Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think people without kids have more money?

306 replies

Zoomzoomzoomzoom0 · 20/12/2023 20:46

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)

OP posts:
coffeeaddict77 · 22/12/2023 22:26

Teder · 22/12/2023 17:31

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!!

How is whether I chose to have children relevant to the question of whether I would have been better off financially if I hadn't🤔

Anahenzaris · 23/12/2023 06:53

YABU. Financially, single women are the most vulnerable. There is no reason to expect that you must be in a more difficult financial position than your solo friends because you have children. Naturally, some single women and men are wealthy, some couples are in extreme poverty. But as you are all earning similar wages, and it sounds like not in poverty - yes your dual income status puts you at a huge advantage over a single income.

Now, you may choose to spend very large amounts of money on your kids, even to the point of financial harm. But often there’s options to reduce spending if needed.

A few things to think about

  • solo people have no backup. If they lose their income they have nothing. A couple both with the ability to work can more easily get one into basic employment and had openings for both to take on basic jobs (supermarket, fast food etc) to keep their head above water. A solo person instantly had half the income potential (once children are in school rather than private care - both parents working is an option without high fees).
  • solo people are at the bottom of the list for govt support eg housing (people with kids are much higher) - when this go wrong there’s limited charity or welfare directed towards single childless people (unless they are old enough)
  • many expenses come with couple and family discounts. This can be everything from health care, insurances and govt fees and taxes through to luxuries like holidays, entrance fees etc
  • As households increase in size the per person cost decreases (until you pass a threshold) there are many things where multiple users have a negligible increase in cost or a comparatively much smaller one. Eg a family car. A family can access 1 car for almost the same cost as 1 person. It might not be convenient to share a car between a couple, but it is possible. Another example: fresh food. Many items cost substantially more if buying in small quantities. You pay almost as much rent to house a single person with the same luxuries as a family (having a kitchen, laundry, lounge room etc). If you doubled my rent you have a massive increase in luxury that goes beyond extra space for a couple kids (this is no longer true if you have 10 kids, but for a small number of kids it is still true)
  • solo people often have to pay for things society supports for couples / things couples can do for cheaper. Eg couples often can access paid leave not available to a solo person for care. A solo person may need to hire a carer while a couple person can use paid carers leave to receive the same care. Even things as simple as being able to be dropped off or picked up rather than needing to pay for Ubers. Even things as simple as getting something upstairs can require hiring a worker rather than doing it together.
  • Retirement planning often needs to start young. People with children are more likely to have someone to help them in their retirement - be that providing care or financially. Solo people need to plan to have to purchase that assistance, won’t have 2 pensions, and won’t have any discounts from being a couple. Simple things like picking up the shopping or changing a light bulb can get expensive. Until very recently, it was illegal for you to live as an older person in a granny flat if you didn’t have an approved relationship with the owners - kids were approved relationships (friends definitely were not)
  • it is harder to get a mortgage as single income than doubled (each adult on same decent income) with a small number of children - which limits property investment, pathways into secure housing etc (where I live rentals are not long term, and even with a lease you can loose the place no fault of the owner wants it back for themselves).
  • even small savings while young can hand huge impacts on long term financial position. If my household savings had been able to go up even 10% above what I managed solo I’d have been in the property market years earlier - my mortgage would likely be half (for both of us) we’d be paying down faster. When I compare myself to those around me (couples) with kids - I’m not even close to catching up to those on comparable incomes to me.

this list isn’t even exhaustive. The data I’ve seen suggests it costs about 1.5x what it does for a solo rather than small family day to day. When kids are pre-school aged couples with kids can struggle more - but over the long term they are in markedly stronger financial positions (just don’t get divorced!). Getting ahead while working has a huge impact on financial security in retirement. Even if 100% of the second went to essentials for the whole family (so no additional savings, no additional investment in a mortgage etc) you would still have the compulsory retirement savings of a second person - so double the forced savings for your retirement, so conservatively 25% more each than your single mate (and that’s with no help from your kids for anything)

Now that doesn’t mean kids aren’t expensive. It also doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t be able to complain about the cost of kids.

But you do need to understand that financially it can be very risky if you are solo. And it’s also ok for your friends to feel frustrated that there’s a lot of costs to being solo that aren’t often thought of. Too many people think solo=rich. Political narrative is often around helping families, lowering costs for families. It can be frustrating when people don’t even acknowledge that being solo has a financial cost that can really impact quality of life.

I’m using solo to mean not coupled not with children as opposed to single, where there can also be children. The above is also assuming all the adults have approximately equal income, and there’s no major costs hitting one group not the other (a complex disability in either group is just not an equal comparison any more)

KimberleyClark · 23/12/2023 07:33

Another example: fresh food. Many items cost substantially more if buying in small quantities.

This is true, it’s getting more and more difficult to buy,for example, milk in pints or two pint containers. Even just as a couple we have little chance of getting through a 4 Pinter before it goes off.

converseandjeans · 23/12/2023 07:49

@coffeeaddict77

It doesn't work like that

I'm pretty sure 50% of my teachers pension will go to DH if anything happens to me first. I had to nominate him.

KimberleyClark · 23/12/2023 07:51

converseandjeans · 23/12/2023 07:49

@coffeeaddict77

It doesn't work like that

I'm pretty sure 50% of my teachers pension will go to DH if anything happens to me first. I had to nominate him.

Yes, I’ll get 50% of my DH’s pension if he dies first, he’ll get half of mine if I die first.

KimberleyClark · 23/12/2023 07:54

KimberleyClark · 23/12/2023 07:51

Yes, I’ll get 50% of my DH’s pension if he dies first, he’ll get half of mine if I die first.

Talking about occupational pension here, not state.

coffeeaddict77 · 23/12/2023 11:24

@Anahenzaris While it is true that costs per person usually go down to some extent the more people in a household the fatal flaw in most of your argument is that the proportion of people earning money in that household also decreases greatly so the money has to be divided between a lot more people.
For example, a single person earning 50K will be able to spend the money just on themselves. In a family with two adults and two young children one adult might be earning 50K but the second adult will either be earning a lot less or most or all of their income will effectively be spent on childcare. The children won't be earning anything at all but still have to be fed and clothed.
I do agree that single people are often more vulnerable than families if they loose their job but even then it's not always the case. e.g. we were able to accommodate single BIL for a couple of months when he lost his job but wouldn't have had a room in the house for a whole extra family. Regardless, I think this is a discussion on who is better off if earning the same amount of money from a job rather than who is better off on benefits.

coffeeaddict77 · 23/12/2023 11:45

KimberleyClark · 23/12/2023 07:51

Yes, I’ll get 50% of my DH’s pension if he dies first, he’ll get half of mine if I die first.

Yes, it does seem some older public sector pensions will pay out to the spouse (although I don't think as much as 50%). I don't think that usually applies to contribution based private sector ones usually nowadays though. Certainly mine doesn't.

mantyzer · 23/12/2023 12:04

Some contribution based private pensions do pay out to the spouse.

mantyzer · 23/12/2023 12:07

When I was young and single I had a job helping underprivileged families. Most seemed better off than me.
When I was single I was earning a low wage with no entitlement to benefits and no help from anyone. It was tough.

GetWhatYouWant · 23/12/2023 12:18

The latest estimate is that it costs on average £223k to bring up a child from 0 to 18. Therefore on similar salaries people without children will be hugely financially better off, it stands to reason.
Of course because of income disparities you can't say that people without children are always better off.

mantyzer · 23/12/2023 12:25

But people with children often get benefits.

mantyzer · 23/12/2023 12:29

The cost of bringing up a child includes childcare. And most get free nursery and childcare vouchers. And that figure is hugely over inflated. Most families do not spend £48300 in their child when they are 0 to 3 years old.

coffeeaddict77 · 23/12/2023 12:55

mantyzer · 23/12/2023 12:29

The cost of bringing up a child includes childcare. And most get free nursery and childcare vouchers. And that figure is hugely over inflated. Most families do not spend £48300 in their child when they are 0 to 3 years old.

I don't know much about free childcare nowadays but it didn't exist when my children were 0-3 years. Does everyone get it now?

LumiB · 23/12/2023 13:16

It doesn't matter how much if costs to bring up a kid it doesn't make a solo person more richer. As its been said time and again, if the disposable income left over is the same then its your choices that determine how its spent. You choose to have children so your disposable money goes on thag another chooses not to and spend it holidays, clothes etc.

They don't magically have more money. Its the same amount of money just spent differently

And if you resent the cost of raising children dont have them.

CagneyAndLazy · 23/12/2023 13:58

mantyzer · 23/12/2023 12:29

The cost of bringing up a child includes childcare. And most get free nursery and childcare vouchers. And that figure is hugely over inflated. Most families do not spend £48300 in their child when they are 0 to 3 years old.

Exactly this.

Some people won't have even had £48,300 in net income in 3 years.

There's so much nonsense spouted about how much children cost, with people adding on the cost of luxuries like choosing to give up work to look after them.

Livelifelaughter · 23/12/2023 14:10

So I am single and it's very expensive. In my friendship circle everyone married lives in a house and those who are single don't.
Also you tend to go out more to socially connect rather than sit on your own at home, it's not unusual for my single friends to go out 3 times a week when I was in a relationship a lot more time was spent cooking together at home.
At the end of the day you have two incomes even if you treat your finances separately; if one of you lost your job and couldn't afford to pay their share of the bills well the other isn't going to let you starve.
I find it quite annoying when people with two incomes with children think they are worse off than a single person, you spend a lot as a single person, and don't start me on holidays...

CagneyAndLazy · 23/12/2023 14:11

GetWhatYouWant · 23/12/2023 12:18

The latest estimate is that it costs on average £223k to bring up a child from 0 to 18. Therefore on similar salaries people without children will be hugely financially better off, it stands to reason.
Of course because of income disparities you can't say that people without children are always better off.

That's £12.5k PER YEAR, PER CHILD.

There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of 2-child families where the parents would not have anywhere near £25k NET per year spare before having children. Many wouldn't have 10% of that completely spare.

How on earth do even 2 average earners both working full time (let alone those on low pay) have over £2k spare per month over and above all other living costs?

It's just total and utter nonsense.

UNLESS... the average parent is receiving so much in in-work benefits that it covers the huge gulf between salaries and that ridiculous £12.5k per year? In which case it's completely irrelevant for a comparison with how much better off childless people are, because those people are not receiving the benefits.

Beezknees · 23/12/2023 14:12

CagneyAndLazy · 23/12/2023 14:11

That's £12.5k PER YEAR, PER CHILD.

There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of 2-child families where the parents would not have anywhere near £25k NET per year spare before having children. Many wouldn't have 10% of that completely spare.

How on earth do even 2 average earners both working full time (let alone those on low pay) have over £2k spare per month over and above all other living costs?

It's just total and utter nonsense.

UNLESS... the average parent is receiving so much in in-work benefits that it covers the huge gulf between salaries and that ridiculous £12.5k per year? In which case it's completely irrelevant for a comparison with how much better off childless people are, because those people are not receiving the benefits.

I definitely do not spend £2k a month on DS. That's my entire month wages including benefits and I'm a lone parent

whimsicalmoon · 23/12/2023 14:14

coffeeaddict77 · 22/12/2023 00:33

I'm not sure how old you are and I don't see what it has to do with age anyway. I sometimes go away for a few days with friends rather than DH and we usually share rooms to keep costs down. We're in our 50s. I lived in shared houses in my early 30s and would probably do so again if I was single. I get that you don't want to but it is a choice.

No, it's not a choice. I'm nearly 40, and I have disabilities and chronic health issues, and now increasingly bad mental health as a result of the things I've mentioned. I don't want to flat share like a student. I would love to have a normal life and a "DH" but I don't. I'm making the best of what I have and trying to survive. I would not be able to live with random people. It's not at all the same being married and choosing to go away with friends as having nobody to go with.

Your lack of empathy is disgusting.

ChocolateTVandbaby · 23/12/2023 14:24

There are so many variables

it's not just kids he no kids

and even if it were, most people would and do choose to have the kids

Teder · 23/12/2023 15:27

whimsicalmoon · 23/12/2023 14:14

No, it's not a choice. I'm nearly 40, and I have disabilities and chronic health issues, and now increasingly bad mental health as a result of the things I've mentioned. I don't want to flat share like a student. I would love to have a normal life and a "DH" but I don't. I'm making the best of what I have and trying to survive. I would not be able to live with random people. It's not at all the same being married and choosing to go away with friends as having nobody to go with.

Your lack of empathy is disgusting.

It reminds me of those threads where people say they’re lonely as they have no Christmas plans and you get a bunch of sanctimonious twats say “oh I’m cooking for 15 people and I’d love to be alone”.

It’s easy to say you’d flat share if you’re single when you’re not bloody single!!

coffeeaddict77 · 23/12/2023 16:35

whimsicalmoon · 23/12/2023 14:14

No, it's not a choice. I'm nearly 40, and I have disabilities and chronic health issues, and now increasingly bad mental health as a result of the things I've mentioned. I don't want to flat share like a student. I would love to have a normal life and a "DH" but I don't. I'm making the best of what I have and trying to survive. I would not be able to live with random people. It's not at all the same being married and choosing to go away with friends as having nobody to go with.

Your lack of empathy is disgusting.

Don't be ridiculous. I haven't given an opinion on whether you should or shouldn't live by yourself. I have said it is a choice which is something you have said yourself given that you live by yourself because you don't want to share.

coffeeaddict77 · 23/12/2023 16:40

Livelifelaughter · 23/12/2023 14:10

So I am single and it's very expensive. In my friendship circle everyone married lives in a house and those who are single don't.
Also you tend to go out more to socially connect rather than sit on your own at home, it's not unusual for my single friends to go out 3 times a week when I was in a relationship a lot more time was spent cooking together at home.
At the end of the day you have two incomes even if you treat your finances separately; if one of you lost your job and couldn't afford to pay their share of the bills well the other isn't going to let you starve.
I find it quite annoying when people with two incomes with children think they are worse off than a single person, you spend a lot as a single person, and don't start me on holidays...

The two incomes is spent on more than two people and often it is more like one and a half incomes at best if one person is working part time so they can look after the children.

coffeeaddict77 · 23/12/2023 16:48

LumiB · 23/12/2023 13:16

It doesn't matter how much if costs to bring up a kid it doesn't make a solo person more richer. As its been said time and again, if the disposable income left over is the same then its your choices that determine how its spent. You choose to have children so your disposable money goes on thag another chooses not to and spend it holidays, clothes etc.

They don't magically have more money. Its the same amount of money just spent differently

And if you resent the cost of raising children dont have them.

Why would someone without children resent the cost of having them? Or do you mean that someone who does have children but resents the cost should go back in time and not have them?