To think £100k household income is enough

[Olive180]

A friend told me tonight that her and her partner have decided not to have kids, mainly because they can't afford to. Even though they're earning £102k a year between them.

Just for background: they own a 3 bed flat together with a £1000-ish per month mortgage (at least she mentioned that's how much it was a year ago) and they aren't big spenders, not into flashy stuff, quite homely and humble. She's very eco friendly/minimalist and buys stuff second hand when she can. So I don't think they're frittering their money away or anything.

Can you really not raise a family well on £100k a year? They do live in London zone 6.

40andlols helpful and available local grandparents help a lot! DM has DS2 2 days a week saves us £500 a month on nursery, and will happily look after a DC that is too ill for nursery but not so ill they need me/dh.

I live off less than £30k including all benefits and child maintenance. My child is school age though so childcare costs aren't high.

We earned pretty much that when we had DD and were still in London.
On paper it's loads but by the time you add in rent/mortgage, childcare (easily £1500 a month for full time place), travel (we were zone 8 and paid £750 between us), regular bills etc not much is left at the end of the month!
We're now up north near family; no childcare or travel costs and we have SO much more disposable income.

Perhaps she wants to do other things with her money and not just pay bills? Perhaps she has private debts or commitments that you know nothing about? You’re being rather nosy here. Nothing to do with you. Perhaps she’s telling you that because she doesn’t want to give another reason. My sister tells people she’s not keen on kids and they are too expensive to have. She’s actually infertile but just doesn’t want to have to explain herself to busybodies.

Nursery three days a week, nanny two days a week. Nanny is £400 per week, Nursery just under £2,000 per month.

For three years, until the eldest goes to school.

If we copied everyone else in the street and went to the local private school that’d be £20,000 per year each, too, plus trips, uniforms etc.

Fortunately our boys seem educationally normal so should do fine in the state school.

Surely if you’re paying this for three years you must a) have a very small age gap and b) not be entitled to the 30 hours (unlike the couple described in the OP)?

There are a lot of options for reducing the yearly amount including having only one child, having a bigger age gap, working part-time/compressed hours, using a childminder instead of a nanny.

I’m not saying that any of these are ‘better’ choices as it will depend on individual circumstances and preferences but just pointing out that there are options. It’s not a foregone conclusion that having kids means spending £42k a year on childcare.

You don't know the full extent of their finances, and you also don't know whether what she told you was genuine.

They may be struggling to conceive, and she finds it easier to tell people that they can't afford children than to say the truth.

They may simply not want children, by she doesn't want to attract negative judgements by saying so. Saying you don't want children often prompts all kinds of shitty comments.

We’re in a similar position earning £105k between us, and we’re in the north west so our salaries go quite far.

We could afford to have kids, but we don’t want to sacrifice our lifestyle. Having children would require us to tighten our belts, give up some small luxuries, and we’d lose a lot of income if I took a year’s mat leave. We just don’t want DC that much. Maybe we’ll change our minds, maybe we won’t 🤷🏼‍♀️

Agreed, it could be done cheaper, but ours is just the normal local nursery, and the nanny is employed directly, so there are no agency fees.

I don’t know how the free hours works on £100k, we’re higher earners, so don’t get them.

Anyone earning under £100k as an individual (not as a household) can get 30 free hours.

Just to clarify, I agree, it is none of my business. I'm not questioning their decisions at all.

I'm asking because me and DP earn less than this and wondering if having kids would be a huge financial strain.

Except that's not the question you asked.

If you wanted to know if children were affordable for you, you would have posted: "I earn [x] and DP earns [y], and our current disposable income after mortgage/utility bills is [z] - can we afford children? How much does childcare etc. cost?"

Instead, you just invited everyone to judge someone who earns more than you who is choosing not to have kids, for reasons that you don't actually know.

Hearing lots of people say "Yes, £100k is enough" tells you the square root of bugger all about your own situation.

And the fact that you've not stopped to consider whether her explanation might be just to stop nosey judgemental folk like you shows that you are one of thos types who think that all women should want to have children if possible.

It didn't even occur to you that she was just politely ending the conversation, did it? That whether or not she wants children, and her reasons, are none of your business?

If you were a close enough friend for her to confide that sort of thing you wouldn't have posted this thread.

Full-time nursery for 2 or full-time nanny plus cost of clubs and activities could easily come close to that.

Clearly they could afford children if they really wanted them. What they mean is "we can't continue living the life we live now and have children". And they want that more than they want children, which is a perfectly valid decision.

It would be enough for us but does vary depending on outgoing costs/social stuff/age you want to retire. They may even only want to have kids if they can afford to put them into private school.

No one ever feels they need to explain why they have children.

I don’t have children, and I have never really wanted children: But since I hit forty me not having children has become something people expect an explanation for!

its awful that this poor woman felt she needed to explain, and the reason is now being critiqued by her friend!

the assumption that everyone must be desperate to have children therefore there must be some huge insurmountable issue is ridiculous. We aren’t all the same

I'm on benefits, I have a hidden disability, I would work if I could and I'm looking at finding a job I could do. But its so ridiculous that people who have obviously worked very hard to be on salaries of 100k cant afford to have children themselves but pay over 30k of that towards tax so that people on low incomes who could work but don't can pop out children they haven't worked for. Where I used to live there was a woman who had a child every year and is still popping them out now she must have over 10 kids just because she likes having babies and she's on benefits. And before anyone says anything, there's no way she could mentally or physically afford to have children if she had a disability that prevented her from working

You can't claim benefits for any children born after April 2017 if you have more than 2 children so stop with the bullshit posts.

The phrase "popping then out" is pure misogyny.

The whole post is. The poster is on benefits themself and thinks they have the right to judge who is worthy of them.

And the Katie Hopkins award for fiction goes to...