Easier to FIRE with no kids?

REWahoo

Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give
Joined
Jun 30, 2002
Messages
50,047
Location
Texas: No Country for Old Men
From another thread...
cj said:
It's interesting to me to see how many of those responding [to the question "Where's your money going after you're dead?"] have no kids. Guess it's easier to FIRE without 'em.

This may help shed a little light on the subject:

Teens a sure road to higher auto rates

Parents who add a teen to their policy can expect auto-insurance premiums to jump anywhere from 100% to 355% even if the teen is driving nothing hotter than the old family wagon.

http://tinyurl.com/bw8rr
 
Is it easier to FIRE with no kids ?

Isn't this question kind of a no-brainer. Yes kids require all sorts of things. Costs are spent on food, clothing, bigger house, perhaps a bigger house in a better neighborhood with better schools etc., college,  and all sort of other costs including auto insurance per the link.

Perhaps the biggest cost is the loss of income of the spouse who may stay at home (at least part time) for child rearing.
 
MasterBlaster said:
Is it easier to FIRE with no kids ?
If kids were a financial decision then no one would ever invest their time or money in them.
 
It is a lifestyle choice. The same question can be asked of living as an expat in a low-cost developing country: "Is it easier to FIRE when you move to a 3rd world country?"

Of course kids cost tons of money!
 
I estimate my 2 boys delayed FIRE 5 years. Wouldn't have it any other way , though.
 
The kids cost money, sure, but I'm not sure that its easier to FIRE with no kids. RE is not just money related, there's an element of richness of life. Family adds to that richness. If no kids, asset accumulation, asset focus, and possibly RE isn't in the cards.
Now, I know many, many who have no kids and have a very rich and varied and full and happy life and could RE in a second if they were FI (or have already done so), so I don't think one needs kids to have them, but they do add to life's joy.
Uncledrz
 
My high school economics teacher talked about not having kids because they were too expensive (he was married, though). Frankly he seemed like a bitter old man, and he certainly didn't ER. And hey, if that's what he wanted, more power to him.
 
tryan said:
I estimate my 2 boys delayed FIRE 5 years. Wouldn't have it any other way , though.

Add 2 years to that for two girls. The now 15yr old wants to go on the high school ski trip to Vermont, needs new snowboard gear, an amp for her guitar, and simply won't survive without that season ski pass. Oh, and she has to borrow clothes from her friends since her fall clothing allowance is shot. She claims her straight A's will get me a whole 5% discount on the upcoming car insurance nightmare, her AP math will save me 6 credits of future college tuition, and her table bussing/babbysitting jobs will help with the winter activities. I'm still negotiating a "right to request in-state university and future elope" contract with her. ::)

Nope, wouldn't have it any other way. By far the best thing that ever happened to me.
 
My youngest son is still in school and I am helping with his tuition etc. so he is part of the reason I still work. I could RE with him in school but it just makes more sense (to me) to continue to work a little longer and keep out of the retirement cookie jar until I really need to. DW is still working and will for another 20 months so I am OK working for now. If the crap hits the fan again here I know I can bail at anytime and I am fully vested in my 401k so I can take their money now too. ;)

It's nice knowing you can ER anytime you want. :D
 
Interesting question. I decided to apply it to me and my siblings.

I have 2 children and officially retired at 50. Hubby retired at 53 after the last of the college bills were done.

My three siblings have no children. The ages they retired are 62, 55 and 44 (huge stock options/company buyout/working part-time)

The 62 yr old is high maintenance but looking back wishes she would have gone sooner. The 55 yr old (now 56) went at the earliest age she could (teacher) and is very low maintenance. The 44 yr old (now 50) was very financially independent along with being somewhat low maintenance. Hubby and I would fall into the low maintenance category also. (me more so than him but he's coming around..<g>) FWIW.
 
Without kids you don't have grandkids. Without grandkids you could not be grandparents. Having been a happy parent who had happier grandparents the entire question is not worth considering.

Money is not and never will be worth more than children and grandchildren.

JP

As a 2 year lurker I am proud to make this my first and probably only post.
 
plattj1 said:
Without kids you don't have grandkids. Without grandkids you could not be grandparents. Having been a happy parent who had happier grandparents the entire question is not worth considering.

Money is not and never will be worth more than children and grandchildren.

JP

As a 2 year lurker I am proud to make this my first and probably only post.

No arguement here (grandchhild #5 on the way).

And to start a topic that draws out a lurker for their first post...YESSS!!! :D
 
I hope no one would choose not to have children purely from a monetary standpoint! That would be the extremes of "deprivation," if you ask me.

I chose not to have children for a number of reasons, including career demands, and personal preference, but cost never came into consideration.

Having just found out that my SO's son will be getting married in March, I'm already working on getting my head around becoming a pseudo-grandmother.

I think it could be fun :D
 
I agree Sheryl, I don't think anyone doesn't have kids so the can FIRE.

I'm also in the same boat as you with the exception that I couldn't have/didn't want my own, ended up married to a man with three grown children and now I'm the evil (a joke the kids started years ago) stepgrandmother of 6 grandkids.
 
I'll take the contrary view.
We have MORE money because we have kids :eek:

Yup, that's right.
Because of kids, we bought a bigger house in a better school district. We then held onto the old house as a rental for no good reason. This all happened during the housing price boom in CA.

I love our kids and not just because they made us money :)
 
Cool! I knew they had to be good for something :LOL: :LOL:
 
My 2 year old boy is just great! He's like that commercial says; priceless. I struggle with some financial decisions, how much to save; but this one is a no-brainer for me. I wouldn't give him up for any amount of money.
 
ER was not the reason my wife and I had no kids . . . but it was like icing on the cake. 
 
No question it is easier to RE without kids. You see it in the postings here, and it's just common sense. There are many people here with no kids, while I think that Farmer Ed is the only one who's said that he had four, and he apparently had an extreemly lucrative consulting practice.

I've estimated that each of my children have delayed my FI by a little over 2 years, and if I had no children I would likely be in a position to retire now. This is mostly because I plan on paying for their college, but my wife not working and buying a larger house are a big factor as well. This is offset by some scale economies, and the fact that I have a good income.

As I have mentioned before, my kids are my backup retirement plan. It's the old-fasioned social security. When the current system collapses you childless geezers will be on your own, while my kids will (though generous application of guilt) support me in lavish style!

For a dissenting view on the financial impact of children you can check out Scott Burns (registration required): http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...s/2005/stories/082305dnbusburns.9f719ad2.html

His basic point is that kids lower your standard of living enough so that when you reitre you're used to living on less.
 
bongo2 said:
As I have mentioned before, my kids are my backup retirement plan. It's the old-fasioned social security. When the current system collapses you childless geezers will be on your own, while my kids will (though generous application of guilt) support me in lavish style!

Hey, that is my back-up retirement plan too! If worse comes to worst, I'll know that there will always be family there for me to rely on.

I think kids change spending trends in a family. They don't necessarily have to increase spending to a great extent. With kids, you may not have a desire (or ability) to take lavish extended vacations in some far off corner of the world.

We have been going out to eat less since our little one was born. We find we are content spending more time at home. With less free time, we don't have enough time to wonder what we should buy next (or to actually buy it). Of course our grocery/Walmart expenses have increased, along with health insurance. But other expenses (entertainment, dining out, cable, and taxes) have decreased. Different expenses, not necessarily more expenses. Maybe that is the "lower standard of living" we are experiencing?
 
bongo2 said:
As I have mentioned before, my kids are my backup retirement plan.  It's the old-fasioned social security.  When the current system collapses you childless geezers will be on your own, while my kids will (though generous application of guilt) support me in lavish style!

I use to be concerned about that seeing that I was unable to have children but then someone made the comment to me about all the elderly who's kids park them in a home then never visit. Don't count on your kids to be your backup plan, they just might have plans of their own.
 
Get married? Have kids? Not for me! :D

I see marriage simply as a tool for the wife/husband to ruin your financial future. Most everyone or this board probably knows at least one person that has had it happen to. My best friend is going through this right now.

Why not just wear a ring and live life together? Seems just like being married to me except in the eyes of Uncle Sam your not.

Kids? Huh? Crazy?! Must be.... I suppose day care is cheap! ::)

After one catches on FIRE they should htink about kids, not before!
 
trixs said:
Get married? Have kids? Not for me!  :D

I see marriage simply as a tool for the wife/husband to ruin your financial future. Most everyone or this board probably knows at least one person that has had it happen to.  My best friend is going through this right now.

Why not just wear a ring and live life together?  Seems just like being married to me except in the eyes of Uncle Sam your not.

Kids? Huh? Crazy?! Must be.... I suppose day care is cheap!  ::)

After one catches on FIRE they should htink about kids, not before!

It's true that spouses can be highly problematical, but kids are great.

ha
 
Back
Top Bottom