Childfree = Rich?

[Troubledwords]

Why is it that people assume that because you don't have children you must be rich?

Because like single people(and I'm both CF AND single) CF people don't have bills to pay and supermarkets give them stuff for free. 😉

A lot of people think that being CF means you're getting away with something or taking an unfair advantage (or an advantage that's perceived as unfair). CF and can work late and get promoted and earn more? it's not fair you can do that just because you don't have kids! CF and can take holidays when it's cheaper? it's not fair you can do that just because you don't have kids! CF and shove more money into your pension because you got that promotion and the extra money? it's not fair you have all that extra money just because you don't have kids!

Basically parents see you getting something they don't and that they think they should have. They don't work out that they made a decision (or several decisions) that may have as many negative impacts as positive. Just like us CF did.

I think it's just that having children involved financial sacrifices and outlay which childfeee people don't have. I don't think anyone would assume that child free equated to rich though, maybe more disposable income!

Because kids cost a lot to feed, clothe, entertain etc. It's not rocket science.

It rather depends on how they define 'rich' as well. Generally it's 'appears to have more money than me.'

People forget that society offers less of a safety net to childfree people though. If you lose your job there is no child benefit, universal credit child element etc and housing benefit would also be lower.

The comment I’ve personally received is oh you've chosen to be an ambitious high flying career woman. Some people are narrow minded it’s either one or the other - mother or career woman.

They can’t compute that some childfree are just in minimum, low or average jobs and that some mothers are ambitious career women.

Comparing the child free and those with children I know... the childfree have more money for leisure and different spending priorities. So not necessarily more money in the bank at the end of the day as they've spent it in a different way.

Yes, I think it's this, I'm not a career woman, I'm a minimum wage worker, so I don't have disposable income either!

That’s quite unfair. Lots of childfree people are single and it’s really hard to accumulate wealth in that position. Have to save a house deposit alone, pay bills alone, single supplements on holidays…

Your kids (that you chose to have) may your biggest expense but childfree people have unavoidable expenses too and they often didn’t choose it that way.

And it’s perfectly possible to work a full time job and get promotions with children, so if you’re not doing that then perhaps you’ve gone wrong somewhere?

…see, it’s not nice, is it…

What a shitty thing to say, Finteq. Have you always despised childfree people?

Lots of parents are single parents you know ? And I know many child free couples

I don't think you can equate child free with single

Ergo all else bing equal child free will have more cash than those with children and the point at lack of promotion opportunities for single mothers rings very true

I really think if you aren't doing really well financially if you don't have kids then you've gone wrong somewhere- obviously not including people who may have medical reasons for why they can't work

I WAS ambitious then I looked at the people around me who 'succeeded' and decided they weren't the sort of people I wanted to be (looking at you, exh). So I kept on with my reasonably well paid unambitious non-managerial jobs and had a life outside work.

I also decided that there are other markers of a life well lived and fulfilled and successful than 'doing really well financially.' IMO if that's your sole marker of success for anyone then you've gone wrong somewhere.

I know I would be financially richer without children. I'm single and have a job that is by no means minimum wage, but feels it after everything is paid for. I know I would be earning considerably more if I didn't have them because I would be able to keep the hours my job would need to progress and potentially be able to relocate or change jobs without considering anyone else, which is what I used to do (change jobs every few years) before I had children. Would I be like others that are earning 200k? Probably not, but all my money would be just for me.
I believe universal credit only gives you a child element to allow you to offset expenses incurred for childcare whilst working, but I've never claimed it, so I could be wrong. The other factors for benefits also seem in proportion because if there is a single person and they need housing benefit, they only have to house one person whereas if it is an adult and 2 children, they need to house 3.

It’s because it costs someone who isn’t on benefits £80-£100k to bring up a child up from birth to 18 (as a minimum) and that is before you consider loss of earnings etc. Of course a CF person could spend the same amount of money away on other thing.

@Secondwindplease a lot mothers are also single, whilst looking after their dcs. They have the same issue with struggling to pay fur a deposit etc…

As for ‘the children you chose’ … this was low. Many Women are childless by choice too…

Of course there are lots of childfree couples, I’m in one! And plenty of single parents about.

Its not necessarily the case that ‘all things being equal’ childfree people have more cash. As I said, some childfree people are single and it’s hard to accumulate wealth from that position. Others might be in relationships, but could have chosen not to have children precisely because they are low income don’t feel like they can afford them. It’s no coincidence that we’ve had twenty years of austerity and birth rates are now at a historic low.

The childfree people that parents think of as rich are like me - dual income, no kids (DINKs). It’s great, I have a lovely life - more money and less stress than all the parents I know, which is why I’m not giving it up in a hurry. But let’s not forget that people in this group tend to pay higher taxes… which is redistributed to families in child benefits, universal credit and all the rest. You’re welcome.

Or maybe some people value a work life balance over having lots of money in the bank!

I know I am not looking to climb upwards anymore, why do I want long term stress - given the number of studies that have shown that long term stress contributes to illnesses.

@Secondwindplease so what about your single mothers then?
Do you think they have it easier?

@Secondwindplease I pay higher taxes as a single parent, so I don't have to thank you for anything

You seem very bitter and jealous….

I think if you looked at two couples with the same income living in the same locality then you could say the one with children would have more expenses. Children cost money and some of my friends are still supporting their children so obviously will have less money for other things.

Of course it's bloody true- don't try to make this anything more than it is! The facts speak for themselves! I'd be £2.5K better off each month if I hadn't had my children and wouldn't have aged as much as I have in the last 5 years! My choice though and I don't regret it.

Of course some parents are single! I was responding to a previous poster who suggested that childfree people who aren’t rich have gone wrong somewhere, which is a ridiculous thing to say. Saying that there are good reasons single childfree people might not be rolling in it doesn’t mean I’ve overlooked that there are single parents too.

And what I said wasn’t low at all. If you’ve got children, chances are you wanted them. With childfree people it’s a more complex picture. Some, like me, will be happily childfree by choice and others will be through no choice of their own.

People forget that society offers less of a safety net to childfree people though. If you lose your job there is no child benefit, universal credit child element etc and housing benefit would also be lower.

Erm, because society recognises that there are additional costs for those with children and those benefits are to provide for the children not the parents?