To think we should be able to afford 2 kids?

[bookofthewitch]

H and I both work as teachers. Me currently part time after DD born 18mo ago.

We have always done everything 'sensibly', have reasonably cheap for the area mortgage and various other unavoidable payments for bills etc. Old phones on cheap contracts.

No childminder option near us and I would have chosen nursery anyway, however this is very expensive so me working only leaves us 200 a month better off. It is what it is.

How the hell are we struggling so much each month to stay out of overdrafts when we've both always done everything ' right'?

AIBU to think that as professionals who have both always worked since teens, never even had credit cards or extravagant purchases, we should be able to afford one more child instead of panicking that it'll tip us into debt or just mean we have to worry about money and bills forever? We haven't had a holiday since 2017, have one cheap car that we own outright, I never buy new clothes and wear cheap make up, we are vegetarian so try to shop as cheaply as poss... it's infuriating!

I feel like my mother's and even my late 40s sister's generations never had to worry about this and could happily have as many kids as they want. Both were SAHM for a few years too! I could never as even that 200 a month makes a difference to us.

Any advice also welcome!

If you're on M3 you must be fairly early in your career. Are you still paying off student loans?

Conversely if you're more than five years in to your career and on M3 then you need to get serious about pay progression.

@WonderfulYou well that’s not really the true costs. OP also needs to factor in the cost to her of not contributing to a pension and the deficit this will have when she reaches retirement age (accounting for compound interest). She also needs to ensure her calculations factor in her DH contributing towards her pension whilst she is SAHM/PT, DH also needs to contribute to her NI contributions and she needs to work out the cost of not progressing up her career ladder as quickly. Then add on the direct costs eg childcare and travel etc. most people will actually find they are far worse off in the long term if they became a SAHM or went PT regardless of immediate childcare costs.

It’s not about the current costs. It’s about the impact of the costs long term

Childcare costs vary so much across the country that it's very difficult to judge without that information, ditto mortgage costs.

A poster up thread suggested they were paying c. £800 a month for full time childcare - but we paid more than this 8.5 years ago when our elder was at nursery. Pricier areas, with more expensive houses (and larger mortgages) also beget more expensive childcare. I had a quick look at our old nursery's fees, which was in no way one of the more expensive ones in the area, and they're £75 a day now - which is almost £1,000 a month for three days a week.

I could well see that a couple spending £1,000 a month on mortgage costs and the same on childcare would struggle to see how they could afford another child.

OP, my suggestion to you is to space them - I went back to work as DD1 started primary school which meant that DD2 was in nursery and we only had the wraparound care costs to pay for DD1. We were lucky and found a fantastic childminder who had DD2 all day and did the school pick up (and fed them both dinner which was a massive bonus when we're all getting home at 6.30 - not having to rush to shovel food into them before bed is lovely).

I'm in the same age bracket as your sister, but certainly could never have afforded to be a SAHM. We managed by waiting until older than planned originally, so we could save up, having a 3 year age gap, and living very frugally. This included some time living in a do-er Up-er with no heating, no sofas etc. oh, and when we realised we weren't earning enough, my husband gave up his job and set himself up as self employed, which was a huge risk at the time.

Can't say we found it at all easy. It was certainly worth it though, as I've managed to progress quite well in my career, and should be able to support them through university.

It’s a real shame op but I agree, things are more expensive now. The fact that house price rises are so much higher than earning rises have been.
How old are you? I know people who wait for a larger age gap for that reason, particularly if you think you or Dh will be able to get promotions any time soon.

That’s why people are having children a lot later and only having 1 or 2 maximum.

@forcedfun

If you bought a house that needs renovating in an expensive area (for the catchment) and choose to work part time then it is a bit baffling that you are now surprised to find it will involve careful planning to afford a second child. You've already made a number of expensive decisions.

I agree with that.

It is very strange that a new boiler has wiped out your savings. That would imply that your savings were no more than a couple of thousand.

You have a child. It isn't a right to have as many children as you want.

It isn't a right to have as many children as you want, but the op wants 2. The op presumably thought that working hard in school, attaining high enough a levels to go to uni, then doing a part graduate qualification and getting a professional job would provide her with enough of a living to afford 2 kids.

And if she's on m3 and paying mortgage etc, as well as possibly trying to have some life outside school, she probably hasn't got much over in terms of savings.

I don't think it's unreasonable to lump "boomers" together when you're talking about macro level government policy. Blaming every boomer equally for the utter mess the UK is in from an impossible housing market to an implausible and unfair tax system would be ridiculous. However, pointing out that there are a lot of them, that they are more likely to vote than other cohorts and policy decisions tend to favour that age group as a result is a valid argument that can be backed up by evidence.

For example, the Health and Social Care levy that increases national insurance by 1.25% is a terrible idea except for a vote seeking politician. It penalises lower earners the most, it fails to ensure older people pay a fair share for the new provision and it is not based on an ability to pay. Families will lose out whilst those already of retirement age won't pay anything regardless of how wealthy they are.

This is not isolated. National insurance is the tax of choice for governments to raise at a time that those of the "boomer" cohort are reaching an age that they won't pay it. It's also been a choice of government to ringfence elderly spending whilst cutting everything else.

That doesn't mean you can point a finger at an elderly relative and blame them but you absolutely can attack the government for prioritising one cohort over all the others.