Women having children older

[wac_432]

Originally Posted by charolastra00

Then throw in daycare at $2000/mo for an infant in cheapest home daycare in my area - centers are closer to $2500. And that's to say nothing about diapers, clothing for baby or mom, or any baby medical costs. Nor does it cover any kind of enrichment or entertainment, savings - retirement or otherwise, car repairs, or rent increases or wanting more than 1 bedroom.

Churches and colleges usually have lower preschool costs, but the tradeoff is that the program probably doesn't run your full work day. There's a dependent care tax credit of 50% of your costs up to 8,000 yearly.

If you're paying 24,000 per year, that would mean you could take the full credit, shrinking your costs to 16,000 yearly, or 1,300 per month. You can also do some other tax jiggering with FSA's and stuff to make all those childcare/healthcare costs tax-deductible. As a single six-figure (I assume low) income earner, that means most of your childcare costs will take a 22-24% haircut, because that money is now tax-free.

So is it possible to survive as a single parent? Yes.

But, like you would guess, most of your child's early years awake are going to be in the company of strangers, and not you. Most young children sleep from 8PM until 6AM or later. With commuting to the day care center thrown in, your work/commutes is likely to cover the hours from 7AM until 5-6PM (especially in the snarl of cow paths that are Boston exurbs) so you will only get maybe 3 waking hours with your child on weekdays, while daycare, preschool, and school teachers get them for the other 10.

The best solution is to get married if you plan to have children. I could certainly not raise mine without my wife. For six-figure couples (say you got a spouse who was a SAHP) the top half of your taxes is cut in half. (from 22-24% down to 12%) not to mention you get more dependent claims (can claim a SAHP if they "don't work"). Our 4-person household, single-income, six-figure federal tax rate is effectively 6% after all deductions and credits are figured in. (SS and Medicaid take a bigger chunk as they can't be avoided)

Of course, I'm sure you'll find plenty of people who prefer dual-incomes to SAHP (and also the pleasure of dealing with adults instead of children all day every day for a good chunk of your life), but even in that case having two different work schedules, sets of sick leave, vacations, etc. mean that there is usually a way to adjust schedules so that someone can pick up the kids at 3/4PM or drop them off at 9AM and thus shave half of the costs of extended-day daycare off your childcare bill. Also, once they in school you may be able to avoid any after-care costs completely.

MA's flat tax is also murder on you. When we moved from MA to CA, the progressive tax brackets meant our state taxes were cut in half as well.

Honestly, in your situation, if you really want kids but no prospective spouses, I would look around for another single person, maybe even one of the same gender preference--to avoid potential romantic complications--who also is in the single-parent-wanting-kids boat. Find someone who reasonably matches your childrearing philosophies, write a pre-nup, get married at the local town hall, and cooperate to raise the kids. No need to live together or even see each other (though it would probably be a good idea to live close to be able to coordinate on childcare drop-offs and pickups) or you can join households depending on your personal preference. It's neither illegal nor immoral to do so. You are simply facilitating your ability to raise children by partnering with another would-be parent. You can even choose what you tell friends/neighbors and your children. The marriage can literally be just a piece of paper that slashes hundreds of thousands of dollars off your total costs of raising children.

[Mikala43]

Originally Posted by SerlingHitchcockJPeele

If a couple in their 50s is healthy and they froze their genetic material when they were younger and are now able to have happy healthy children via IVF, and are financially stable… good for them. It’s their business, not mine to ponder, as I should have my own things to focus on. And their decisions affect their household not mine.

Yeah, it's possible but not probably. All your hormones and such have normally changed in your 50s. Most would require a surrogate.

[charolastra00]

I didn't want to make this about me - just wanted to show how difficult it is even on above-average incomes to afford kids.

However - my synagogue's daycare is $2400 a month and at work (a university), the subsidized daycare for my income level is $2700 a month. The number I cited was for a home daycare closer to where I live, versus the much more expensive options the closer I get to work. I do often forget about the tax breaks on childcare, so thanks for that reminder!

I have a partner, but he got a late start thanks to law school and starting a small business, and he also has significant law school debt. I make significantly more money than him, so when we figure costs, it's generally without his income in mind because currently it almost entirely goes toward catching up on savings and a house payment each month toward student loans. His income is also pretty variable, so in general I feel more confident treating that income as icing on the cake rather than something to expect. A lot of his money is also reinvested into the business. Marriage is off the table due to his debt as well. Given my financial trauma related to watching my mom rely on my dad to be the "breadwinner" only to see him lose all ability to work when he was in his 40s, it's never made sense to me to anticipate relying on anyone else's income for my children - not even their father.

The business is also a means to supporting his parents. He employs both parents (who have nothing saved for retirement and are approaching their 70s) and he rents out their barn for parts of the business so that pays their mortgage. As an only child, he feels compelled to support his elderly parents, so while he could easily make more money elsewhere he has to factor in that his parents are based in the middle of nowhere and absolutely refuse to relocate. My parents also have nothing saved for retirement, so both sets of parents' aging-related needs are always factored into my risk profile. And no, moving them in with us is not an option for all of our sanity and longevity.

Also adding to the complication is that I'm a young adult cancer survivor and that has impacted my fertility. It is unlikely that family building will be as low cost as the old fashioned way. We will likely need to use fertility treatment or adoption, which is another up-front cost. We hope to foster, too, but had hoped to do that once we were more secure with our parenting skills.

On the plus side, some things are looking up on the horizon - I have a few second interviews next week that would all represent a 40-60% salary increase and, in one case, a total increase of 300% over my current compensation package with bonuses and equity, and they even offer fertility treatment and adoption benefits. My partner is also having a major European launch and is starting to dip his toes into the viability of selling the company, which would give him liquid cash to put toward high interest student loans.

But all's that to say that it took a lot of time and hard work to get to that point. At 28 - the same age as my parents had kids - my partner and I were making less than 6 figures combined and both of us were living with 2-3 roommates. Our inflation-adjusted income was much higher than my parents at the same time (hell - that's true of just my income!) but my parents already owned a condo in the same general area at the same age. It's no surprise that folks are waiting longer so they can provide their kids with the same level of stability and financial support their parents provided them. It just takes longer to get there now.

[HeyYa80s]

Originally Posted by msRB311

Plenty of people have kids who make less than 6 figures. Are you saying poor people shouldn’t have kids ? Perhaps people’s standards of how much they should be making before having kids has also caused the rise in age. People shouldn’t need 6 figures to have a family. It's what people think they have or should have and their image to others that has caused much of this.

Exactly! Keeping up with the Jones and posing you are rich when you are not. We moved away from an area like this. I know this post isn't about SAHMs, but I could right a novel on what little we did in order for me to stay home when my kids were little bc that was important to us, like NOT going on lavish vacations, not giving my kids 1st bday parties that cost 5 grand, renting "gasp", and we now own a house, have 2 older kids who are fully functioning, who do excellent in school and are happy. When the woah is me FB posts come on my feed with mommy whining how she wishes she could stay home and next post is a picture of her new Audi..gee wonder what you could have given up lol.

Kids now NEED a 6 figure income to survive lol? Sure No, they need 2 functioning parents, love, food and a roof over their head. When parents CHOOSE to live in insanely HOC areas, not part with their lavish toys..then yes, you can't afford to have kids..

[Jdawg8181]

Originally Posted by lologal321

A recent article about Tammy Duckworth really opened my eyes on something. People were making a big deal about her nursing on the senate floor. That doesn't seem like a big deal to me to be honest...although i guess it is basically bringing your baby to work and breastfeeding in front of co workers. What REALLY got me that no articles made mention of is that she is FIFTY. Yes, she had a baby at 50. Now I had my kids at 35 and 37 and i felt like i was older. I live in boston, people are educated here they have careers, but still most of peers are having kids in their 30s. I know of a few who had a baby at 40. But FIFTY?!?!? is this going to become the norm? I get that Tammy duckworth is not your average woman either.

Are we pushing the envelope here? Just because science makes way for something should it happen? we dont really know what the ramifications of women having children so late in life are. I think we've evolved but how much more room is there evolve as far as getting pregnant goes.

And yes i realize it's better to have a baby when you're older and financially stable but damn...do people need to wait until we're 50 for this?

Do what you want. I know plenty of ppl that are 40/45 & just had their first. I know others who are 20 with 3 already and some like myself who will never have. No right or wrong.

The reason for the shift is many more women are working and holding high ranking positions and want to get their careers set before they start families.

I don't know how much truth there is to this but I saw a study that the older the parents are when the child is born, the smarter the child will be. Maybe no truth to it, but who knows. My dad is 75 and I am 40, which back in the 80's a first time father @ 35 was considered 'old.'

[NDak15]

Originally Posted by KaraG

Obviously not since most households don't make six figures.

More households do than you think. Sure, you can raise them on less but you might just be getting by.