Childfree = Rich?

[Troubledwords]

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

A very judgemental comment.

Because you don't have other people to pay for and spend time looking after. It's not rocket science. If you are child free by choice, it not just easier financially, life is just easier although. Good for you! Enjoy it choosing to have children isn't cost free and neither should it be.

My siblings and I are late 30s. I have kids. Brother and sister don't. Sister has 5 dogs and 2 horses. Brother just has dogs. No mortgages. They aren't rich but have spare money for hobbies etc.

There are some rather questionable assumptions in that post.

I am single and child free. I made a decision years ago that I was not going to have a child unless I was married and as a couple we were in a financial position to have a child. One of my friends became became a single mother in her early 20's. I saw how difficult her life was then. Even to this day its still effecting her life.

I don't think you can give a blanket statement that all child free woman are very rich but it's not the case.

Some people don't realise that if your a single woman you carrying the full cost of housing, electricity, gas/oil for heating, household maintenance ect and your just getting what ever % off your council tax. You also have to consider what happens to you when you retire and put money aside for that time. Meanwhile your couple friends have 2 incomes to cover these bills. If one of them is made redundant at least they still have a wage coming in but if your a single woman used to managing on x income and your made redundant. You have to try and get claims benefits for awhile until you get a new job. Then you could be eating into any savings you have and end up taking a lesser job than your previous one due to lack of cash.

A couple that are both working and child free could be comfortable financially but this depends on income and house costs. I know both single and couples that are child free and despite having good incomes are spending most of what they are making, don't save and in some cases are carrying a lot of debt.

We’re doing well but the fact that we’ve spent about £100k between us (credit cards, savings etc) on IVF/meds/treatments/supplements/acupuncture/nutritionists/ sperm doctors etc but no kids means we are in a similar position to a person who got a kid for free and had to pay to raise it. I know which category, I’d rather be in!

To be fair most of what you described is optional and if you start with the expensive chicago and other blood panels (especially at 30 like Op) it will save money in the long run.

• Children are not the only dependants
• Children are not the only things that cost money
• Children are not the only things that make life difficult

I swear there are so many people who literally cannot see any other circumstance other than the one they’re in. It’s boggling.

Yes and people with children can have all those things AS WELL as the cost and time looking after children.
I swear there are so many people who literally cannot see any other circumstance other than the one they’re in. It’s boggling, right back at you.

I don’t think that all childfree people are rich. I do know that if I didn’t have children, then we would be ‘richer’ in terms of disposable income, probably to the tune of £1k extra a month, closer to £2k if you count clothes, toys, activities etc 🙈(.I put ‘richer’ in inverted commas because, as PP has mentioned not everyone measures being rich and living a good life in terms of cash only.) that is very different to thinking all childfree people are rich, of course they aren’t. Who said that to you?!

Do feel free to point me to precisely where I said otherwise. I’ll wait.

One of my friends became became a single mother in her early 20's. I saw how difficult her life was then. Even to this day its still effecting her life

I became a single mother in my 20's and I like my life 🤷‍♀️It doesn't have to be horrific or spent in poverty. I had an au-pair/nanny to help with childcare whilst I built a career. It doesn't have to be some awful life sentence.

Just goggled to see if people without children are generally richer than people with. Surprise surprise, the answer was an overwhelming 'yes'.

Agree with all of this. Also: (and maybe it is the working class chip on my shoulder making an appearance) I do think a flaw in the premise of “childfree people are rich” is it reduces it entirely down to individual choices and personal responsibility & that’s a mistake… I mean, from a purely practical and economic standpoint, making more humans is a social necessity. Just because some people don’t want to or can’t have children shouldn’t mean having children becomes a niche luxury lifestyle. For some inexplicable reason, we have organised society around the premise that creating new humans should bankrupt most people for at least 5-10 years. Of course having children should make a bit of your dent in your monthly expenditure but the fact you lose such a disproportionate amount per child is crazy. So no childfree people are not “rich” relatively speaking - but parents still lose an OTT amount of money for doing something that will ultimately benefit everyone.

Wow that’s the debate over right there, well done hun xxx

They’re not optional if you are late 30s/40+ and given the bulk of the money is IVF procedures, meds and tests, which by definition you need if you want help to conceive. The NHS is a lottery depending on postcode and won’t/can’t treat everyone.

Having children is also optional (barring exceptional cases, everyone in the UK has access to contraception, family planning advice and abortion).

The planet definitely does not need more people.

I think the fact that anyone can be priced out of becoming a parent is bad enough but the fact it’s also people with completely normal/above average salaries is so messed up. Although (maybe I’m misunderstanding?) it doesn’t follow logically that because people can cheaply choose to not be parents, it should be unaffordable to choose to become parents.

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.

But the OP said 'rich', not 'richer than you would have been if you had children'. Someone in a low-paying job still isn't going to be rich, even if they are child-free.

It's really weird that some parents sound so bitter towards child-free people, as though they've somehow cheated at life and gained benefits they don't deserve. What a strange attitude. Nobody forced you to have children! I say that as someone very happy to have had my 2 dc.

@cauliflowerwaterfall I totally agree with you as well 😊. And also to add, it’s a silly question/premise from the OP as it’s all so relative and depends on individual circumstances. So for example, I have children, but we are lucky in that our monthly income is around £6k so that’s still £4k left over after the £2k the kids drain 😂. A relative of mine is single and childfree but only has a monthly income of £2k so we have kids but are better off…I would also argue that the real issues is nursery fees if you both want to work (or if your a single parent), I do admit some of my spending on the kids is a choice - ie they don’t need loads of Xmas presents or to do extra curricular activities but I choose to spend that money on them, this making us ‘poorer’ - that’s our choice. So you can never say one or the other. In fact if you really looked at it I bet more childfree people are poorer actually, as people have kids later these days and often when they are more ‘established’ due to the huge cost of having kids…so childfree people will encompass a greater proportion of people who are early in their careers, not yet on the property ladder etc.

Having one and three children is associated with a 5 and 6 percentile increase in net worth rank compared to childless adults. The advantage for adults with two child is even greater: having two children is associated with a 9 percentile increase in net worth rank compared to childless adults.

This is Europe not the UK specifically. But essentially parents of 1 to 3 children are usually financially better off than childless adults. It takes four or more children to be worse off than a childless adult.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10680-022-09611-w#:~:text=Having%20one%20and%20three%20children,rank%20compared%20to%20childless%20adults.

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.

Is 'the facts speak for themselves' the new 'the science is settled'? I wish I'd EVER been in the position to say I'd be 2.5k better off, that's the most I've ever earned monthly.

Agree & I think we should challenge the cost of having children a lot more than we do. Is it rational that having a child should cost £2k a month? A couple of hundred quid maybe, but 2k is completely excessive and unacceptable that worse off people either get priced out of parenthood or priced out of the workplace. One of the downsides of the government seeing parenthood as a weird, niche, luxury lifestyle choice is that in economics terms it extends to babies and children themselves. Suddenly they are not individual citizens with human rights and unique needs for care because of their developmental stage that governments need to accommodate… suddenly they are just the weird, niche, luxury lifestyle choices of their parents. So when parents are going “err… shouldn’t childcare be subsidised? Why is formula so expensive? This is completely unreasonable” etc it just becomes a lesson in personal responsibility. Rather than implementing policies that help, the parent is advised to go back in time and simply choose not to have the person they love more than life itself. Wow thanks.

It's an interesting point @cauliflowerwaterfall but I'm not sure it's entirely relevant to either this thread or this board...

Well this thread has made some people very angry hasn't it!

I wonder why that is?