. To us, that makes us perfectly capable of being able to have a family even if others don't see us as being sensible.

As many posters have said, the children come first and if a parent has to go without then so be it and it seems no parent begrudges that

ps) if our child wants to learn to drive or go to University then they can fund it themselves, just like I and my husband had to