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)

But probably not as easy for the gay friends to have kids if they want them

Yes, when I had lodgers it was like a houseshare in that although i owned the house living room, kitchen etc were shared. I'm not sure why you are talking about the "emotional" aspects of being single in one's fifties given we are talking about financial. I'm not telling you what you should do either. I'm just telling you what some people do and what I would be happy doing. What you do is your choice just as what I would do would be mine.

Comparing living with the man you love and the children you choose is absolutely not the same as being financially stretched to the point where you choose 🙄🙄🙄 to live with strangers. I cannot believe this needs pointing out. I say this as someone with a husband and children btw.

Wow. Brutal.

I've heard cliches/anecdotes like this before but really struggle to reconcile the idea that having a child makes the difference between being loaded and being poor or, in this case, between running an old banger or a Porsche.

I'm sure that - ignoring school fees - DD didn't cost us anything like an additional £15k+ per year, which is realistically what DH's Porsche cost per year a few years back (with depreciation) when he had that.

If a couple with children has the same household salary as a childless couple then of course the childless couple has more money. A single person with a smaller salary will obviously have less money.

We are talking about the financial side of things so I'm not sure of your point. I actually wasn't "financially stretched" when I chose to live with lodgers in my early thirties although the rent they paid was obviously useful for paying the mortgage off.

I think people are confusing which situation is financially easier and which situation they would prefer emotionally. I know I would have been much better financially if I had remained single and had not got married and had children. Perhaps it is different if you don't have a professional job or qualifications and marry someone who does though.

Presumably you didn't pay for childcare or take drop in salary from working part time to look after them then. My children easily cost more than 15k a year once that is taken into account.

How many people here bend over backwards to make sure their children have their own space? You could easily room share with a child or put 3 children in one room or in a lounge and it’s much cheaper. So, for the parents saying it’s expensive to house a family… yes, of course but many choose to have a bigger home.

Wow you have just proved every person without kids is richer than every person with them, thread is OVER! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

(My parents had a Porsche when I was young and my childless self can’t afford to run a car. Anecdotes are fun!)

So you are arguing that it would be a terrible hardship for single adults to house share even though they would have their own room and space but fine for three teenagers to share a room.🤔

It's just different I think.
Being single is in some respects more expensive as we dont split mortgages, rent, utilities, food, holiday bills, etc etc.
But by the same token, we arent feeding additional young people with voracious appetites because they are growing.
Probably evens out in the end, somewhere.

I don't think it does even out. While being in a couple does cost a less than being single, the lower cost is far outweighed by children. They cost a fortune not just in terms of feeding and clothing but also childcare (or lower wages if you don't use it).

Okay. I dont have them so no idea of the costs of childcare etc.

Life is all about tradeoffs

No. People like you (and I) chose to have multiple children. Single people don’t often (sometimes they do) choose to be alone and in a financially precarious position. I don’t undertand what you don’t understand. 🤷🏻‍♀️ I don’t whine that it’s expensive to house my children and tell single people they should share with strangers. It is expensive to house my children but I’m very grateful and fortunate I’m not forced to share with strangers when I don’t want to but I have no financial choice!!

I think it’s fairly obvious a couple will be better off than a singleton in retirement. Kids do cost a fortune so you’re average family is generally poorer than a couple. Single people without kids can struggle all the way through as rent / life is so expensive for one.

YABU for this generalisation.

Yes, kids are expensive but you also chose to have them knowing that.

However, just because someone doesn't have children, doesn't mean that that automatically means they have more money than someone who does have kids.

You could have a dual-income family with kids who are making a lot more than someone who is living on a single income with no kids and vice versa.

It's not remotely as straightforward as "kids=poor" "no kids=rich."

Wealth can sometimes depend on if someone is single or married/in a couple. Often, if someone is with someone, they will have more money than someone who is single as a household.

I live alone and live on one income-with no kids, my brother and his wife live together with one child.

By and large, I'd say they have more disposable income than I do per month despite having a child due to their incomes being joint.

Just because someone doesn't have kids also doesn't mean that they don't have other financial burdens, too. Many choose to not have children due to the financial implications and their inability to meet it.

Maybe people shouldn't have multiple children if they can't afford to house them and don't want them to share a room? 🙄

We chose to pay for child care and I chose to continue working full time.

I don't get your point. You chose to do what you did.

My point is, many, many people have 1 or 2 children (or more) while working in low-paid, if not minimum wage jobs. To say that having a child means you can't have a Porsche when you otherwise could have done is, frankly, bollocks. If it were true, childless people would all be loaded but, clearly, they're not.

I think if you get husband to sign something you would be eligible for 50% of his pension once he passes away.

It doesn't work like that.

You can't choose not to pay for chidcare if you both work unless you think babies and young children can look after themselves.
If you hadn't paid for childcare one parent would have had to give up their job so they could look after the children and then live on one salary. How would three or four people living on one salary be better off than a single person living on the same salary.

That is not relevant.