Choosing to not get married and have kids.
Yeah, this is probably a big one for me too.
Though it looks like my sister is going to buy a house with her longtime boyfriend. I will not be surprised to hear she's pregnant in the next year or 2. My mother will get over it, she wants grandkids too much.
That's very interesting.
I'd say that finding a good wife has been the most important step along the way. She nearly doubles the household income, and economies of scale mean that expenses don't double. There's no way that I'd have a 50% savings rate without her.
And sure, kids cost money, but not as much as people seem to make them out to cost (if they're healthy). A creative mustachian can raise a kid on <$3,000/year.
Yeah, I'd have to say the same. My spending as a single is $40k a year. When I was in a r'ship the spending was only marginally more at $50k a year. Add a couple of kids and it'd be, what, $80k a year? Here in Australia school is free, university is deferred (so free upfront), health care is free, children's dental is free...everything's free. Except food and clothes, I guess. And childcare (although that's even subsidised for poor families).
If my partner were to earn $50k a year [the median full-time wage in Australia is $78k and the average full-time wage is $90k, so I don't think $50k a year is asking too much] then that would more than offset the "extra costs" of marriage and children.
Except that not everyone wants kids, or wants to be married. Money isn't everything.
I don’t know anyone with kids who thought it moved them ahead financially. Dowries are pretty uncommon in these parts..
While not having kids is almost always cheaper than having kids in the modern era, the expense of kids is vastly overblown.
* In the USA: $2,000/year off your tax bill for each one, that covers pretty much all the extra food.
* You can hack the EITC in semi-FIRE = get a few thousand more off your taxes (show $30-50k of income as a household a year in the USA with 2-3 kids), you can have a negative tax rate... Uncle Sam pays you! If you make more, you can 'shelter' the income for the purposes of this calculation via 401k contributions or other methods.
* The tax code favors married couples who have a single income earner. Known as the "marriage bonus". It becomes a "marriage penalty" if both spouses work and make roughtly the same (comparing what the total tax bill would have been if everyone filed single. This along with daycare costs HEAVILY incentives one parent to stay at home (and that stay at home spouse can still have $6000/yr contributed to a ROTH-IRA even if they don't make a dime).
* public school Is free of course
* hack the FAFSA to help with college by being retired and own your home outright and all your assets in tax advantaged accounts (spend down your taxable accounts before kids get to be 17). The system will calculate you as being POOR as it doesn't look at your house and retirement account values, only your regular accounts and your incomes for a given year. The poorer the system thinks you are the more grants, work-study, and subsidized student loans you get by pushing way down the "expected parental contribution" calculation.
* live in a state with low "in-state" cost public universities. If kid wants an out of state public school, move there a year (length varies by state) before = in-state tuition.
* depending on your state you could probably hack WIC/Medicaid/EBT, I don't know this one its basically impossible in my state.
* A low post-FIRE income = cheap Obamacare and the price is the same regardless of # of kids for the family plan.
Now, if you go about buying a big SUV, bigger house, FT daycare, private school... yeah they will be expensive AF
NONE of those things are necessary, and I think the "FIRE with kids" is a good way to generate teh outrage at your life choices:
examples:
A neighbor, a road cyclist, commented "are you sure that's safe" seeing my bike the kid around in the bike trailer (if you are not safe on a bike, you are not safe in a car).
Openly admitting to colleagues (in discussing where to live in town) that I don't actually care all that much about school ranking and picking my neighborhood more on my ability to have a very short commute and convenience to daily needs (allowing more time for parenting). Id rather my kid actually go to like a 7/10 school which usually means "there are poor kids here" nothing more.
I'm of the mindset that a successful education is just as much the parents' involvement as the teachers. I think a private school education (around here) would cause more problems because now my kid is going to school with only rich priviledged kids and will grow up in a total bubble (affluenza). I also think raising a kid in a far flung suburb (because muh schools) where they cannot get to anything without relying on mom and dad to drive them there is a TERRIBLE fate for a child. I want them to be able to walk or bike to go do things on their own (including going to school) with friends much like "the good old days" when people let their kids outside to go play and didn't have to play supervisor. (get me going about "where to live in town" and THIS will come out of me as to why I feel so strongly to live where I live, because finding this sort of thing in the USA is hard)
That mindset is pretty damn unpopular, btw.