I can save a house for each child I don't have.

UncleRuckus · 19 Aug 2013 at 15:28

I like that i'm taxed to house people who choose to breed and not work, oh wait...

Orch · 19 Aug 2013 at 15:28

Can you spot the parents and non parents in here?

Dj_Jestar · 19 Aug 2013 at 15:32

Orch said:
Can you spot the parents and non parents in here?

And the young'uns vs not so young'uns. Priorities in life change as you get older. Who knew? Oh, that's right, the elder generations!

413x · 19 Aug 2013 at 16:10

It's definitely the loss of income and child care that inflates the figure. The more I think about it the more that figure seems about right assuming some people have given up very well paid jobs, like said, even minimum wage is a loss of.. What.. 11k a year? Net.. 10 years of that would easy be 100k

I'm 27 FYI.

Doing some cold hard flawed maths
1 kid is worse if one parent stays home and assuming pays for retirement home!
At least with 2 you still only loose one salary and get 2x retirement homes.. Unless said kid ends up a bum/waster

Disregarding parental satisfaction.. No kids is definitely the winner.

Orch · 19 Aug 2013 at 16:19

Dj_Jestar said:
And the young'uns vs not so young'uns. Priorities in life change as you get older. Who knew? Oh, that's right, the elder generations!

Quite.

pitchfork · 19 Aug 2013 at 16:41

Mr^B said:
Utter rubbish, I have 4 kids, my wife doesn't work. No way does it cost that much, even with the amount of iPads and bicycles they seem to require...

Depends on your income and where you live.

Both my parents worked long hours when I was growing up and barely had a pot to **** in their whole lives.

Orch · 19 Aug 2013 at 16:47

The answer is to keep the kids but bin the missus, it's them spending the money on clothes and toys that they just have to have

d_brennen · 19 Aug 2013 at 16:47

Kishywish said:
free time that could otherwise have been spent on oneself, but is now wasted on the care and attention of another.

lol

D.P. · 19 Aug 2013 at 16:53

Yeah, it is the loss of earnings and/or chlld care that costs. If you are in a position to still work full time without having to have childcare costs then they aren't that expensive until later in life.

Freakbro · 19 Aug 2013 at 17:03

[DOD]Asprilla;24793373 said:
Quite sure?

http://www.yor-ok.org.uk/Parents/Childcare/nef.html

You can get it at age two if you are on certain means tested benefits but otherwise it's 3.

Its a universal 15 hours free funding that starts the term after their 3rd birthday yes.

But 2 year old funding was brought in a couple years ago, initially just for deprived areas, but it is undergoing a general roll out, with an aim of 40% of 2 year olds to be eligible in the next year or so, with the ultimate aim for it to be universal as well.

[DOD]Asprilla · 19 Aug 2013 at 17:18

Freakbro said:
Its a universal 15 hours free funding that starts the term after their 3rd birthday yes.

But 2 year old funding was brought in a couple years ago, initially just for deprived areas, but it is undergoing a general roll out, with an aim of 40% of 2 year olds to be eligible in the next year or so, with the ultimate aim for it to be universal as well.

Any links to qualification and how you get it (youngest is 25wks old)?

How do you gradually roll-out a benefit? Is is nationally by removing acceptance criteria or is it done local authority by local authority?

Edit; found it http://www.education.gov.uk/childre... to early education/b0070114/eefortwoyearolds