To think people without kids have more money?

[Zoomzoomzoomzoom0]

Than people with kids I mean. Twice this week I've had single child free friends tell me how
" lucky" I am that I have my husbands pension to " fall back on". I don't even know what that actually means, he has his pension, I have mine, we both work, 1 pension per person. Neither of us will be able to retire early. We have 2 kids. Kids cost a bloody fortune.
I sort of let it wash over me the first time, but the second remark ( different person) bugged me.
She said " Well I don't have my husbands pension to fall back on" so I said " You also don't have kids costing you a bloody fortune"
I don't care about other people's life choices, or how they spend their time or money, I honestly barely think about other people! Except today obviously 🤣
Both of these women obviously think I am financially better off than them. I've never thought about it, but how could I be??? ( we all work in the same industry btw, on similar wages)

@coffeeaddict77 I get your point. But I suppose what I am saying is that in my friendship group, people who earn around the same as me, notwithstanding having children, they all live in houses and have the mortgage paid for in full. This isn't the case for friends who are single on the same wage. Obviously this doesn't apply to all income groups. But if for example I went part time I couldn't actually pay the bills and mortgage for my flat, whereas my colleagues can and do go part time and have two children. The big difference seems to be those who have privately educated children which does make a massive difference. But those with children in state education, no I don't think it's more expensive because your lifestyle is different. Seriously, I go out a lot more because I would go nuts otherwise...

That's not correct, say the figure of £223 k is correct, and it can't really be as most people don't have that amount of spare tax free income. But evenso it doesn't mean a solo person is SAVING 223k because it's expensive to be single, base costs of housing, a car are the same and the other factors mentioned in posts...

You don't know their joint income though. Maybe they have had help from parents or perhaps they have just married people on high salaries.

The figure came from the Times, I googled it. As I said it's an average i.e. some people will spend more and some people will spend less.
I also made no comment about whether people were single or not, when trying to compare one variable you have to make other things equal i.e. if a couple with no children had similar salaries and outgoings to a couple with children clearly the childless couple would be hugely better off. But as I said all that doesn't take into account differences in incomes and personal circumstances. But the fact remains if you want your child to have an enriching childhood with opportunities provided for the best outcomes going into adulthood it is costly.

But that's my point, if you're single you have just your own salary, so lose your job and that's it.

If the breadwinner of a family loses their job they are probably in a worse position. The other adult will often only have a much lower paid part time job and there will be children to support as well as both adults. I was much more worried about job loss when I had children than before.

The housing and benefits system is a much better safety net for families than lone adults.

I purposefully chose to not reduce my hours and put a burden on one earner. Even for those who do reduce their hours, it’s only for a few years while the children are young. Most people I know need 2 full time incomes to support a family anyway. Of course you’d be more worried if you chose to work part time.

Lots of people work part time. That's often the most economical and often better for the children IME. Even if you both work full time, it would mean you salary is halfed with still the same number of people to support and expenses. Benefits aren't going to cover the costs if you have a mortgage or pay for childcare.

And of that happen your safety net is much better, you will be housed at the very least. I was made redundant only getting statutory amount which was 4 weeks in total and it was capped as the new laws had come in.

I signed up for JSA as it was called back in the day and was rejected and not allowed it. Even though I had been paying NI my entire adult life worked since I was 18 yrs old including through uni. NI is an insurance enough pay into and that should u need help if you fall on hard times its there for you...but it wasn't for me. You having children it will always be there for you!

For me it was find a job in 6weeks before the money ran out or my house would be repossession. After taking all my 20s to save up for a deposit, no holidays for 8yrs etc. To finally get on the ladder and then to be in that situation with no safety net was unbelievable stressful. I had to take a huge pay cut and take a job just to keep my house. Took me a further 2 yrs to get back to the salary I was on before.

So please stop whining you have it hard or its worse for you if you have kids. It really isn't.

With the introduction of the funded hours, many more people are working closer to full time. Regardless, even if your main earner lost their job, the part timer would be hugely supplemented by benefits - far more than any single adult.
You cannot compare a full time earning single adult with a family when the family makes the active choice not to work full time. 🤣

Maybe things will change in the future but I thought we were talking about the current situation. Plus, benefits wouldn't cover a mortgage or childcare if you pay (you wouldn't probably want to take children out immediately as wouldn't necessarily be able to get it back).

You’re wrong, UC would cover a considerable amount of childcare. So, there’s that.

Benefits wouldn’t cover a mortgage but it’s irrelevant if you have children or not. That point doesn’t stand. Nobody with a mortgage is in a good position if they lose their job and need to claim benefits. However, if a family with children lost their home, they would be high priority for council/ HA housing. A single adult (assuming no disabilities or other needs) would be way down the list. As it should be, of course. Children should not be homeless.

I don’t understand what you mean about “the future”. The current situation is that anyone earning under £100k per person receives the “free” funded childcare hours when your child is 3. This has been in place for some time. It’s being extended to younger children but the current funded hours have been in place for some time. There are families who could earn £99k per parent and have 30 funded term-time hours for their 3 year old! I’m not knocking it. I think it’s good and right. I’m glad the scheme is being extended too.

You’re hopelessly naive if you think having children does not prioritise you financially,.
This is morally right, of course, but it is a fact you are ignoring.

I just checked on turn2us and it wouldn't cover childcare at the moment. That's not surprising if one partner isn't working but I think most people wouldn't want to immediately take their children out as then if you get a job it might be hard to get it back, I stated that if one person was earning 26,000 a year, they would get

Regarding the current situation I'm thinking about the finances of all working people who have or have had children not just those whose children will be 3 years old in 2023 or 2024 ( I didn't get any help at all).

@GetWhatYouWant read the article. It is clear that a large proportion of the cost is childcare and calculated lost earnings from one person not working or not working full time.

@coffeeaddict77 If you are single you are only entitled to £83 a week UC. Plus if you are renting for most some of the cost of renting a room in a shared house. If you have no family help its really easy to end up homeless as a single person. And by homeless I mean on the streets homeless. The UN officially designated this level of income as absolute poverty.
A single woman who is homeless is incredibly vulnerable. It is not a place any woman would want to find themselves.

I don't know what your child free friends are talking about. DH and I are child free by choice and we're always saying how we don't know how people with kids have any money. You've basically got lodgers who don't contribute a thing and extra mouths to feed, bodies to clothe, activities etc...

Well, people without kids are paying for your kids education, healthcare, childcare and much more, OP.

So if they have a bit more disposable income then good for them.

DINKS double income no kids is a thing for a reason, it can equate to a very high disposable income if both have even just fairly well paid jobs

@coffeeaddict77

I don't think that usually applies to contribution based private sector ones usually nowadays though. Certainly mine doesn't.

We do contribute to teacher pension - it's not all paid for. I think it's around between 7.4%-10.2%. My DH has a few old pension schemes (with not much in them) but they also pay to the spouse. Maybe it's something that was more common in the 1990s early 2000s.

So I think in retirement age someone with a spouse would be better off. Firstly when they are alive they can share bills but then when they pass away the remaining spouse can get some of their pension.

You should check your pension as you may be able to nominate a beneficiary.

The acronym DIWKS dual income with kids is not a thing for a reason too.

You mean "hard working families" as they seem to be the people that count.

Yes, I didn't mean teachers don't contribute. I'm meant defined benefit pension (mostly public sector ones) versus contribution based ones. Mine pays out a lump sum if I die before receiving it or within five years of retiring. I can nominate anyone to receive it though. It isn't only something which benefits married people.

Of course people (usually) choose to have their children, but it stands to reason that where you’ve got 2 couples with roughly the same incomes and roughly the same rent/mortgage/bills costs, the couple with kids will have considerably less spare cash than the couple without.

My boss is married with four kids. He definitely has more money than me!

Yes, it is terrible. However, things aren't actually great for families that can't pay the rent or mortgage either. I realise that children are not on the street but 1 in 100 are homeless and living in temporary accommodation including emergency B&Bs and hostels which will have a huge negative impact on them. When I was single I am pretty sure that I would have been able to live with family or friends for a short time while I sorted out rented accommodation but I wouldn't have been able to do that with a family ((BIL has stayed with us in the past for this reason). It's also often easier to find accommodation yourself if you don't have children as unfortunately some landlords won't rent to families. I appreciate that isn't the same for everyone but it's not true that families are always in a better position that single people.