Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, for two of them, it would be around $450,000, without college costs (which I would fully intend to pay if I planned on having kids ... I don't).
So, doesn't it make sense that if a couple without children were nearing retirement, they wouldn't have to save very much, because of the simple fact they saved almost $500,000 by not having kids.
raising a child in the US is ~ $225,000 meh; but call it $X
...two of them ... around $450,000 an add'l % of $X; maybe 40%
...if a couple without children ... saved almost $500,000 by not having kids.
Tell me where my logic is flawed here.
OK. Not spending money on one thing doesn't mean it was "saved".
There is a whole world of things out there that the couple could (and usually would) spend their money on.
Mr. Rational is correct. If the hypothetical couple has actually put aside the $500,000 saved by not having children (instead of spending it on other things), then they are $500,000 closer to having whatever amount you figure they need to retire on. How much that amount would be (to retire on) has been debated endlessly in this forum and depends on many variables, but $500,000 would certainly be on the very low end unless there is a pretty substantial pension involved.
There are so many excellent and compelling reasons not to have children in addition to the financial ones.
And for every one of those there's an excellent and compelling reason to have children, financial issues notwithstanding.
No quarrel from me. I did not mean to imply there were no reasons on the other side. After all, the biological imperative is strong, as is the ontological one (immortality through passing on our genes) in our thinking and self-aware species.
Mr. Rational is correct. If the hypothetical couple has actually put aside the $500,000 saved by not having children (instead of spending it on other things), then they are $500,000 closer to having whatever amount you figure they need to retire on. How much that amount would be (to retire on) has been debated endlessly in this forum and depends on many variables, but $500,000 would certainly be on the very low end unless there is a pretty substantial pension involved.
There are so many excellent and compelling reasons not to have children in addition to the financial ones.
I've seen the figures that say you need a million to a million and a half to retire (not including social security and housing equity).
In order to create a cash nest egg that big, you are talking about stashing away $30,000 a year at least.
Median household income is only ~ 50K. How do you expect someone to stash away that much a year?
Nature abhors a vacuum. When people have money, they tend to spend it. This is why we know couples with no kids and more income, who have less net worth and retirement savings, than do we. If anything, having children has forced us to be very frugal and to examine where every dollar is going, and we save judiciously.
So yes, you could pretend to have a child who will cost 250k over 18 years and save that money accordingly (incidentally, we will have spent nowhere near that sum on each of our children by the time they enter college), but that would take a degree of self control few people have.
I've seen the figures that say you need a million to a million and a half to retire (not including social security and housing equity).
In order to create a cash nest egg that big, you are talking about stashing away $30,000 a year at least.
Median household income is only ~ 50K. How do you expect someone to stash away that much a year?
So, for two of them, it would be around $450,000, without college costs (which I would fully intend to pay if I planned on having kids ... I don't).
So, doesn't it make sense that if a couple without children were nearing retirement, they wouldn't have to save very much, because of the simple fact they saved almost $500,000 by not having kids.
Tell me where my logic is flawed here.
One has to factor in the subsidised funding of raising a child. Some eve get money they never paid in a unearned income. But then you have to realise few not having children really save much anywayas they blow the3 money ort eve the opportuntiy to earn even more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
