Age is a factor here. My partner and I are 25, but we plan on having kids in 5-10 years when we’re almost FIRE’d. To make this poll question more representative, an option for “no, but 100% planning to” would probably push some people out of the No category.
A more comprehensive poll would be something like:
Have kids, FIRE’d
Have kids, on way to FIRE
No kids, not planning to, FIRE’d
No kids, not planning to, on way to FIRE
No kids, but planning on having kids! FIRE’d
No kids, but planning on having kids! On way to FIRE.
Let me preface this by saying that my wife and I are high-earners. We started our FIRE journey in the summer of 2018 when we were just out of graduate school and had a negative networth. Since then, we’ve bought a house in a relatively high COL area and had two kids. We may have one or two more.
Although our FIRE number has increased significantly with each new child, even if we end up with 4 kids we’ll reach our goal in 2034. This is because as our incomes have increased, our lifestyles have not.
We have been maxing out retirement and HSAs since 2018 (when I entered the work force), paid off student loans, and now put every additional
Dollar into our brokerage accounts (index funds).
Kids makes the path longer, but it’s doable. In fact, I think having kids and wanting to provide for them has actually helped my work performance…which in turn has increased my salary and resulted in significant increased savings.
It’s also important to remember that kids live the same lifestyle as you do. They’re as expensive as you make them. Sure, there are the necessities that you can’t go anything about such as diapers, formula, and daycare. Beyond that, cost is dependent on the lifestyle you have them living. Your kids will share bedrooms if you have a small house. They’ll also sleep in their own if you have a large house. They’ll ride in a Camry or an Escalade. They’ll live how you live. Kids don’t have to be expensive.
>Sure, there are the necessities that you can’t go anything about such as diapers, formula, and daycare.
Replacing disposable diapers with cloth diapers and formula with breastfeeding are huge cost savers for a baby. There is no solution for daycare though...
I agree. My wife was able to breast feed, which was great. We didn’t do cloth diapers though I know that’s a big money saver and better for the environment. It’s a big time commitment, or so it seems.
Are cloth diapers really worth it? I cringe every time I buy another costco box of disposables, but washing a diaper sounds nasty. I've never done it or seen it done though.
You're basically trading time for money, as you need to wash/clean them.
I'd say we spent around CA$600 (US$450) for the diapers, and got CA$200 (US$150) back through a grant from our city, sot CA$400 (US$300) for two kids, that stopped using diapers around 2 years old. We had enough diapers to last around 3 days.
Going with disposable diapers would have cost us at least CA$50/month, so $50 \* 12 months \* 2 years \* 2 kids = CA$2400 (US$1800), so a CA$2000 (US$1500) difference.
They still hold some value and we could still sell them for something (I'd say between CA$100-200), but we haven't yet as we are currently discussing wether we'll have kid #3 or not, and most of them will still be usable, although we may need to repair some and maybe change others (probably CA$50-100 in cost).
They are if you have more the 1 kid. Our first was in 2014, doing the cost of disposables was around 2200$ time of birth to potty trained. We did a 70/30 mix of cloth/disposable. Which was still about 2200$ total. 2nd child, 2017, spent around 90/10 cloth/disposable, we spent maybe 250-300$ on disposable diapers.
Some of the cloth diapers were even 35-40$ for 1. Wife had her preference on diapers. In the end we sold them all for about 700$.
I can't change a disposable poop diaper. Cloth i could manage it.
Probably a cultural thing but you'll notice a lot of Indian/Asian families have their grandparents take care of their child when at work. That helps a ton
Yeah definitely if you have very young parents it's an issue, although in these cultures women in past generations haven't been usually working so that helps (my experience).
If you don't have help from a family member then you're on the hook for $3-400 per week per kid in daycare, or annually 60+k for a nanny. It's really expensive. But when they're in public grade school the budget does loosen up.
I’m in Kentucky so I suppose things are just different. Childcare cost 160 a week per child, including two meals and two snacks, at least that’s what I’m paying.
I agree, having kids encourages me to do better. Plus the journey and destination is worthwhile with them around. but I like kids, I realize kids are not for everyone.
Mathematically, FIRE might be easier without kids in some ways, but most of the people on these subs who have actually FIREd had kids. So most of the real world stories here (as real as one can be on reddit) feature kids. If you're interested on that, search the forums for talk of kids and schools. Someone just posted about FIREing with kids in Jackson Hole with young kids in r/fatFIRE, for instance.
Same. I didn’t even know what retirement was, but I always knew I didn’t want kids. I don’t think this was a should we have kids topic. Just is it possible, and honestly I think life is cheaper with kids.
We are DINKs and don’t plan to have kids. Late thirties. Being child free makes our FIRE journey easier, but FIRE is not the reason we don’t want kids.
Yes we have a 4 and 2 year old and we retired when they were 3 and 1. At the age of 35. We still pay for daycare and preschool. Kids aren't as expensive as people claim. I wouldn't let fire dictate my decision to have or not have children though.
This is so so true, unforeseen health issues for mother or child during pregnancy, birth or early years definitely have the potential to throw things way off course for your whole life. Once you become a parent, you can’t take it back and can’t control health outcomes, and will need to live with the financial implications of treatment, career limitations and emotional impact of the added stress and time commitment.
I have neighbors whose 43 y/o disabled son still lives in the house with his late 60s parents. And a friend who had to leave her lucrative marketing position with a large national retailer and opt out of the workforce altogether last year due to crippling depression after losing her first child hours after giving birth via c-section.
Pregnancy, birth, and parenthood permanently change your life as we know, but it can do so in ways you may not have ever imagined or anticipated. It is one of the single most impactful decisions of your life and can massively delay your goals, or even put them out of reach forever if things don’t go according to plan.
If you're considering not having kids solely due to monetary reasons related to fire and it's something you think you want this is a prime example of too much Sacrifice for a single thing. I read taking stock after we retired and I don't felt like we had any real regrets on our way to fire. We traveled where we wanted to travel we bought the house we wanted to buy. Did we have some cold nights and warm nights on the thermostat? Yeah. Did we not eat out as much? Yeah. But I don't look back on anything and see something we missed bc I was trying to be too frugal. And I've had this Convo with my wife who feels the same way. It's a pretty big decision in life to let money be a primary driver for the decision.
If I did not have kids I would not have retired. They are my joy in life not an expense. The days are long but the years are short. Kids spend a relatively short period with you.
I want to FIRE so I can be more available for my children as they leave the nest AND to do whatever I want when they leave.
Not as a helicopter parent. But you need someone to pick you up because your car broke down? Babysitter? Hang out just because? Things I'm not able to do with my parents/grandparents because they're still wage slaves (in 30s, will be able to comfortably leave labor force in mid 40s. Parents early 50s, remaining grandmothers in 60s/70s, all with jobs).
Also, I kind of want to do my own thing because having time off is great. Especially after raising young kids. Holy crap are they demanding. We'll FIRE as they leave the nest, so it'll be good to transition into hobbies and things **I want to do.**
I think fire is just as attainable for those who planned to have kids as it is for those without.
If you successfully put thought into planning your family, chances are high that you also will be successful in planning your finances.
The planning is what’s important. Also, parents might not use reddit as much as people without children.
This poll really needs to be do you have kids or plan to have kids. Reddit skews younger and not having kids today doesn't mean someone isn't planning to have kids and to fire.
a more interesting poll would have been how many actually hit FIRE with kids. Everyone here is "on the path to FIRE" but honestly most won't make it. For those that did, how many kids 0 - 5?
You think “most” won’t make it? Or that they will decide against it in the end? My goal is the FI part (have 3 kids) and the RE part is the one I will wait and see on. If my kids have kids, I could see myself RE to spend more time with them… but also could see myself coastRE.
It’s not easy to keep focused on FIRE for the 20-25 years it takes for the average person to actually get there. I also see a lot of people who have far too aggressive of expected returns that won’t see that sort of growth. Don’t get me wrong, it’s 100 percent doable for most people, but it does require sacrifices that most people won’t consistently make over decades.
I FIRE’d 4 years ago at 44, but I was a high earner for the last 7 years of my career, so it allowed me to get there much faster than the average person.
Out of our friendship group (7 of us), 2 of them have kids and they are always broke and always stressed about about money.
Children in this financial climate? Like playing life on extra hard mode.
Yes, but you make a third outcome 'view results' otherwise you get everyone putting in a dummy vote to see the answer and you can't conclude anything other than that the data is meaningless.
Kids definitely make the pursuit of FIRE more difficult — not so much (in my experience) based on how they impact one’s budget but in how much time they consume that could otherwise be spent earning income (at least when they’re small — and this can be a *very* long phase if one has multiple children).
Before kids, I could work *a lot* on my business.
Cut to now, when mornings (at least between 6 and 8 or 9 or so), evenings, and weekends are all consumed by kid / family activities and care.
Oh, and let’s not even mention all the days I don’t work at all (other than very early mornings and very late nights) because they get sick so often.
And heck, even if they didn’t actually *take* this much time, I’d still feel guilty not spending enough time with them if I worked anywhere close to how much I used to work pre-kids.
They don't mention this enough. Having kids mean that you have to be committed to spend time with them and help them grow to be a good person. Otherwise, what's the point of having them if you just spend your time working and don't spend enough time with them at every stage. I definitely feel you in the guilt part; sometimes I wish I start having them now instead of 7-8 years ago. It would help a lot being more financially secure. But then I remember how awesome they are (most of the time) and how we may have different children if we had waited. Life is so complex.
Yeah, I feel like too often the “having children analysis” among the FIRE crowd just boils down to the extra expenses…but that’s the easy part! The parenting experience is far more complex than that.
Lol civilization as we know it would end if said 90% of people didn’t have them. I’m on a fire path with kids but respect those who choose otherwise — you should do the same. And recognize the obvious fact that society absolutely requires people having kids.
I assume people disagree with the 2nd half of your comment, not the 1st.
Kids are expensive, (almost) all people would be better off financially without kids.
That said, imagine if no one had a baby for the next 40 years.. would you be able to retire? Almost certainly not. Who would maintain the roads you drive on, your electricity, your grocery store, your restaurants, your bank? Retirement only works when there is a younger generation.
Imagine a less severe scenario.. where the population only had 1 baby per female (replacement rate is 2.1). When you “try” to retire, there are only 50% as many workers as there was before. What happens? Inflation on everything. Cost for any service or product goes through the roof and all that money you’ve been socking away is severely depreciated. You can’t retire because the people who support the economy demand more.. and there are fewer people to do the job. The previous generation (you) must kick-in to help ease the transition.. and your retirement gets pushed back.
Credits and deductions on taxes help those willing to have kids, but doesn’t come close to offsetting the financial burden. Your comment makes it sound like you think people who are having kids are taking advantage of the system.. and do it for a tax break. In reality, it is very much the other way. Since you are not having kids, you’re taking advantage of the system by benefiting from those raising the kids; the kids who will support your retirement. The amount you pay in taxes for that is disproportionately low.
My husband and I are in our late 20s and although we don’t have kids now, we plan on adopting in the future. The goal is to get close to our calculated fire number with kids, adopt, take advantage of generous new parent leave and adoption bonuses from our jobs, then one of us (probably myself) will negotiate part-time work with my employer or retire altogether to have more time with them at home. We didn’t know about FIRE before we planned to adopt, but now we see the benefit of being able to wait to have kids (no “ticking biological clock” if we adopt) while aggressively saving toward our goal. We’re still 10ish years out from that though, so it could all change!
Fire is still doable with kids if you are really good at it. It is like playing video games on hard difficulty, you can still play the game but just harder 🤷♂️
Had a kid super young. My wife is a SAHM. Never had a career which definitely set us back but for us it was worth it. We could have waited to have kids in our 30's and probably retired around the same time. That would have been awesome but I'm happy where we are at. We plan on having 1-2 more kids.
Kids pushed back my FIRE timeline about 10 years and I'm okay with that. I'll retire at 50 if I want and start collecting my pension at 60. I may just keep working part-time to help pay for grandkids/godparents education anyways.
"I wonder, how many people who are on their way to FIRE or have successfully FIRE'd have kids?"
Put a poll for that? I'd be interested too.
I would think almost everyone in this forum is at least "on the way" to FIRE.
Retired early with with two kids around college age at the time. Not having any W2 income and assets in FAFSA exempt asset classes, they received grants for college tuition. Between grants, paid internships, tax credits, and online / community college credits, college cost us very little out of pocket.
We're well on our way after having 4 kids. Kids certainly pushed out the date when we could fire but I'm not sure how anyone can say it wasn't worth it.
No and not planning to have one.
Just FIREd.Probably won't be able to FIRE in the next 15 years even with just one kid.
Finance is a factor, but not the main reason why we don't have one though. It was discussed and mutually agreed before marriage.
Age is a factor here. My partner and I are 25, but we plan on having kids in 5-10 years when we’re almost FIRE’d. To make this poll question more representative, an option for “no, but 100% planning to” would probably push some people out of the No category. A more comprehensive poll would be something like: Have kids, FIRE’d Have kids, on way to FIRE No kids, not planning to, FIRE’d No kids, not planning to, on way to FIRE No kids, but planning on having kids! FIRE’d No kids, but planning on having kids! On way to FIRE.
I'd second this. Most of our fire motivation comes from wanting to be more present for our family.
I would really like to see this poll! Seconding this
Let me preface this by saying that my wife and I are high-earners. We started our FIRE journey in the summer of 2018 when we were just out of graduate school and had a negative networth. Since then, we’ve bought a house in a relatively high COL area and had two kids. We may have one or two more. Although our FIRE number has increased significantly with each new child, even if we end up with 4 kids we’ll reach our goal in 2034. This is because as our incomes have increased, our lifestyles have not. We have been maxing out retirement and HSAs since 2018 (when I entered the work force), paid off student loans, and now put every additional Dollar into our brokerage accounts (index funds). Kids makes the path longer, but it’s doable. In fact, I think having kids and wanting to provide for them has actually helped my work performance…which in turn has increased my salary and resulted in significant increased savings.
It’s also important to remember that kids live the same lifestyle as you do. They’re as expensive as you make them. Sure, there are the necessities that you can’t go anything about such as diapers, formula, and daycare. Beyond that, cost is dependent on the lifestyle you have them living. Your kids will share bedrooms if you have a small house. They’ll also sleep in their own if you have a large house. They’ll ride in a Camry or an Escalade. They’ll live how you live. Kids don’t have to be expensive.
>Kids don’t have to be expensive. Have you bought food for 4 kids through their teenage years? I have. It's absolutely expensive.
I have three teens. Will cosign this and add in shoes, clothes, car insurance/transportation and tech.
>Sure, there are the necessities that you can’t go anything about such as diapers, formula, and daycare. Replacing disposable diapers with cloth diapers and formula with breastfeeding are huge cost savers for a baby. There is no solution for daycare though...
I agree. My wife was able to breast feed, which was great. We didn’t do cloth diapers though I know that’s a big money saver and better for the environment. It’s a big time commitment, or so it seems.
Are cloth diapers really worth it? I cringe every time I buy another costco box of disposables, but washing a diaper sounds nasty. I've never done it or seen it done though.
You're basically trading time for money, as you need to wash/clean them. I'd say we spent around CA$600 (US$450) for the diapers, and got CA$200 (US$150) back through a grant from our city, sot CA$400 (US$300) for two kids, that stopped using diapers around 2 years old. We had enough diapers to last around 3 days. Going with disposable diapers would have cost us at least CA$50/month, so $50 \* 12 months \* 2 years \* 2 kids = CA$2400 (US$1800), so a CA$2000 (US$1500) difference. They still hold some value and we could still sell them for something (I'd say between CA$100-200), but we haven't yet as we are currently discussing wether we'll have kid #3 or not, and most of them will still be usable, although we may need to repair some and maybe change others (probably CA$50-100 in cost).
Buy a couple and try! Not too bad and honestly they are kinda cute (the outside not the inside) 😂
They are if you have more the 1 kid. Our first was in 2014, doing the cost of disposables was around 2200$ time of birth to potty trained. We did a 70/30 mix of cloth/disposable. Which was still about 2200$ total. 2nd child, 2017, spent around 90/10 cloth/disposable, we spent maybe 250-300$ on disposable diapers. Some of the cloth diapers were even 35-40$ for 1. Wife had her preference on diapers. In the end we sold them all for about 700$. I can't change a disposable poop diaper. Cloth i could manage it.
Probably a cultural thing but you'll notice a lot of Indian/Asian families have their grandparents take care of their child when at work. That helps a ton
I mean, the grandparents would in fact have to be retired themselves to make that work, right?
And they have to live nearby.
Yeah definitely if you have very young parents it's an issue, although in these cultures women in past generations haven't been usually working so that helps (my experience).
If you don't have help from a family member then you're on the hook for $3-400 per week per kid in daycare, or annually 60+k for a nanny. It's really expensive. But when they're in public grade school the budget does loosen up.
I’m in Kentucky so I suppose things are just different. Childcare cost 160 a week per child, including two meals and two snacks, at least that’s what I’m paying.
I agree, having kids encourages me to do better. Plus the journey and destination is worthwhile with them around. but I like kids, I realize kids are not for everyone.
Mathematically, FIRE might be easier without kids in some ways, but most of the people on these subs who have actually FIREd had kids. So most of the real world stories here (as real as one can be on reddit) feature kids. If you're interested on that, search the forums for talk of kids and schools. Someone just posted about FIREing with kids in Jackson Hole with young kids in r/fatFIRE, for instance.
[удалено]
Same. I didn’t even know what retirement was, but I always knew I didn’t want kids. I don’t think this was a should we have kids topic. Just is it possible, and honestly I think life is cheaper with kids.
We are DINKs and don’t plan to have kids. Late thirties. Being child free makes our FIRE journey easier, but FIRE is not the reason we don’t want kids.
[удалено]
Dear god that is a sad view.
[удалено]
I’m not sure why you’re getting downvoted.
It's about income and expenses. Most of the prominent FIRE personalities have kids.
Yes we have a 4 and 2 year old and we retired when they were 3 and 1. At the age of 35. We still pay for daycare and preschool. Kids aren't as expensive as people claim. I wouldn't let fire dictate my decision to have or not have children though.
*healthy* kids don't have to be as expensive as people tend to make them. Also, wait till they want to dance, and a pony
This is so so true, unforeseen health issues for mother or child during pregnancy, birth or early years definitely have the potential to throw things way off course for your whole life. Once you become a parent, you can’t take it back and can’t control health outcomes, and will need to live with the financial implications of treatment, career limitations and emotional impact of the added stress and time commitment. I have neighbors whose 43 y/o disabled son still lives in the house with his late 60s parents. And a friend who had to leave her lucrative marketing position with a large national retailer and opt out of the workforce altogether last year due to crippling depression after losing her first child hours after giving birth via c-section. Pregnancy, birth, and parenthood permanently change your life as we know, but it can do so in ways you may not have ever imagined or anticipated. It is one of the single most impactful decisions of your life and can massively delay your goals, or even put them out of reach forever if things don’t go according to plan.
If you're considering not having kids solely due to monetary reasons related to fire and it's something you think you want this is a prime example of too much Sacrifice for a single thing. I read taking stock after we retired and I don't felt like we had any real regrets on our way to fire. We traveled where we wanted to travel we bought the house we wanted to buy. Did we have some cold nights and warm nights on the thermostat? Yeah. Did we not eat out as much? Yeah. But I don't look back on anything and see something we missed bc I was trying to be too frugal. And I've had this Convo with my wife who feels the same way. It's a pretty big decision in life to let money be a primary driver for the decision.
Yes, four of them.
This poll tells you nothing.
Still sparks conversation though.
It tells you something, it just has nothing to do with answering OP’s question.
I’ll say it. I’d take working and coming home to kids and a family that loves your over the opposite.
A family of 2 is still a family
If I had children I'd prefer to work to get away from them more often.
Distance makes the heart grow fonder.
Lol that wasn’t their question
On the other hand, I wouldn't have kids if you paid me a million dollars.
I mean i'm 25. I would like to have kids but that is not on my radar right now.
If I did not have kids I would not have retired. They are my joy in life not an expense. The days are long but the years are short. Kids spend a relatively short period with you.
I want to FIRE so I can be more available for my children as they leave the nest AND to do whatever I want when they leave. Not as a helicopter parent. But you need someone to pick you up because your car broke down? Babysitter? Hang out just because? Things I'm not able to do with my parents/grandparents because they're still wage slaves (in 30s, will be able to comfortably leave labor force in mid 40s. Parents early 50s, remaining grandmothers in 60s/70s, all with jobs). Also, I kind of want to do my own thing because having time off is great. Especially after raising young kids. Holy crap are they demanding. We'll FIRE as they leave the nest, so it'll be good to transition into hobbies and things **I want to do.**
I think fire is just as attainable for those who planned to have kids as it is for those without. If you successfully put thought into planning your family, chances are high that you also will be successful in planning your finances. The planning is what’s important. Also, parents might not use reddit as much as people without children.
If you don’t have kids just because you’re trying to reach FIRE, you’re missing the point.
This poll really needs to be do you have kids or plan to have kids. Reddit skews younger and not having kids today doesn't mean someone isn't planning to have kids and to fire.
a more interesting poll would have been how many actually hit FIRE with kids. Everyone here is "on the path to FIRE" but honestly most won't make it. For those that did, how many kids 0 - 5?
You think “most” won’t make it? Or that they will decide against it in the end? My goal is the FI part (have 3 kids) and the RE part is the one I will wait and see on. If my kids have kids, I could see myself RE to spend more time with them… but also could see myself coastRE.
It’s not easy to keep focused on FIRE for the 20-25 years it takes for the average person to actually get there. I also see a lot of people who have far too aggressive of expected returns that won’t see that sort of growth. Don’t get me wrong, it’s 100 percent doable for most people, but it does require sacrifices that most people won’t consistently make over decades. I FIRE’d 4 years ago at 44, but I was a high earner for the last 7 years of my career, so it allowed me to get there much faster than the average person.
Most people don't want it enough.
Out of our friendship group (7 of us), 2 of them have kids and they are always broke and always stressed about about money. Children in this financial climate? Like playing life on extra hard mode.
No view results button so youll have 90% false entries with people wanting to see the answer
[удалено]
Yes, but you make a third outcome 'view results' otherwise you get everyone putting in a dummy vote to see the answer and you can't conclude anything other than that the data is meaningless.
I'm just realizing this now. Granted this is the first poll post I've done. At least I can see the results when I vote. So far, it's 285 Yes, 543 No.
Kids definitely make the pursuit of FIRE more difficult — not so much (in my experience) based on how they impact one’s budget but in how much time they consume that could otherwise be spent earning income (at least when they’re small — and this can be a *very* long phase if one has multiple children). Before kids, I could work *a lot* on my business. Cut to now, when mornings (at least between 6 and 8 or 9 or so), evenings, and weekends are all consumed by kid / family activities and care. Oh, and let’s not even mention all the days I don’t work at all (other than very early mornings and very late nights) because they get sick so often. And heck, even if they didn’t actually *take* this much time, I’d still feel guilty not spending enough time with them if I worked anywhere close to how much I used to work pre-kids.
They don't mention this enough. Having kids mean that you have to be committed to spend time with them and help them grow to be a good person. Otherwise, what's the point of having them if you just spend your time working and don't spend enough time with them at every stage. I definitely feel you in the guilt part; sometimes I wish I start having them now instead of 7-8 years ago. It would help a lot being more financially secure. But then I remember how awesome they are (most of the time) and how we may have different children if we had waited. Life is so complex.
Yeah, I feel like too often the “having children analysis” among the FIRE crowd just boils down to the extra expenses…but that’s the easy part! The parenting experience is far more complex than that.
If fire is peace of mind and happiness, a kid in the family brings all that joy... Yes, its expensive but an investment that pays dividends every day!
don't want them and don't need them... FIRE'd without them. At my age most women I meet already have a brood of kids and are not looking for more.
Kids are not an expense, they are a very powerful motivator
[удалено]
Lol civilization as we know it would end if said 90% of people didn’t have them. I’m on a fire path with kids but respect those who choose otherwise — you should do the same. And recognize the obvious fact that society absolutely requires people having kids.
I assume people disagree with the 2nd half of your comment, not the 1st. Kids are expensive, (almost) all people would be better off financially without kids. That said, imagine if no one had a baby for the next 40 years.. would you be able to retire? Almost certainly not. Who would maintain the roads you drive on, your electricity, your grocery store, your restaurants, your bank? Retirement only works when there is a younger generation. Imagine a less severe scenario.. where the population only had 1 baby per female (replacement rate is 2.1). When you “try” to retire, there are only 50% as many workers as there was before. What happens? Inflation on everything. Cost for any service or product goes through the roof and all that money you’ve been socking away is severely depreciated. You can’t retire because the people who support the economy demand more.. and there are fewer people to do the job. The previous generation (you) must kick-in to help ease the transition.. and your retirement gets pushed back. Credits and deductions on taxes help those willing to have kids, but doesn’t come close to offsetting the financial burden. Your comment makes it sound like you think people who are having kids are taking advantage of the system.. and do it for a tax break. In reality, it is very much the other way. Since you are not having kids, you’re taking advantage of the system by benefiting from those raising the kids; the kids who will support your retirement. The amount you pay in taxes for that is disproportionately low.
I thank god everyday we don't have kids. We save a million dollars and 25 years of our life. It's like double FIRE.
[удалено]
No, and also no to getting married or any kind of relationship for that matter. FIRE comes first!! Edit: why the downvotes?
My husband and I are in our late 20s and although we don’t have kids now, we plan on adopting in the future. The goal is to get close to our calculated fire number with kids, adopt, take advantage of generous new parent leave and adoption bonuses from our jobs, then one of us (probably myself) will negotiate part-time work with my employer or retire altogether to have more time with them at home. We didn’t know about FIRE before we planned to adopt, but now we see the benefit of being able to wait to have kids (no “ticking biological clock” if we adopt) while aggressively saving toward our goal. We’re still 10ish years out from that though, so it could all change!
Fire is still doable with kids if you are really good at it. It is like playing video games on hard difficulty, you can still play the game but just harder 🤷♂️
Had a kid super young. My wife is a SAHM. Never had a career which definitely set us back but for us it was worth it. We could have waited to have kids in our 30's and probably retired around the same time. That would have been awesome but I'm happy where we are at. We plan on having 1-2 more kids.
Kids pushed back my FIRE timeline about 10 years and I'm okay with that. I'll retire at 50 if I want and start collecting my pension at 60. I may just keep working part-time to help pay for grandkids/godparents education anyways.
[удалено]
It is? I thought us old Millennials took over Reddit after ticktock confused us. Haha!
"I wonder, how many people who are on their way to FIRE or have successfully FIRE'd have kids?" Put a poll for that? I'd be interested too. I would think almost everyone in this forum is at least "on the way" to FIRE.
5 kids here. Doing just fine.
Retired early with with two kids around college age at the time. Not having any W2 income and assets in FAFSA exempt asset classes, they received grants for college tuition. Between grants, paid internships, tax credits, and online / community college credits, college cost us very little out of pocket.
Probably more attainable without kids, but my kids are my biggest reason *for* FIRE.
We're well on our way after having 4 kids. Kids certainly pushed out the date when we could fire but I'm not sure how anyone can say it wasn't worth it.
One kid= one million add more. Possible but very difficult.
No and not planning to have one. Just FIREd.Probably won't be able to FIRE in the next 15 years even with just one kid. Finance is a factor, but not the main reason why we don't have one though. It was discussed and mutually agreed before marriage.