To think actually, kids DO cost a lot!

[Onth3fence]

Me and my DH are giving serious thought to being one and done. We are expecting our first baby at the moment.

The topic of conversation came up with some family members who all had 2-3 DC and were very adamant that they are, I quote, ‘as expensive as you make them’ and having more doesn’t make much difference financially.

I just can’t see how (other than possibly hand-me-down clothing) that that could be in any way true.

Surely the more you have, the more the average family has to divide resources? And it is all the consumables x2.

We both pretty much earn the UK average wage. This is unlikely to improve hugely and that is fine, we enjoy our careers and the work-life balance we get in return. When I return to work childcare is going to be a huge cost, even if the funded hours come to fruition it will only be a small saving. Most daycare is around £70-90 a day here. Child-minders a bit cheaper, if you can get one.

I don’t see how we would finance a second in the early years. If we wait until our first is school age, we will still presumably need to have wraparound care for mornings and evenings plus 1/3 of the year that they’re not in school to find childcare for.

We want to be able to put savings away for them to help them when they need it, such as for education, driving or buying their own home. I’m not talking private school or gifting a whole deposit, more uni accommodation fees & a small leg up onto the housing ladder.

I can’t imagine we are at all alone in this predicament, as much as it would be wonderful to have more than one I am not sure if that supersedes the chance less help, less experiences and opportunities for the first, less holidays for all of us and eye-watering nursery bills for longer. To me that just seems like a really big compromise to make?

It's true that lost earnings and lost career progress/potential earnings are probably the biggest cost of having children.

But it depends entirely on what you want from life. If you want to spend maximum time at work in order to have a nice house big car expensive holidays everything new, that is one option.

Other people value time spent at home with their young children more than material things.

This is a choice only really affecting the relatively well off. Poor people will either get a lot more help towards childcare or won't be able to work long hours as can't afford childcare.

People seem to get stuck in the rat race but it isn't the only way to live.

That can't actually be true if you think about the average income and average family size. Most people would only afford one if that. Most families I know have at least 2 and are doing ordinary jobs.

For a primary aged child not in any form of childcare, it surely can't be much more than a couple of thousand per year to keep them. For us anyway that is true, we haven't got a bigger house or car as a result of the kids, so it's just their food, clothes (mostly second hand), a few activities and ice creams at weekends, swimming lessons, presents, a slight increase in holiday costs but going on far fewer holidays so overall spending less there.

I always thought it seemed high, but then it has also been a fairly consistent number over the years (adjusted for inflation).

It's only 700 odd per month though, so I can see that being about right. I've no idea what child allowance is, or what other things can be claimed as I don't have any.

Of course it's true that the more DC you have the more it will cost. But that cost depends on your expectations and what you see as essential. I've been calculating whether and how I can afford to spend enough time with them in the early years, ensuring we can all eat healthily and do a lot of outdoor activities. If we can afford trips and holidays that will be a nice extra. Private school fees, cars and house deposits though are not things I could ever afford am factoring in!

I think it's more that any money you have - as much or as little as that is - goes on any children, and just gets divided by however many you have. So if you have £40 a week to spend and you have one, they'll get the £40. If you have two, you'll end up spending £40 on the both of them, and so on. When they're teenagers, this might translate that if you had one, you would have been able to fund them having driving lessons, but if you had three, you wouldn't be able to afford the costs, do they'd have to self fund, or go without, or you'd teach them yourself. Neither having more material or less material things is better or worse (within reason) imho. But of course the different paths will shape your life and your children's lives and personalities differently. Another big one would be whether you could afford for them to each have their own room. Historically most children wouldn't have. But many people now see it as a necessity, so would factor "bigger house" into their "spend" of having another child.

As for nursery fees, if you have a SAHP, they might not be relevant. Again, these are often seen as a necessary cost, but there are ways around it, if someone wants additional children, there are ways to make it work. But it might require lifestyle changes or more creative thinking.

Obviously, on a surface level, the more dc you have, the more it costs. That is undisputable.
However decisions to have children involve a lot more than finances.

We want to be able to put savings away for them to help them when they need it, such as for education, driving or buying their own home. I’m not talking private school or gifting a whole deposit, more uni accommodation fees & a small leg up onto the housing ladder.

I mean, all that is very lovely if you have the money to do so, but none of that is necessary, , expected, or even normal for most families. I mean, something like 60% or 18 year olds don't actually go to University. Those that do - currently - can take out a loan for their fees. Who knows what the system will be like in 18 - 21 years time. My dc paid for their driving lessons from what they earned from their PT jobs, in 6th form. Most people don't have deposits to buy their homes.
Personally, I'm glad I have siblings even though I had none of those things you listed.

Kids are very expensive but I wouldn't say two kids means double the cost. There are some economies of scale! Also my friends with one child spend a lot inconsiderable sum entertaining them, with two children they entertain each other reasonably well even if it's winding each other up. This entertaining gets more difficult the older they get too. Childcare is very expensive but I'm the scheme of things is a short time and tapers off quite quickly. Especially my point about entertaining each other. They can occupy themselves quite well when we work from home now they're tweens, if we just had one we'd probably prefer them to be in a club with other kids.

Plus when they are older. I never got any financial help so I want to help mine.
One of mine wants to do a 5 year degree. The loans don't cover everything so potentially I'm going to end up paying his rent for 5 years. That will be a big struggle for me but I want to do it so I will. I couldn't do it for 2 children. I do have 2 children but the other one doesn't want to go to uni. I have helped him with other things financially.
I know a family of 7 kids. All nice people but it one of them desperately needs a hand the mum can't help as she can't do it for 7 people. There isn't a dad so I'm not just blaming the mum.
So you can have as many kids as you want but the more you have the less you can give each one. They may get benefits of having a sibling or they may not.

I agree OP, they are expensive. I have 3 school aged children and 1 baby. In the last month alone I’ve had £60 on school dinners, £34 for a bike at school day for the younger 2, £66 for a trip for the younger 2, £80 on 2 trips for the eldest.
Thats just school. They all do extra curriculars for which they have subs, kit, comps which all cost more.
I feel extremely fortunate that we’re able to provide these things but everything is constantly going up. Our monthly food bill is more than our mortgage.

It depends on what you're expectations are

We don't go on all inclusive abroad holidays anymore we go to heaven and Butlins, I'm ok with that for now

We buy a lot of second hand clothes. When DD was a baby 90% of her clothes were second hand or gifted and when I was done with them I would sell them, then use the money towards more second hand clothes.

We don't eat out very often and if we do it's carefully done

We meal plan everything

We live in a small house but make it work to keep costs low

We don't have a really nice car

I was able to breastfeed, saved loads on bottles/dummys/prep machines/formula etc

Lots of other things too. I don't work at the moment, we only have one child with one on the way and DP only earns £38K but I do have some small savings from when I was made redundant which we use to top up with. We own our own house and cars.

4.3 million kids in the UK live in poverty
Most of them will have been born to parents that thought you only need a loving home.
So unless you want your children to be another statistic for society to lament over, then it is very sensible to consider the costs.

Very small children don't cost much.

Teenagers cost a blooming fortune, with their massive trainers and appetites and hoodies and music lessons and counting as adults when you go on holiday.

That's the point I think, really.

It can only be true if it's including the contribution everyone else makes towards the cost of raising the child in the form of taxes funding benefits and tax breaks.

The average salary doesn't come close to being able to cover an extra ~£10k per year so it's nonsense.

Of course more kids cost more. Daycare, obviously, clothing (nappies!), food, the dozen parties they'll all be invited to every year when young (and you have to host in turn). Extra seats on flights for holidays, fees for music lessons, sports etc etc.
And as mentioned upthread - university! My DD will get quite close to max maintenance loan but that won't cover her catered halls for the first year. My son decided against uni - if they were both going at the same time it would be tricky indeed.

Absolutely, if everyone had to pay every penny of the cost of raising a child from their own income, there would be fewer children. And that isn't a dig at anyone, just a statement of fact.

Yes, each child costs more money but your lifestyle also has a huge impact on how much that is. If you are a sahm for one, then the childcare penalty is irrelevant for subsequent children. If you were already in a home with more bedrooms than people, you aren't looking at a moving house penalty. Ditto for larger cars. Furniture/ toys/bikes/clothes can roll down to younger children for the most part. Obviously day to day living expenses kick it but it's small beans after the above.

Some people don't see the same value in expensive hobbies and tutoring, etc. And the parental contribution for uni is linked to earnings and low earners, more likely in a single worker household, don't have to contribute at all, although their children will carry the burden with additional debt.

So, I can see how, for some, subsequent children aren't the heavy weight on finances that they are for others.

I think there is an element of you can spend as much as you like. I’ve got two kids ( and two step kids but I don’t fund them) my kids do £500 of extra clubs etc a month, each. That’s a choice I make though, if I couldn’t afford it , I’d have to say no. trainers are £100 a pair at least now they are both in adult sizes. ( I can’t believe there is a poster on here that has 11/12 year olds that will still wear own brand! ) clothes are cheaper now as they don’t grow so fast ( we went through so many clothes when they were smaller and rarely handed down, they just aren’t the same people!) but I easily spend £200 a month each on clothes and stuff.

one of my daughters is ND and I funded all private diagnoses for her as well as therapy etc. I would have struggled to do that X2.

they both have trust funds for cars when they turn 18. I doubt they will both go to uni but I’ll absolutely deal with that as and when ( and ensure they both have the same financial support regardless of choices )

I am the eldest of a large family born to parents who thought that all they needed to provide was basic food and clothing, because they themselves had been raised in poverty . It was a miserable way to grow up. My first lesson was ‘Never ask for anything because the money isn’t there. Be content with nothing.’

Kids do cost a lot.
Preschool they are expensive because of childcare costs. There is a sweet spot in the primary school years up to 12/13 when they are relatively low cost creatures.
Then they grow into expensive animals, more expensive to clothe and feed. They need adult priced shoes 👞 for growing feet. They are no longer really content with wander to the local park. So days out are pricy. Holidays become paying for another adult.

I look at older colleagues the people who can afford early retirement are those without kids.
Would I swap? No!

My DM agreed with that statement. Beans on toast for dinner, jumble sale for clothes.
Day out was a picnic, a sandwich wrapped in paper , weak warm orange squash.
DGD expects a five star buffet packed into a very stylish picnic basket with fresh juice and Perrier . Everything instaworthy.

I think it's expensive.
Let's just say the conversation with DH goes like this...
Shall we fit an extra weekend away at a caravan with the kids in August. Oh damn. Uniforms. Bloody uniforms.

The four year old costs little, older son, still ok.
Teenage girl. OMFG.
To be fair she's very good with trying to be frugal and getting the best value. They do become brand conscious and eat loads.

We try to put money away for them all for when they are 18. Abroad holidays are every 5 years it seems and cost a fortune. Our car is shit but it does the job. The residentials add on a significant cost. Over the last two years I don't even want to think about how much we've spent.

It depends what sort of life you want. I am one of six so went without and was dammed if I was going to be a poor adult and have kids who had to go without.

Our DS has been able to try any hobby he wants and has been on many lovely holidays. As a teen we took him on two cruises and when around 12 we travelled round America for a month. We will be giving him a substantial deposit when he wants to buy a house, he just doesn’t know it yet.

I remember the year his feet grew an entire size in a month just after new shoes and football boots were bought. So two pairs of school shoes, two pairs of trainers, two grass football boots and two Astro turf boots within six weeks.

Children have a huge impact on finances, from the size of your house to the groceries, clothes, trips, not to mention (in my case) the fact that I quit my "career" (didn't enjoy it anyway) and have worked pt for 16 years.

Some things you can choose to not make a difference - ie we go camping in France for holidays so dd2 doesn't really cost much extra at all. But I want to go to the US next year and 4x flights is eye watering.

Yes childcare, that's always going to double / triple / quadruple in line with the number of dc. I do get a discount on the clubs they both do for the second child! Again though, that's a choice, you could not do any clubs at all if you didn't want to.

My two are 2 years apart and dd2 is almost as big as dd1 so handing down clothes hasn't happened for a couple of years. Shoes have to be new anyway.

Emergency dental? Dentist is free for children. New work shoes that's not a normal parent cost but nice of you to do so, List of things to take in residential - how niche a trip was it that you couldn't borrow or already have the stuff.
Driving insurance again nice to pay for it but usually teens pay out of their part time jobs.
The passport and the residential trip part are the only standard costs. And both of those are annual at most or five yearly.