3rd kid - Finances - AIBU?

[Bubblesintheair88]

Many times I read in threads that the valid reason for not having a 3rd kid is finances.

Please don't get me wrong but I don't fully get it.

I mean uni fees is of course something to consider, nursery fees too. But if you space your kids 3-4 years apart then these issue is not an issue anymore? In my mind, if kids are spaced apart wisely then it doesn't make any difference if you have 1, 2, 3 or more kids in terms of nursery fees and uni fees, no?

Also, I read sometimes that hotel rooms are expensive. But people can rent airbnb etc. so this issue is not an issue anymore?

I also read that there are no family tickets for 5 usually. I get this point but 1. how often do you go to such places? and 2. is this a valid reason for not having one more child?

In terms of finances the only real one to me is to give a house deposit to each kid as this doesn't change no matter how wisely you space your kids apart.

Any thoughts on this?

YABU - You haven't thought it right
YANBU - You are right

The above message is how I feel too!

A family doesn't have to be a business transaction.

There are things in life that money can't buy.

Unfortunately, the retirement/savings/outgoings are the consequence of feeling like you have to have it all! Having a family whether it be 1 or 10 will be more expensive than having none?!

You don’t need a reason. “Valid” or not. And your reasoning is very flawed anyway

I guess it depends on how much you earn. So for uni it took us 10 years to save up the 48k needed to help our 2 kids through (8k per child per year for accommodation/living expenses). If I'd had a third child saving that money would have taken even longer and we'd then have needed another 24k.

I guess if you have the sort of salary where you can pay their living expenses directly when they go that's not a problem but that's not the case for many, including us.

We paid 6k per DC per year and didn’t save anything towards it so it wasn’t too bad for us.

Surely spacing three kids out to space out the larger kid based costs isn't a great idea as then you end up with a 1, 5 & 9ish year old, then 5, 9 & 13 ish. How do you entertain them? What holidays/ days out can you do?
When your 3 year old wants to go to pepper pig world and the older one wants to go to Alton towers what do you do?

So why 1-2 is fine but 2-3 is not?

Depends on your finances. I know people that will only have one due to finances. For us, 2 was comfortable.

What a spectacularly dense opening post.

Two’s company, three’s a crowd! The old saying is true in many ways for finances. The additional cost is there. Spreading Dc out just prolongs the financial agony! I know mums who adore babies and even after 4 would have 5. Mostly well off people. Or people with very engaged parents!

Well, for me we stopped at 2 and it was financial. Nursery fees were crippling, £1000 per month for each child and then when 30 free hours kicked in after they turned 3 it was £500 a month. It was almost the equivalent of my entire wage (although DH and I share all finances, we wouldn't have been worse off financially if I'd given up work.) I didn't want to do that as I wanted to keep my job, pension contributions etc so we gritted our teeth and just saw it as short term pain for longer term gain. If we'd had a third child that would have extended that difficult financial time even further.

Plus, once they go to school it's not cheap either. After school clubs and holidays clubs cost us £150 a month per child. So for two of them we still pay £300 a month to make sure we have cover for us to work as we don't have any family help. A third child would add another £150 a month to our bills which is more than a full week's food shopping. We just can't afford it. Or we could, but it would be a stretch and I don't see the need for it.

I get the argument that sticking at one would have been even cheaper so why have two? However for us it was that we were giving DD1 a sibling and the benefit of that outweighed the financial hit. There's not that argument for a third child though. DDs don't need another sibling.

Then the age thing. If I'd spaced out 3 as you're suggesting I'd be 40 when I had a third and I didn't want to be that old. Pregnancy risks, being more tired, more years of working part time. If I'd met DH later in life and I'd happened to be that age having baby one or two then fine, but again I didn't see it as worth the risk just to have a third.

And yes, of course everything becomes more expensive. Not only that you then need two hotel rooms rather than one, or that you can't afford to help the children as much with uni/house deposits etc but just that general everyday life becomes far more expensive. Shopping, swimming lessons, days out, school uniform etc etc. What's so difficult to understand?

Have you factored in the cost of mobile phones and laptops? They can't be passed on like clothes can.

Have you considered how stressful it can be to support teenagers through their problems, often caused by outside agencies?

I thought not.

It's not just the uni costs, or the daily food and clothing etc costs. For 3 kids you most likely need another bedroom, so bigger house. And you definitely can't fit 3 car seats in a standard car. It's required for kids to be in seats/boosters until roughly 12 years of age. Even if you "space them out", you still need 3 seats in the back. Not possible. You would have to buy a 7 seater.

It's been mentioned already up thread but I think the career implications are another huge expense via missed earnings. Anecdotal but of the few mums of three I know, they have stayed working three days permanently or had long career breaks. It all means less in the pot for days out, savings etc. It also means that depending on your industry you could find it hard to get back in after a big gap by the time three kids are more independent.
Obviously unimportant if having three is what you want but others will factor it into their family planning. It's nice to have extra resources.

Don't understand why you're not understanding.

Childcare costs are crippling. It's not a matter of spacing them out so you can merrily pay for more. Many parents just about get through that period as a 'loss-leader' and then take a while to get remotely back on an even keel. It only works at all because after 4/5 years x 2 it stops. Extending that to more like 15 years is untenable and people would sink under the debt, especially when faced with all the other costs of having a third. Even dining out these days can easily hit £100 for a family of 4 at a non-fancy restaurant and the cinema costs a small fortune (£48 here for a family ticket i.e. 2 adults 2 kids, plus snacks).

I won't go on because it's blindingly obvious that three costs way more than two and if you're not minted want to have enough money to have a buffer and not be fucked by the endless financial crises, then you factor that in more sensibly than your fundamentally flawed 'space the kids out' strategy.

I knew a woman who had babies 5 years apart. She spent most of her adult life bringing up small children.

A larger sedan might do it. I had three preschoolers with a sedan. You'd want to try it first before buying though. We didn't need the 7 seater till #4 arrived.

We’ve got two (wanted three, didn’t partly due to money)

extras to think about
clubs and other activities
clothes, shoes etc
extra pocket money
extra presents at christmas
extra birthday presents and parties
every day out, ice cream, treat etc is extra

Not only that but most normal families earning an average wage have other financial goals that mean they feel the need to choose either/or. Me and my OH have decided against a 3rd as it means the things we want to do with the house etc will be pushed back another few years and potentially might not happen at all. We want to move but a 3rd will mean we need it even more and can afford it even less!

On the car thing, they need to be in car seats until 12 or until they’re 135cm which for lots of kids is younger. Our (admittedly tall for her age) oldest was almost 8 when our youngest was born & she went in the middle in a backless booster with her little brothers in car seats either side of her. So, it is doable without a 7 seater depending on the heights/ ages of the kids. Bit of a squash though - so I’d say there were times we consciously did less long drives.

I have one child, I would have loved more & she is desperate for a sibling but I can't afford it. Paying nursery fees years later doesn't make it any easier it just means you have other childcare costs on top of it for school aged children. If you want 3 kids and can afford it then go ahead, but people who want a third and don't do it, aren't generally worried about 'putting extra tomatoes in their bolognese' they are usually worried about how it would affect their existing children financially. If you can afford it and want to, then go ahead. If you can't then it's a struggle.

How can you not see that 3 sets of uni / childcare / all the costs of having a kid are more than 2 sets.

Did you fail maths?!

Balance.

And you sound like a bloke with your phrasing of "you" when talking to us "wimmens"

Haha, some of the comments made me laugh.

1. I am a woman
2. I have studied engineering

Love maths and trust me I have already a huge spreadsheet done for our potential third kid.

But as a PP said not all things can be justified in numbers… and if there is a will there is a way?

As with all things, you can't have everything, which you probably know anyway, so don't need to be told. You may have to make decisions like third kid or holiday, third kid or more expensive food items, third kid or bigger house. You can't have it all, so we all have to make the choices about our priorities.

Sure, but that's an emotional argument, nothing to do with the dodgy logic in your OP about spacing DC out meaning they don't cost as much.

Also where there is a will, there isn't always a way, whether you have one DC or three or six. Just dip into the CoL threads and see how people are struggling with debt and homelessess and resulting relationship pressures. They can't 'will' their way out of that. Sure if it's just a matter of forgoing a few luxuries, then some can suck it up and have bigger families. But it's not at all a given.

not everything can be justified in numbers

Discussing the financial commitments around having a third child is all about numbers.

"Where there's a will there's a way" is a delightful saying which takes no account of finite capacity.