to ask why having kids is expensive?

[HodgePodge23]

What do you need to buy them apart from toys, food, clothes and a few other bits and bobs here and there? I have an 8 month old so maybe things will get more expensive with time, but I really don't understand why people say having children is expensive. What are people spending their money on?

They are certainly very good at hobbies, sport, music and the rest and allow eccentricity not so much seen in the state school system, more time to teach, not box tick and anyway I've enjoyed earning enough to educate 5 children privately. It was just the suggestion that if could have a parent at home that was better that has most of us up in arms as it's untrue and we could equally have said similar things back - that you damage your children by earning nothing and showing such a bad example.

It depends very much on your personal values, it might be a bad example in your opinion but to others there are more important things in life and I say this as a mother who has worked and has privately educated

reddaisy you damage your children by earning nothing and showing such a bad example.

You you have so little regard for women who choose to stay at home with their children?
That caring for others is of no worth?

A very callous attitude. It's no wonder that even the caring professions are so undervalued too, that we sling old people to fester in poorly run old folks homes because caring for others is not considered worthy.

I think where you have a choice, you will justify that choice. So SAH v Work is only based on choice. Some dont have that choice. Plenty of parents work because they have too, plenty of parents are at home because they have to be. Both are equally important, and we are raising children who in the main turn out to be excellent adults. We dont need the guilt of thinking one is better, you choose your path and cross your fingers.

At the risk of being all "love and peace". We all do what suits us, our family and our circumstances. We are all individuals and no one set of circumstances will suit us all.

Iam

Exactly

I see the OP has shown finally shown her true colours after 20-odd pages! I wish I hadn't read this thread in some ways although it has only confirmed what I suspected. I must make more money.

I like working, and am a better parent for it. My children are currently not particularly expensive - no high cost hobbies yet and don't care where their clothes are from. DS in particular has a steadily building appetite though and DD's laptop has just died - and she really does need one (with 'need' here defined as: necessary in order to continue her work & hobbies and maintain overall family harmony.) I'm only part time just now and my plan is to be earning more as they reach their teens. DH too.

Don't forget OP, that two working parents may both be working to cover the basics, with some left over to be 'materialistic'. It's very easy to judge others, particularly when you are still in the honeymoon/hormonal fog with a small baby (which, looking back, definitely lasted a lot longer for me than I realised at the time). Life is much nicer if you choose not to do that. The majority of people are muddling through it in the best way for them.

You might not aspire to a life full of luxury holidays, but it's pretty tough to have to deny your children opportunities because you don't have enough money.

There are charities, schemes and bursaries that benefit children whose parents wouldn't otherwise be able to fund things like music and sport, but they don't fund everyone.

Even simple things like swimming lessons add up, particularly once you have more than one child.

There really isn't a right or wrong solution re: having a SAHP - both have their advantages and disadvantages and everybody's circumstances are different.

I haven't answered your question OP, sorry. I'm not sure whether we could have lived on one income but for argument's sake, let's assume we could. Here's why we don't:

• I like working

• He likes working

• We both like that we both contribute to our family income. (We actually ping off each other professionally too but that's not something we predicted as we are not in the same careers.)

True, people don't always realise that a 2 x FT working couple might not be able to survive on 1 x FT wage, and might not have access to a part time role either. I've read posters who earn eg 50k and spent a lot on luxuries explain that while they only needed eg 15k to keep the household afloat, they couldn't go part time. Earning 'just' 15k wasn't an option, it was 50k or nothing, so they chose the former and had money for luxuries too. Sometimes it actually is all or nothing.

OP, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But you've learned in this thread that your 8 month old is going to get a lot more expensive, particularly after he reaches the age where he doesn't need childcare. With that in mind, I'm surprised you didn't put two and two together to see why parents with young DC who could just manage on one wage now might be planning for a more expensive future.

What merrymouse said above

I think the only way to manage on one income especially if a low one is if you have few outgoings.
We fall into this category but I know there aren't many and is quite a unique set up.
If you want to assure you are in the position to offer your children lots of opportunities then chances are you'll either need a middle income or 2 middle incomes to provide this, depending on your lifestyle and outgoings.

There is room both on here and in rl for all different types of values, norms and belief, we don't all have to think the same.

We both like that we both contribute to our family income

This really really pisses me off. A SAHP also contributes to the family income to the amount childcare would cost.

Hypothetically speaking, if you or your partner earned enough to keep you going (e.i. enough to live but you wouldn't have all the luxuries), would the other stay at home?

Frankly, no. There is no way I'd want to be dependant on someone else in that way, and I'd never want DH to do that either. What would you do if the earning partner died? Or (more likely) ran off with their secretary, or you had an affair with the SAHP next door (people are more likely to have an affair when there is a big income disparity in their relationship)? Much better for the adults and the kids for both to work part time if you want to avoid using childcare. After all OP, if you aren't materialistic it doesn't matter if working part time affects your DH's opportunities to be promoted .

one word.... UNIVERSITY!!

This really really pisses me off. A SAHP also contributes to the family income to the amount childcare would cost

not sure where I've said we pay for childcare. While I am not about to go into our exact circumstances, both DH and I contribute childcare AND actual cash and that is the way that WE like it.

I was a sahp because financially it made sense. However, unless you are a single parent, a married sahp does not get the same rights via the government. Example, you need to still pay dentist, optitians, etc tou can not claim any benefits, you cant retrain unless you pay full fees, so I would agree that sah parents are considered to be of less value to society than single or working parents. Is it right? Not really.

It was the non working mothers who started this by suggesting why would any woman (never a man of course as because they have a penis they are Gods whatever their choice of work or otherwise) work if the family could afford to live on one wage so I am sure they love to hear the arguments the other way as to the damage they do by staying home. We all give as good as we get.

However in terms of peace and love of course you can have children with no money - Amazonian indians do it all the time and my family in particular (I had an island in the Pacific for 10 years where we had a great time in survival mode on holidays anyway) know that you don't need money for anything much. You can drink water from streams and the like. Children cost what you want them to cost. I am happy to pay.have paid 5 sets of school and university fees and enable my children to graduate debt free and help them with a first home purchase etc. Other women don't want to do those things. It is a free country. We make choices and live with the consequences.

I think the council tends to move you on if you try to live a transient existence in the UK.

unless you are a single parent, a married sahp does not get the same rights via the government. Example, you need to still pay dentist, optitians, etc tou can not claim any benefits, you cant retrain unless you pay full fees,

I am a working single parent and I'm really not sure what you are talking about here - I pay for dentist, optician, will need to pay full fees for any training I would want/need. I do get a single persons council tax discount - is that what you were meaning?

I have a 9 year old and 8 month old
Once your baby starts needing shoes then you will see your first big expence. Kids shoes are £30-50 a pair, you need shoes and boots at minimum so that a £100 and my first used to be in a new size every couple of months.
Kids clubs are normally £5-10 per class so if you have a child that wants to dance, play music, do sport. My oldest is at different lessons/clubs 5 times a week so that's £40 a week.
Then you have clothes which they grow out of like weeds.
Toys are not cheap, especially lego.
School uniforms are ridiculous cost when they constantly need new stuff and schools asking for donations, sponsor ships ect.
Cinema is £10 a ticket, so a family of four with drinks, popcorn your looking at £70.
Swimming is about £7 each.
Having kids is not cheap!!!

Hodge podge you sound like a snotty moo.
So you assume people who send there children to clubs ect are doing it to keep up with joneses'?
If your child wants to play a musical instrument fo you say no because you assume it would be peer pressure from maybe a neighbour who played guitar.
You don't decide what your children want to experience.
Being a good parent is letting your child experience and try things so they can determine what THEY want to do and THEY feel is an achievement .
Not sending your child to a club because you think its pretentious or peer pressure is reaching your child to be ignorant and up themselves.

Benefits aren't a 'right'. They are a safety net so that those who cannot work or are looking for work can live. SAHP are making a choice not to work outside the home. Therefore it is up to them and their partners to facilitate that choicenot the state or working parents

fancy I'd agree with you but with the way the tax code is set up in the UK many families receive benefits in lieu of tax breaks that are offered in every other country.

Here in New Jersey, USA if your income is below $100k you can deduct either your rent or mortgage interest from your state income. At the federal level there is an allowance of almost $4000 for each child. If you own you can deduct mortgage interest at the federal level. Since a family pay so much less in tax benefits don't need to be paid out to many lower income families.

Given the expenses people are talking about on here I'm shocked there aren't bigger allowances for families.

I don't know much about the US but AFAIK the taxes are much lower there as a matter of principal and as a result, healthcare and welfare is much much lower. We have a more universal and generous welfare system which means we can't afford that. The less tax paid the less for the welfare state in general. I know, incompetence, bankers etc etc, I agree

I think my eldest child was around two or three before I had the sudden epiphany that he was a person in his own right rather than an extension of me myself. Until that point I might well have been doing things "for his benefit" which suited me and my image and my sanity but which weren't necessarily what he'd choose for himself.

But the idea of his having thoughts and opinions of his own was a head fuck hard to come to terms with because a fetus and a newborn really don't, and the autonomy comes on gradually. Obviously in general people tend to have similar interests to the rest of their family but it's by no means guaranteed. One of the hard things you have to do as a parent is decide which of your principles to let go of - is your own desire to avoid commercialism really more important than your son's desperate wish to have a Superdry hoodie? Does organic really matter once the weekly shop spills into a second trolley?

I wonder if OP hasn't yet realised that her child is not an extension of her, but a human being in his own right with aspirations and potential and so on. What's best for her and what's best for him may be in conflict - how does she expect to handle that?