Finance biggest deterrent to having children, report says

Guardian Unlimited ^ | 10/4/06 | John Carvel

[Tax-chick]

You're my idol!

I expect to get a real job in about 19 years, too ... unless my husband's retirement investments really do well, and then we can be Persons of Leisure.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Cost to raise a child (US) calculator:

http://www.sunlife-usa.com/tool/tl_5.cfm

[Zechariah_8_13]

I always hear these outrageous costs quoted for having children, and just the tiniest bit of common sense will tell you it's not true. Are they to tell me the average family with 3 children spends $36K a year on them?

If you utilize a birthing center or midwife, you'll pay $3K or less for the entire (normal) pregnancy and birth (and you're more likely to have a healthy outcome with those options). You'll pay less, whether you have an OB or Midwife, if you have medical insurance. Then you get a tax credit to defray the cost somewhat.

We spend about $150 -$200 per year on (nice) clothes for the first boy & girl, utilizing Ebay, Goodwill, retail clearance sales & garage sales. Those are handed down with additional clothes added as needed.

Breastfeeding is free.

Cloth diapers have an initial investment of about $100 (or less), which will last you through several children.

Our biggest expense will be homeschooling, which we estimate at around $500/year for the first child (less for subsequent children since most materials can be reused), which includes the cost of field trips.

[DeweyCA]

No - it is more like the HUGE tax burden that prevents people from having children.

There is much wisdom in what you say. When my parents raised me, the taxes were much lower, and so they could better afford me and my sisters. Also the child exemption has not kept pace with inflation. The Dems have made it much harder on parents. The Dems say they do things "for the children," but they just continue to screw up families with their bad policies.

[Tax-chick]

"If you want to hear God laugh, tell Him your plans."

[Antoninus]

Oh no! I might lose my "leisure time" if I have children! Horror of horrors!

How about this--if you don't have children, you might lose a lot more than that. How much "leisure time" will you permitted under Sharia when you have to work all day just to pay the jizya tax?

Has the West truly become a civilization of pampered, short-sighted, self-absorbed freaks? If so, we deserve to fall--and no one will be there to pick us up.

[Alouette]

I also worked full time while my kids were growing up. I would like to retire and just travel around the world visiting my grandbabies, but I have to pay for it somehow!

I don't think I will make it to Moscow this year. But Thanksgiving in Toronto is definitely doable.

[Antoninus]

One of the things that keeps them from not having.

What, lots of children keeps you from 'having'? Well, if you're a materialist and driving a nice car, living in an expensive section of town, and being able to afford all the newest gizmos is what you consider 'having' then maybe you're right.

Speaking as someone who has four wonderful little kids, I 'have' something that all the DINKs in the world will never understand. And I wouldn't trade it for all the BMWs, fancy cell phones, season tickets, extravagant vacations, and designer clothes in the world.

[Tax-chick]

Best wishes for your travel plans! I remember you have a son ministering in Moscow, as well as some children in Israel, right? Expensive places to get to :-(.

[Antoninus]

It appears parents are delaying children not so much as a lifestyle choice, but because a rational analysis of the time and money needed to raise them properly shows that they are not yet ready.

Any "rational analysis" of this subject will almost always tell you "not yet" because you are influenced by pure self-interest and you can't begin to imagine how having children would enrich your life--until you have them.

The following fact should play into your equation: If you don't have children and neither do your peers, your future will be run by the progeny of those who do.

Think about it...

[MeanWestTexan]

We have been told that Bear in the Big Blue House has a superior go-to-the-potty DVD.

I suppose it shall at least answer the question, "Does a bear . . ?"

[Wyatt's Torch]

I'v got two kids and I love my "leisure" time because there is so little of it!

;-)

[durasell]

It's not about driving a fancy-pants car and having the newest gizmos. It's basic economics -- with limited resources there is less to go around within the family.

[Antoninus]

It's not about driving a fancy-pants car and having the newest gizmos. It's basic economics -- with limited resources there is less to go around within the family.

Your average American DINKs are not truly affected with anything like "limited resources." Most have never cut a coupon in their lives and consider shopping any place below Neiman-Marcus to be "slumming."

"Limited resources" may be a legitimate problem in Guatemala, but not in Maryland.

[durasell]

Everyone has "limited resources," regardless of what it looks like. A lot of folks -- DINKS-- earning seven figures still think twice about those $900 Jil Sander pants and $200 t-shirts.

Conversely, a lot of those seven figure incomes also sweat out the private schools and college education.

[CougarGA7]

I might have to check that out. I've always wondered about the "Does a bear.." thing.

Fortunately for me my youngest is showing interest in making the transition and I soon will have all 4 out of diapers.

This is good since the goal has always been to get the last one out of diapers before I go into them.

[DHerion]

It has nothing to do with money. That's the easy cop out. My parents struggled every single day raising 6. Dirt poor societies all over the world have large families.

The reasons are simple - the birth control pill, abortion on demand, women getting married later in life, more wealth (not less) and more opportunity for the majority to do things and go places only the rich could do 30+ years ago.

[durasell]

Dirt poor societies all over the world have large families.



They have large families in order to insure their economic well-being when they get too old to work. Also, a lot of those kids in dirt poor societies tend to die.

[rwfromkansas]

definitely true!

[Antoninus]

Conversely, a lot of those seven figure incomes also sweat out the private schools and college education.

That's more a testament to some parents' short-sightedness than their "limited means." My kids know from day one that I'm not paying for their college. If they're gifted, they'll get scholarships. If not, and they still want to go, they can take out loans and go to state school. Otherwise, there are plenty of trade schools out there and a trade is an honorable profession that, these days, commands a very high salary.

As for pre-college, my kids go to the ultimate private school. And we don't pay no $5,000/annum...