E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Getty Images stock
If you think parents today are spending more than their parents did, you're right.
Many parents today are worried about how they’re going to send their kids to college given the high cost of higher education. But maybe they should be more concerned about the 17 years before the little darlings hit the road.
Food, clothing, and health care are just a few items that can add up into tons of expenses before adulthood. How much? $234,900 for a child born in 2011 to a middle-income family.
That's according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s annual report, “Expenditures on Children by Families,” released Thursday, which came up with the total by calculating the cost of a host of necessities parents pay for in the 17 years before adulthood.
If you think parents today are spending more than their parents did, you’re right. In 1960, the first year the report was produced, a middle-income family would have expected to spend about $25,000 over the course of 17 years, or $191,720 adjusted for today’s dollars.
The cost of raising a child differs sharply depending on the resources available to the parents. According to the USDA's calculations:
- For households with annual income less than $59,410, annual expenses per child range from $8,760 to $9,970 on average, depending on age of the child.
- For households with income of up to $102,870, the annual cost is about $12,290 to $14,320.
- For households with income over $102,870, the cost per child averages out at $20,420 to $24,510.
Housing was the biggest expense, followed by child care and education, food, and transportation.
Since 1960, food expenditures have actually declined to 16 percent of income from 24 percent, while the cost of child care and education has soared to 18 percent of income from 2 percent.
And despite the high cost of fancy sneakers today, moms and dads are shelling out less to dress up the little tikes, at 6 percent of income, down from 11 percent in 1960.
More from TODAY Money:
- Family, work balancing act? Dads have to do it too
- Another summer and broke families plan staycations
- Dads' household duties worth less than moms'
- Lawmakers battle to end 'rental car roulette'
- Video: Combining finances in a second marriage
Follow msnbc.com business on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Kids are a pain and expensive. I still don't see the reason people have kids.
Most people just can't understand until they have one. Not saying you should. But I am saying it is a completely different world when you do. A lot of people change their minds about A LOT of things once they have kids, and that obviously makes sense.
Having said that, I do not see the need for a gazillion kids. That's aside from the point of it costing a stupid amount of money. Really stupid. Don't see it changing, though, as long as people keep paying $24 for a tiny Thomas The Train made of mostly wood. And to add insult to injury, it is made in China. So it probably cost 50 cents to make.
If your parents had thought that way you wouldn't be here to complain about how much they cost to raise.
I wonder how much of the 200K was wasted by the Government funding this useless study.
How do they come up with these numbers? They said the cost of housing is the biggest expense.... but aren't the parents living in the house too? How do they determine what percetage of the rent covers the baby's head? Transportation costs? What are they figuring, that people are buying a car just for the baby to be driven around in? or the cost of gas to run the baby around town? If the family already owned a two bedroom house and just convert the spare room into the kid's bedroom does that mean their housing costs were 0? Seems like studies like these are designed to make having kids seem more expensive than it needs to be.
Housing? LMAO Really thats crazy.. Take the given away and its not that expensive..
These are studies done by right wing morons who have nothing better to do then force people into debt by forcing kids upon each and everyone in society. They think if you dont reproduce youre basically worthless.
which is why I never had any children of my own.. Which is why 50% of my friends are not having children either.
I can't depend on anything from this country. I can't depend on healthcare, I can't depend on social security, and I cant' depend on my 401K either.
How can I raise a child facing all these headwinds. Raising a child requires dedication, and can be stressful. No way am I going to go through life stressing out about my own survival while trying to raise a child in a world where nobody cares about you after you are born
I agree with you Derek, If i knew how hard life if with children I would have never had kids, or even have gotten married.
Octamom times 8 equals $1,880,000 courtesy of taxpayers.
Who would raise a child in this world?
They are going to LOVE paying off the national debt
I thought about having a kid once, then she told me the test was negative, never thought about it again.
@ Road Warrior-252445 - Octamom times millions of welfare parents equals mega-billions courtesy of taxpayers.
Maybe theyre done by liberals lobbying for abortions. Clever way to bring your political view into it, the $$ seemed pretty non-partisan to me, maybe wrong, but non-partisan, how does it feel to be the lib tool of the conversation?
Biggest mistakes in my life: marrying my ex-wife, followed by having two children.
I take it you haven't reproduced? Good. Don't.
GUMPS - I feel sorry for your kids.
I hope you dont plan on using any of the pyramid scheme benefits known as social security. That scheme relies on the next generation being bigger than the current. People like you will be in for a shock when the money runs dry, and absolutely noone cares about the hardships that you face when you become old and infirm. In fact I want it to happen so that my kids arent facing extra burden from selfish people like you.
Answer this question honestly, Before your wife and you decided to have a child, did you look at any charts or read what it cost to raise a child? Nope!
No response required.
12 years of school cost more than all that
Not public, but public school should be considered child abuse these days.
Xina the Awesome, I feel sorry for them too. As a parent you try to do the best you can to instill a sense of responsibility, morales and ethics - sometimes the lessons don't take despite your best efforts. In this particular case, I believe their mother was the larger influence.
Not even close on these amounts.. I can see the wealthier brackets being close, when they are sending their kids to private schools at $15k per year and doing sports like travel hockey that can cost $5-10k per year easily, but the average joe with 2-3 kids maybe spends $10k per year on all 3.. Housing and vehicles are a given already, and going from a 1 or 2 bedroom apt to a small starter house is not a big leap in annual cost. Add food, fuel for hauling kids, the added expense of a minivan over a smaller car, the larger house, clothing, and extracurricular activities and yeah, it gets expensive, but the more kids you have, the more those expenses get shared and spread out.. The middle income couple who has 1 kid and buys the starter home, the minivan, etc, etc, and then spoils the kid rotten does indeed spend that much money, but once there are a few kids, those expenses are mostly fixed.. except food and maybe medical.. food is the worst I think.. and utilities since the damn kids can't learn how to turn the lights off when they leave the room..
Cost this cost that is it not really about resources?
After the water and air is polluted you will have to add that to your cost. Don't worry the polluters are gonna make a bundle selling it to you.
Mike, stop with the nonsense. One can have kids and be shocked at the cost of things. But I know you think you've got something there so go back to eating your fatty snacks.
Quit making excuses, such as "Why would you raise a child in this world?" or dispassionately tallying up the costs of raising a child.
If you want children, these points are moot. "This world" has always been a mess, but that never stopped people from having kids.
If you don't want children, just say so. You don't have to justify it by blaming the world situation or the economy.
Alan, Couldn't agree more. I'd rather take that $200k+ and spend it on myself.
It seems the biggest cost increase is in child care. Probably because in 1960 it was more common to have a parent who stayed at home and provided child care. By having two working parents, more money comes into the household. Technically people are spending it on themselves, otherwise a single working parent is a big way to reduce the cost of rearing children.
Pragmatic, unless of course the second parent working makes more than the childcare costs and that extra money is needed to keep the houshold budget afloat. The only way my family of 3 could have a stay at home parent would be for us to live in poverty. Personally I feel I have a responsibility to keep my kid out of the ghetto, so I work even though I would much rather stay home and play with him all day.
@pragmatic, in the 1960s I was married and no children at that time it was mid 60s. The minimum wage was $1.00 an hr. I was lucky and had a job that gave me about $110.00 clear after taxes. I was making above min. My rent was $45 a month and elec and water were bout $17 a month, You could go grocery shopping and get what ever you wanted for food for about $25 weekly. Than there was winter heating bill for fuel oil $60 monthly. To raise a child back than as compared to today was still considered an expense. The numbers reflected in this report may have some built in inflation rate but if it doesn't one still has to include it. you are right only one person needed to work.
Mechanical, we'd all really rather you didn't have a kid. We don't need any more of them raised to be all about themselves like you are. The roots of society's problems today are your kind of greed, entitlement mentality and selfishnesss.
Over 7 billion and growing. And at 234K a pop. It's like a jelly bean factory on this planet.
Actually every developed nation currently has a birth rate below the replacement rate of 2.1. Many European countries are substantially below the replacement rate. Which is why Europe is projected to shrink in population by tens of millions this century even with heavy immigration from predominately Muslim nations.
Most of the world population growth this century is coming from Africa. Where with a birthrate of 6 per women, each generation is 2-3 times larger than the previous generation even with war, famine, AIDS, etc. By 2050, Africa's population is projected to be more than Europe, North America, South America, and Australia combined.
good point on the population growth, but don't forget that in order to maintain a healthy economy, that birth rate is required. Europe is in trouble because of the low birth rate, and we are already starting to see it big time.. also the reason Europe is so pro-immigration of the muslims now as well.. the governments there NEED muslims to come in and work since their own populations are dwindling fast.
There is a very valid reason to offer tax incentives to have kids in this country.
Well said. The population growth is ridiculous. We will end up like China where the government TELLS YOU how many kids you can have because stupid people can't govern themselves.
It will be a benefit to humanity if you two never reproduce.
It's called budgeting. That "bundle of joy" doesnt need Nike shoes, every new game player, clothing style or toy that comes along. Also, Im not paying for my childrens college education. My father didnt do it, his parents didnt do it and their parents didnt do it and we all did fine. Go in the military or learn a trade, work your way up, save money, budget and go to school on your own.
Rob-1647498 - I understand your reasoning and appreciate your ability to work your way up. My father's parents didn't pay for his college tuition, he didn't go to college. He became a Chicago cop two years out of high school. But the start of my senior year of high school he didn't give me a choice, I was going to college and he was paying for it because he wanted me to do better then him. He didn't want me to join the military, work in the trades or become a cop. My point here is there are no obvious right or wrong answers to raising children but I sure as hell appreciate what my dad did for me and I sure as hell will do everything I can do to do it for my children.
When I was little, I remember being taught that the point of being a parent is to protect and raise your children while making the world a better place for your kids so they can make it better for their kids and so on.
LMAO.. yeah that the answer.... join the military and die in a useless war.
The reason education costs have increased for U.S. taxpayers is that THEY are paying to educate millions of illegal immigrant children
--------The illegals are draining our resources - US citizens are being ripped off and our government won't help us-------
I agree. I raised my children in a small town on 1/3 what these people back East think is minimum. Children learned to hunt, fish and be independent. They still prefer small towns over cities. I had gown up in California (L A, Bay Area). Kept moving to smaller places. Life is great. Children are the best. Grand children are great to have around. Teach your childern moral values and they will teach theirs. Don't leave this up to others, you won't regret it.
Yes they are. The three best things that happened to me was marring my wife, and having two girls, What makes them costly is child care that is it. we get their cloths at garage sales so your talking about getting a years worth of cloths for 9-15 bucks. Food cost has not gone up that much the eat what we eat.
They fit in our cars very easily but we did buy a van for one reason only and that is because our parents it is easy to fit 7 people into a 7 passenger vehicle verses a 5 passenger vehicle.
You can do a lot to reduce the cost of children.
"Marring" your wife? Yes, I suppose when a woman has a kid she is "marred". But I wouldn't choose to express it like that.
Sorry spelling nazi it was Marrying
I agree with Auto 101.
Kids don't need to have the latest and greatest of everything.
That's what second hand stores are for.
People are too damned materialistic.
jw101, where did you get your facts? Did anybody here commenting actually going to school right now? Public schools, colleges, and universities is still affordable. You don't need to be in debt to finish your degree. The problem is that most people want to attend those ivy league/private schools that costs so much. You can have a good education in public institution and you don't need to spend that much you have an education.
jw101's comment about education costs and illegals is based on his own ignorance which is encouraged among the right wing lunatic fringe. What he fails to recognize is that public schools are subsidized by property taxes, which everyone pays, including illegals, either directly or indirectly. Illegals have to live somewhere, and if they rent, the landlord pays the property tax on the rental property, but the rent covers his cost. Many illegals have purchsed their homes and so they pay their property taxes like the rest of us.
So, jw, I invite you to show us how the educational system is being drained by the illegals...
I'm with you, Alan, and I'm female! To me, having kids means listening to whining/crying/yelling all day, breaking up fights, having everything you work hard for destroyed, having someone follow you around all day asking annoying questions in a shrieking voice, being a 24/7 maid, doing homework all night, cleaning up poop and barf, spending all of your hard earned money on someone other than you...I don't get the desire; I would bet most of the nitwits out there are simply so self absorbed, they just pop out a few kiddies because want to recreate & celebrate their own likeness. Thanks, but I think I'll enjoy my life, follow my own dreams & travel the world instead. I mean, kids are cute and all, but I don't want one living in my house. Pretty much the same way I feel about chimpanzees.
While I wouldn't say that most people who want kids are nitwits, I have no interest in having any either. Granted, it would be a pretty special experience to look at the human product of a mix between you and the person you love the most. Beyond that, I am with Anderson Ville, I just have other plans for my life. I want to travel, I want to do what I want to do when I want to do it.
Until you have your child smile at you the first time Anderson Ville, then it all becomes clear, and you stop being such a selfish person. Trust me, I was you.
I'm guessing you and some of the other commenters are in your 20's. All I have to say is that over time your priorities do change. Everybody my age I knew when I was 23 said "I'm never having kids." I'm 30 now and they all have kids. I'm not saying you will want kids. I'm saying you shouldn't say never.
Nope, I am 37 and 100% sure and always have been (never even played with dolls - I was out climbing trees and riding my bike instead). And I am not selfish at all; in fact, I am very generous. Being selfish would be having a kid because society wants me to rather than doing it for the right reasons. Since I don't have that deep seeded desire, I choose not to procreate, as I can't imagine anything worse than feeling like your parents don't truly want you - I'm not good at faking things. I have a dog with chronic health issues and have been his nursemaid for almost a decade now - on one hand I love him with all my heart and will take the best care of him that I can until the day he dies, but I also resent having to put my life on hold to care for him. I would NEVER want to feel like that toward a child because they pick up on that stuff and it destroys their lives. Dogs don't know jack as long as you are nice to them and give them food/shelter. And the nitwit comment isn't directed at all people who have kids; I just feel like I see (and read about) many, many people who had kids for the absolute wrong reasons - they cannot support their children financially or emotionally yet they do it anyway (usually multiple times) for someone unknown reason - those are the nitwits.
I'm a 36 year old married woman and my husband (who is 42) and I are still as sure as ever we never want to have kids. We are loving the DINK life! (Duel Income, No Kids). We have money to travel, eat out, we llive in a downtown condo (also have one we rent), do whatever we want, whevever we want, and the best part.... we'll be able to retire in our 50s! We love being an aunt an uncle, but we've been exposed to enough of it to know that being parents aren't something we want to be.
Anderson - If it's not for you - that's fine. Your description of parenting doesn't sound appealing at all. Of course, that's because you are not a parent yourself.
I had my son when I was 34. I travelled and partied and had a grand old time up until then. I was a little worried that I was going to hate it when I had kids, resent the little bugger for taking my life away, miss my freedom,etc.
Now that I've become a mom, it's crystal clear that this is the absolute best thing I have ever done in my life. It's amazing and lovely and scary and messy and it fulfilled me in a way I can't properly express. Parenthood is the most awesome journey and its full of wonder and amazement. I always liked other people's kids, but my own I love more than life. I would die for myson and I think I could kill anyone who tried to hurt him. It's a primal, instinctual feeling that can't properly be summed up as "love" because it really is so much more than that. People who equate the love they have for their dog to having a child just don't really get it, it's a pale shadow by comparison.
No one loves you like your child does. It is the most unconditional, pure, trusting, beutiful love you are every likely to receive. My son running to embrace me when I come home from work with a smile and a hug and an "I love you" makes every slight of my day vanish into insignificance. I feel sorry for anyone who never gets to experience that.
That sounds like bliss. Good for you - enjoy it!
There's nothing "selfish" about not wanting kids. To the contrary, I think it's selfish to have kids when you have to rely on other people's tax dollars to fund the programs and schools need to raise and educate your children.
I'm all for people having or not having kids as they choose. But if you have them, you should bear the burden of funding their existence.
Xtina, I was not comparing how I feel about my dog with how people feel about kids. I was explaining that I resent having to take care of a dog and kids are WAY more work, so I can't imagine I would be thrilled with the burden that comes along with parenting because it is immense - way bigger than what I'm currently dealing with and I am already maxed out! I have heard from almost everyone who has kids that they would never trade it for the world, so there's probably something to that - your thinking just changes when you have them. But what if mine didn't? Having kids isn't some experiment that you get to try and then just change your mind if it's not for you. Once they are here, you are linked to them for the rest of their time on earth. You NEVER get to change your mind. I won't even buy a house because I don't want to feel locked down to something - I like being free to pick up and do as I wish. I think it's awesome that you have that kind of love in your life - I really do - but it is not for all of us and there is no reason that you should be feeling "sorry" for anyone who doesn't have children. I don't feel sorry for you - I think your life sounds great because you seem to be enjoying it - I just wouldn't experience the same joy.
I have 1 child. He's turning 16 in 2 months and after I had him I knew I would not have another. My sister has her own business and no children. It doesn't make her a bad person because she doesn't want children it's that she feels that there are far too many children that already don't have enough love and support in her own community. She helps kids in the community whose parents are on hard drugs (meth) or are habitual drinkers. My son father died when he was 8 so her husband helps out with him and she is the best aunt ever. Raising a child is very difficult and I can't imagine doing it again or just starting to do it now given the state of the economy and world. I always tell my son to think carefully when he's older about what he wants...not what society wants for him. If he chose to never get married or have kids it wouldn't bother me at all. It's his path to choose, not mine.
So... basically you're saying that you resent having something or someone else depend on you?
Anderson -
You said- To me, having kids means listening to whining/crying/yelling all day, breaking up fights, having everything you work hard for destroyed, having someone follow you around all day asking annoying questions in a shrieking voice, being a 24/7 maid, doing homework all night, cleaning up poop and barf, spending all of your hard earned money on someone other than you...I don't get the desire; I would bet most of the nitwits out there are simply so self absorbed, they just pop out a few kiddies because want to recreate & celebrate their own likeness. Thanks, but I think I'll enjoy my life, follow my own dreams & travel the world instead. I mean, kids are cute and all, but I don't want one living in my house. Pretty much the same way I feel about chimpanzees. You made a very bold, demeaning statement that essentially belittled anyone who chose to become a parent as having made a poorer choice than you did. Then backed it up bay providing some explanation about how you sometimes feel resentful about taking care of your dog. If you don't want kids, that's fine and dandy with me. Yes your choice means that you have more freedom and more money to do what you want when you want to. It also means that you are missing out on an experience that the grand majority of parents will tell you is by far and large the best thing that ever happened to them. I wasn't trying to be condescending, you said you didn't get it. I was trying to explain it. I'm glad your happy with the choices you've made.
Yes, mandated liberal
Oops got cut off...that is exactly what I said. I resent having to forfeit the things I want to take care of a dependent, I think this is a pretty common feeling and it doesn't make me a bad person. What would make me bad is to let that feeling dictate my life and blow the dog off instead of stepping up to my responsibilities. I made a promise to him and I will honor it, but I still have a right to feel how I feel.
Xtina, my statement did not belittle anyone, as the very first two words I typed were TO ME. I described MY reality .if this is not your reality, I have no idea why you would take offense to it.
Nowhere is it written parents have to indulge their kids' every whim. Those parents who do have no moral fibre. I never bought them brand names, taught them self-reliance and respect for money. My two daughters worked part-time from 15 on, put themselves through university without relying on student loans, have travelled widely and have purchased vehicles, residences without asking help from the family. I love and respect them for everything they`ve accomplished. There are millions of young adults here in Canada, the States and elsewhere in the world who, while cherished by their families, were not spoiled rotten.
And does the costs include kids past 17 who cannot get a job or are under-employed and still have to live at home with mom and dad?
My daughter turns 5 next month. By the logic of this "study," that means I should have spent something like $60,000 on her by now. I can tell you that this is not the case. My wife and I live in the same place we did before she was born, so the additional cost for "housing" is exactly $0.00. Yes, she needs food, clothes, toys, and medical care from time to time, but by my estimate, she might have cost us an additional $300-400 a month (some months less, some more), not $1,100 a month this "study" suggests. She has health insurance through my job. Many of her baby items were "one time" things (crib convertible to bed, car seat, basic stroller) and a lot of them were gifts. Sure, it costs money to have a child, but the number cited in this story is B.S.
Did you need the whole house before she was born? Would you have lived in the home if you weren't planning on having children and are you ever planning on downsizing once she leaves? The answers to those questions would indicate whether she contributed to your housing cost.
My husband and I lived in a small 2 bedroom townhouse early on in our marriage, and we could have continued to live there if we didn't have children. My insurance went up when I switched into the family plan, and I also pay co-pays for her so $1000-1500/yr is a pretty reasonable number for the health care expenses (8% of child's expenses).
I used to think the same way in my early 20's. I am now 31 and have a little girl that is 1.5 years old. Nothing better than coming home after work and seeing her face light up when i walk in. On a side note.....non of my friends have kids yet and a few dont plan on it and that is their choice. But I have to say they all still act like they are 21, going out all weekend and partying. At times a I miss that but then I think about what a waste of time it all was in my 20's. I now hang out with family, since all my siblings have kids around the same age. You really start to value your family more after you have kids. But again it is not for everyone. To each his own.
Exactly. They look at kids and go "Nasty, smelly, loud, and expensive." Then hop into a car with their friends wearing expensive clothes, drop a couple quid on booze and club door fees, end up getting wasted, and having someone puke, someone go home with a random person, and spend the next morning hung-over, smelly, broke, possibly laying next to someone they just met, and wondering why their ears are ringing.
I have former friends that say my life is boring. It's not, it's rather fulfilling.
Generalize much? I have no kids, yet you will only find me at a bar maybe twice per year. I spend my time taking classes that interest me, pursuing my hobbies, talking with friends, traveling, trying new restaurants, reading, running, riding my bike, playing tennis, learning new languages, working on my garden, playing with my dog, taking long walks, volunteering...If your post was a description of the childless people you know, you need to meet some new ones.
If you don't want kids, then don't! No need to complain about it, you don't know what it's like to raise kids if you haven't.
Is the $234,000 figure based on one-child households or the average of multiple-children households? Too lazy to read the 39-page article. =P
This is why IDIOTS that don't use birth control need to start. Not only are they having kids by "mistake," most of them can't afford them to begin with. It's a drain on our economy.
Completely agree with Rob-1647498. If the parents are spending this much money then they are suckers and are letting their kids push them around. There is no reason that the parents should have to pay for the kids college. We figured it out ourselves without asking our parents for help. This Youtube generation has to stop nursing from their parents into their 20's and take some responsiblity. Although I am completely onboard with ChrisMcK... where do they get the numbers for this study? It falls in line with the rest of the MSNBC smut...
What I do find interesting is that when you get divorced, Friend of the Court does a calculation for support for those children....I can GUARANTEE you that my ex does NOT pay half of $200k+ in any way shape or form...He tells every one that I "rob" him and "steal him blind"...two boys...and when they were both younger (one is now 19) he was ordered to pay $500/month...I don't see how that is "robbing" anyone with the amounts they put in this article....grrrrr!!!!
If the gov't stopped subsidizing procreation via federal and state tax deductions for each child, and actually made parents pay more for each add'l child that they have, we'd get closer to a sustainable growth rate, improve school funding and put the burden of funding a child on those who choose to have them.
Being able to have children is a right, but being able to support them financially is the parents' obligation, not society's.
Or even better.. penalize the welfare recipients who have more kids that they obviously can't afford and are likely to teach to perpetuate being leeches on society.
You do realize US's current birth rate is slightly below the replacement rate of 2.1. The only reason why US continues to grow in population is due to immigration. If it weren't for immigration, the US would slowly be decreasing in population.
And in Europe, Japan, and other developed countries, they are facing a huge underpopulation crisis. With some countries with a birth rate 40% below the replacement rate. Europe is currently on a pathway toward extinction unless at some point it substantially raises its birth rate.
While I don't think that Europe is going to disappear anytime soon, people need to realize how problematic a negative population rate is for society and the economy as a whole. Excluding Social Security, the aging population relies on the younger generations to be the workforce once they can no longer do it. The young people of today (and the future) will be your doctors, grocery clerks, engineers, banker, car repair person etc. in the future. Unless you can do it all for yourself, you should realize that we need them...and that we'd like to them to be as smart, competent, hardworking, and kind as they can be.
Apparently, Europe is on multiple paths to extinction... I think they'll collapse financially before they run out of people. :)
Yes, maybe semantics, but "sustainable" is independent of fertility rate or replacement rate. If the needs of each child are growing faster than our ability to support with existing gov't funding, then we're relying on ever increasing gov't assistance to sustain our current fertility rate (regardless of whether it's above or below the replacement rate), that's not sustainable. If we were far below the replacement rate, eventually it would resolve itself as needs declined to come in line with resources, but we're not there.
In other words, we need to back off the 2.06 or 2.1 or whatever it is and get to a point where people having children can fund the schools and social programs with a fixed and reasonable amount of gov't funding in a relatively short amount of time. When I'm childless but have to pay more in taxes than my neighbor who has 5 kids in order to keep their schools open - and each time they have another kid, they pay LESS in taxes - that's not sustainable.
I don't mind paying taxes for funding schools and education, but what each of us pay should be proportional to the burden we place on the system.
I spend that much on my dogs at Petsmart.
I'm 36 and my husband is 42. We know more than ever we don't want to have kids. We love being DINKs (Duel Income No Kids). We can do whatever we want, whenever we want. We travel, eat out, live in a downtown condo (and have one we rent).... the best part..... we are going to be able to retire in our 50s! We love being an aunt and uncle, but we've been exposed to it enough to know we don't want to be parents. If you want to have kids, great! Just be a good, responsible parent. I've seen too many children who are not being raised properly. They are being poorly edcuated and and not going to be able to contribute to society in a productive manner when they get older. Not everyone is qualified to have children, but unfortunatly, those are the people who seem to have the most of them. (Just observation from a person who works in the trenches. Could be part of why I'm disillused about the whole "being a parent" thing.
It is good that you recognize that you don't want kids, good for you.
However, I used to say the exact same thing, loudly and proudly, up until I was 36 years old.
Just saying...
KC...I'm 33 and my wife is 43. We feel exactly the same way.
I don't think I'll be changing my mind, but I figure there are always children out there who could use a good home. I've had a lot of health issues over the course of the last four years and have had seven surgeries that have caused me a lot of pain in that general vicinity. My body has been through so much as it is.... But as you said.... What am I saying!?! LOL!
mid 40s now and almost ready to retire. I do what i want when i want and love the companionship of my awsome 2 dogs. I cant imagine how having kids could have done anything but ruin the life i love. Money is not the root of all evil . the LACK of money is the root of all evil. Anyway i am happy for the people who choose to make the big sacrifice. You are brave people.
This is one of the many reasons that I will never have a child. I've known since I was 16 that I never wanted one. I'm pushing 40 now and do not have one.
Interesting to note that every person that I've met at work, through friends, or friends that have children tell me that I'm lucky. That they feel that raising a child is the most overrated thing they've ever done.
If a parent thinks raising their kids was the most overrated thing they've ever done, they're probably doing it wrong.
Common themes:
Parents, those who want to be parents: "My kids bring me so much joy, and spending time with them is the best! Hopefully I can do a better job than my folks at preparing them for success and being the next leaders of this world. I want to give my kids experiences that will prepare them for challenges ahead."
Translation: I want experiences, but I want experiences that will have an impact on the future of this planet by preparing the future of this planet.
People who don't want kids: "But, but, kids mean I can't do what I want, when I want, and how I want. I don't want a BURDEN. It's why I don't even have goldfish. If I want to pack up, lock my home, and go backpack across Europe, then I want to have nothing to worry about, except of course what shoes I'm going to pack. I want to have all these experiences, kids will just get in the way of that."
Translation: If I have my experiences, they're mine, and I'm taking them to my grave. Unless I've decided to make money writing a best selling memoir, titled "Eat, Poop, Die". And if I wake up face down in my own puke in Amsterdam not remembering the last week, well, I want absolutely no responsibility to any other living thing. I can't be bothered with selflessness, and try to convince others I'm not selfish by donating 2% of my income to various organizations from NPR to Save the Beluga Whale.
Clarification: not saying everyone should have kids, there are a lot of people who do who really shouldn't. But, the people who have posted here, their reasoning really makes them sound like selfish, pretentious, a-hats.
I think I speak for the non-kid people when I say none of us gives a flying f*ck what you think of our decisions. Translation: quit being a judgmental pr*ck or Brad M Jr will probably be one, too.
The numbers in this study are pure B.S. I've got 4 kids, from 5 to 18 yrs old, so I'm pretty sure I'm an expert on this by now. I make $70k per year currently, starting out at 14k per year when my first daughter was born. I can never even once say my kids have been an undue burden on me. We have a church family that shares their kids clothes among each other. We buy bargains and the kids help out around the house with chores and such. Your taxes are a bit lower with the child-tax credits. The extra cost is almost not even worth complaining over. I'm not planning on paying for their college education because there's no way I could afford that. I didn't have that done for me. I took out a loan for a 2 year tech college and did just fine. Anyone can get scholarships, work out a loan, go to a trade school, etc. There are ways to work your way up in life. The numbers cited in this study are as ridiculous as can be, written by someone who must be living in lah lah land, don't have kids, or thinks their kids must have everything in life handed to them on a silver platter.
But above all that, the joy that children bring to your life is incomparable to anything else. I'm glad I will be surrounded by loving kids and grand-kids the day I die and I feel sorry for folks who just live life for themselves. I've had tons of memories I wouldn't trade for the riches of this entire world. And that's just 'so far'. I think about my kids all the time and I'm glad I have a wife who loves them as much as I do. Family is everything in life and kids are a huge part of the family experience.
If you don't want kids, that's fine. But the way some of you guys talk about those who do have them is pathetic. To each his own. Live in freedom and let others do the same.
Wow, I haven't seen numbers artificially inflated like that since... my last mortgage appraisal before the crash, lol.
I don't understand why people who have children are such haters against people choose not to. I think it's great people find satisfaction in rasing children. Why should you feel sorry for me. I find satifaction in the way I live my life. I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything. Haven't you heard you don't miss what you haven't had? That's fine with me. Maybe I sound Pretentious. Maybe some of you sound pretentious. Your's is not to judge. I'm in no way implying anyone who has a child is stupid because that is what they chose do do. Some of the language floating around here certainly has implied those of us who do not are and we don't understand what a family experiance is. They do come in all shapes and sizes and don't have to include a spawn of my own.
Probably because they're miserable and taking it out on us. :D
We aren't...so please don't stereotype.
It was a joke, hence the smiley face. The kids have destroyed your sense of humor, huh? ;)
KCDINK - It is interesting that you called for understanding between the groups and called out the inappropriately harsh language which I find inappropriate. You actually had me until your last line, "spawn of my own." This implies that my daughter is spawn which is an offensive term that is routinely used in a defamatory manner.
Unless you are renting for 17 years, housing is an investment that will return at least what was spent on it, adjusted for inflation (last 10 years not counting.) So, housing shouldn't be counted as part of the "expense" of raising a child.
If you have to buy a 4 bedroom home instead of a 2 bedroom home because you have two or three children, there is added expense relating to housing. Whether it increases in value or not, you still have to pay the mortgage and interest.
I'm calling bull@!$%#! That's $1087 per month. The people with 4 kids Would have to take home in excess of $7000 per month just to supply housing and a vehicle. Haven't even considered food yet. I didn't read the article but whatever numbnuts created this piece of "news" needs to be beaten for not having a real story to report on