Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

To only have one child due to pension worries?

68 replies

AntiHop · 26/03/2017 18:37

We have 1 dd. I'd always pictured trying for a second. I'm nearly 40 so time is not on my side. Dp has no pension at all as a result of being self employed long term. He's going to start one very soon. I only started mine in my mid 30s. We'll be paying off our mortgage well into our 60s.

We'd planned to start ttc soon but I'm really worried about the lack of pension.

I've always wanted 2 children but I'm thinking that the financially wise thing would be to stick with one. I'd be heartbroken to only have one child though.

Am I over thinking this? Is this a ridiculous reason to change our plans to try for another child?

OP posts:

BarbarianMum · 26/03/2017 20:45

Second children don't cost a lot No, if you're happy that they don't get new stuff, to do a sport, or dance, or learn to swim, go on school trips, go on holiday, have at least some of the advantages and stuff their friend's have and have limited access to higher education, then they're cheap as chips.

SorrelSoup · 26/03/2017 20:47

Or raise a deposit for a btl? The new ISA pays you 25% each year. You're panicking. I do get it but you can't control everything.

FourToTheFloor · 26/03/2017 20:50

I think yabu to have one dc for pension reasons if you want another.

To the poster up thread who will have her mortgaged paid off by 45 but stopped at one dc - if you didn't want anymore then I think good for you being mortgage free so young! But if you did, I sort of feel a bit sad for you. Being mortgage free but missing that other dc would not cut it for me.

titchy · 26/03/2017 21:00

Not sure why they'd have less access to higher education....?

There are millions of non-MN children who don't have an eye watering scheduling of enriching activities. Many people think having a sibling is more important than providing ballet, swimming and violin lessons. That's all. It's a perfectly valid choice. There's more to life than spending cash on frippery.

Childcare is expensive I recognise that, but relatively short term.

mycavitiesareempty · 26/03/2017 21:00

Gosh I must be very reckless, then. There is no way I'd save for a pension over having another child. That seems utterly joyless to me. Rather a smaller pension, or financial sacrifices when the kids are small, than in a putative future which might never come.

Original poster

AntiHop · 26/03/2017 22:44

mycavitiesareempty the problem is there aren't any significant financial sacrifices we could make. We don't have a car, we don't go on expensive holidays etc. And it's not just about a smaller pension, it's about my dp having no pension at all.

But as titchy points out, the expense that I am the most concerned about, childcare, will be over and done with in a few years. Good point.

SorrelSoup good point about raising a deposit for a BTL. I just discussed this with DP and I think it would be too risky. The bank may (not sure though) agree to lend us more money based on the equity in the flat we live in. But if we encountered any problems, such as unforeseen repairs or tenants not paying, we would be totally fucked as we'd be so over stretched already financially and we wouldn't be able to afford both mortgages.

OP posts:

titchy · 26/03/2017 23:19

Maybe aim for number two to be a summer baby so they can start school shortly after their 4th birthday!

SparkleSunshine201 · 27/03/2017 02:18

I Think you're very sensible to stick to one child and commend you for thinking it through. It's our duties as parents to concentrate our resources on our children and give them the best life we can. That can sometimes mean adjusting our former vision of our life.

titchy I thought your comment to grills was rude and unnecessary, she has got her life sorted just the way she likes! It's very admirable what she has done.

chanceofrain · 27/03/2017 02:34

I agree Sparkle, that was a horrid comment and I hope grills pays it no attention. As if titchy or any internet randomer knows anything about the current or future 'richness' of another poster's life. Ridiculous.

lightgreenglass · 27/03/2017 02:58

My DM died at 48, she was well prepared financially for retirement but never got there. She wished she worked part time when we were little and enjoyed everything a bit more. Its made me more plan for now and a bit for later as you never know what is going happen.

Me and DH have good jobs and our pensions are crap. I think it's a generational issue - I don't think any of us will have enough for retirement.

BeachyKeen · 27/03/2017 03:16

What if you got pregnant and it was twins?

ThatsNotAKnifeThatsASpoon · 27/03/2017 03:41

All of those saying you expect to work to you drop dead, what if you are not physically able for that? There are plenty of jobs that can't be done realistically past your mid 60s. And do you really think it'd be easy to find alternative employment then if you had to change jobs to something you could do?

Also lots of people have chronic or underlying health issues from their 60s onwards that would make it difficult to work at the rate they used to when they were younger. What happens then?

Another thing, maybe OP wants more than the bare minimum for her kid(s) when they grow up, and would like to be able to help out financially if she can, or be more physically present for her kids/grandkids in later life rather than worrying about working full time and paying her own bills in her 70s?

It's a bit reckless to just shrug and say you can work until you die.

haveacupoftea · 27/03/2017 06:30

I only want one child because I know we only make enough money to keep one child happy and comfortable growing up. Havent really considered my pension though. Surely theyll be away earning their own money by the time i'm pension age?

lostatsea1 · 27/03/2017 06:35

Saving for a pension is your best protection against poverty in old age

Having a larger family is your best protection against loneliness in old age

Both are a gamble - there are too many variables to know how things will play out in the future but the best advice is always get a balance between planning for the future and living for today.

Between prioritising money or love.

titchy · 27/03/2017 08:38

Yes agreed - apologies to grills, that was very rude of me.

In my defence the smugness of her post riled me, and I'm also an only child and loathe that fact.

RebelandaStunner · 27/03/2017 09:22

I'm all for financial planning but you are taking it a step to far. Have another child (or twins even!)
And sort out your (not just your DH's) pension/retirement savings asap.

megletthesecond · 27/03/2017 09:30

anti childcare isn't a short term expense IME. If you're working full time you might need breakfast and after school club (£12 a day per child) plus school holiday club (approx £35 a day per child). Ok, it's not quite as much as nursery but your bank balance still takes a hit until they finish junior school.

corythatwas · 27/03/2017 09:44

I think both standpoints are valid and you need to choose for yourself: either could be defended.

I do think Barbarian's comments are a bit harsh though: second-hand clothes and no private education doesn't necessarily mean our children are hard-done by and how much stuff their friends have will depend on the demographic- which in turn will depend on where you can afford to live. We are poorer than most of my colleagues and one benefit that has conferred is that our dc have relatively low expectations on spending money: their friends know how to have fun without spending a fortune.

BarbarianMum · 27/03/2017 09:57

In my defence, I didn't mean no second hand clothes or private education (my kids often have the former and never the latter). I meant that although most things - new clothes, music lessons, holidays, a phone, school trips - are nonessential and lots of kids don't have all of them, it is actually pretty crap being the child who can never have any of them. My own children certainly have several things I'd consider non essential because they are things enjoyed by their peers and I don't want them to always be the odd one out. They also have music lessons because they are both very musical (not something I was expecting and not something they got from me). Telling a very musical or sporty child "yeah, you could be really good at that but guess what - no money" is probably not a great feeling as a parent, although of course it happens.

The reference to education was specifically about the contribution to living allowance parents are expected to make - even if you get the full loan and necessary even if the student gets a job. Only found out about that this year and it made me really glad we'd stopped at 2 (for the first time).

AndKnowItsSeven · 27/03/2017 09:57

20% of 50% of household income is not a lot. It's not the pension saving you can't afford it's your current cost of living. You need to move to a cheaper property. One bed of necessary.

ElspethFlashman · 27/03/2017 09:59

It always astonishes me how on MN people seem to think that hobbies and "experiences" should be non-negotiable in a child's life.

And if you can't afford to give them bloody swimming lessons and piano lessons and pony riding and dance lessons that you may as well not have a child at all.

I have two. They won't be able to afford much like that, and may not go abroad till they can pay for it themselves at 19, like me. But big deal. They still will have a great upbringing, messing about on beaches with their cousins. They're clothed from Tesco and they eat from Aldi, and it's fine. When they're teens they will have demands - I'll try to give them a few of them but they'll know they can't get everything they want unless they get a summer job. No harm.

They may have to pay for their own weddings and their own house deposits. So what? I had to!

I can understand people using money as a reason not to have 4 or 5 kids, but not a second. They really don't double the expense. Childcare can be a bitch for the first three years but that's temporary.

titchy · 27/03/2017 10:07

The reference to education was specifically about the contribution to living allowance parents are expected to make - even if you get the full loan and necessary even if the student gets a job.

The full loan is £8000 a year outside London. I don;t know any university that charges more than £5000 for its cheapest accommodation (and there is less demand for the cheaper rooms), add on £1000 from a summer job and your student has a very respectable £100 a week to live on. So no, parental contributions aren't necessary on that. (If you're the squeezed middle, then yes a certain amount of planning might be necessary, but not if you're from a very low income household.)

FormerlyFrikadela01 · 27/03/2017 10:11

20% of 50% of household income is not a lot. It's not the pension saving you can't afford it's your current cost of living. You need to move to a cheaper property. One bed of necessary.

Is this what you believe life has become? Scrimping and scraping in our working years to pay for a retirment that might never come?

How depressing.

BarbarianMum · 27/03/2017 10:12

And the income threshold for the full loan tichy?

Butterfliesarefragile · 27/03/2017 10:21

I think it's responsible and whilst being able to afford private education and horse riding lessons is not necessary it's crap being poor. Love is the most important thing obviously to but how poor is the real question.

It's also true that no one knows what will happen health wise . I developed severe MH issues and was retired at a young age by my employers and given a large payout. I'm glad I started that pension at 21.

Flip

1 2 3