Cost of raising a child less than many think, Fraser study suggests

[Locutus]

OTTAWA -- The Fraser Institute says it's never been easier financially to raise a child in Canada, with the annual cost much lower than many believe.

The conservative think-tank says it is possible to raise a child on about $3,000-$4,000 a year, and even less if parents only include necessary expenses and are careful with their dollars.

That is a far cry from some studies that have put the annual expense per child in the $10,000-$15,000 range -- with the total bill for raising a child to age 18 at more than $200,000.

The Fraser Institute says in a new paper that the higher numbers are discouraging for lower income Canadians, who might come away with the conclusion they cannot afford to have children.

But many lower income people can and do raise healthy children, says the paper, authored by economist Christopher Sarlo.

Sarlo concedes his lower estimate is based on the cost of providing a child's essential needs, such as food, clothing, personal care, household supplies, recreation and school supplies.


Cost of raising a child less than many think, Fraser study suggests | CTV News

 

[Goober]

Enroll a child in swimming, soccer or some other inexpensive sports and tack that on as well.

 

[Angstrom]

My study concludes they save me 15 000$ a year each in things I can't buy
Cause I have to be responsible. XDDD

 

[Goober]

My study concludes they save me 15 000$ a year each in things I can't buy
Cause I have to be responsible. XDDD

Children always come first. Always. Good to see you and your wife are on the same page.

 

[Angstrom]

Children always come first. Always. Good to see you and your wife are on the same page.

Didn't you just read what I posted? I said they save me money.
They must be the least spoiled kids in my whole city.
The only things they get is from rewards.
Oldest one milked me for 600$ last year that little monster!
I'm still coming out on top, Since she saved me 15 000$

 

[Goober]

Didn't you just read what I posted? I said they save me money.
They must be the least spoiled kids in my whole city.
The only things they get is from rewards.
Oldest one milked me for 600$ last year that little monster!
I'm still coming out on top, Since she saved me 15 000$

That would be 14,400. Work on the math and leave the teaching of math to the teachers.
Oh yes, the report is a bogus piece of Shxt.

 

[Angstrom]

That would be 14,400. Work on the math and leave the teaching of math to the teachers.
Oh yes, the report is a bogus piece of Shxt.

Teaching? Pffft!
Only thing I'm teaching her is how to teach herself,
hard work, pays off. And the true definition of love.
The rest she has to figure it out on her own.

 

[gerryh]

OTTAWA -- The Fraser Institute says it's never been easier financially to raise a child in Canada, with the annual cost much lower than many believe.

The conservative think-tank says it is possible to raise a child on about $3,000-$4,000 a year, and even less if parents only include necessary expenses and are careful with their dollars.

That is a far cry from some studies that have put the annual expense per child in the $10,000-$15,000 range -- with the total bill for raising a child to age 18 at more than $200,000.

The Fraser Institute says in a new paper that the higher numbers are discouraging for lower income Canadians, who might come away with the conclusion they cannot afford to have children.

But many lower income people can and do raise healthy children, says the paper, authored by economist Christopher Sarlo.

Sarlo concedes his lower estimate is based on the cost of providing a child's essential needs, such as food, clothing, personal care, household supplies, recreation and school supplies.


Cost of raising a child less than many think, Fraser study suggests | CTV News

having had 7 kids this doesn't surprise me at all.

Enroll a child in swimming, soccer or some other inexpensive sports and tack that on as well.

did it, still didn't add up to what they originally said it costs per child. The original costs per child was more than I was grossing back when.

 

[relic]

Would you expect anything but BS figures from a" conservative think tank"? Likely laying the ground work for some serious cuts.

 

[Palindrome]

This would be the sort of low-end child who doesn't expect any frills, right? The one we "fill the bus" with school supplies for, not the one in the computer ad who shows up in Grade 4 with the even-newer laptop. The one who learns trash talk while playing street hockey, not the Upper Canada College groomed for leadership.
The point is: Come on, poor people! Make more peons that we can deprive of collective bargaining and social services.

 

[Walter]

The fellow who wrote the study was just on 640am. He made a lot of sense.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

The coolest thing about poor kids is that a surprisingly high percentage of them will dig in, work hard, overcome their obstacles, get educations, get jobs, and live decent lives, despite the lefties' determination to use them as poster children for inequality and encourage them to sit around, whine about being "deprived," and demand compensation.

 

[Kreskin]

If you are a working couple you will pay 3,000-6,000 for daycare alone, per child.

 

[Palindrome]

The coolest thing about poor kids is that a surprisingly high percentage of them will dig in, work hard, overcome their obstacles, get educations, get jobs, and live decent lives, .

And they'll be even cooler if the parents stop at two, like rich parents do, and don't have to fight one another so hard for too few opportunities.

 

[taxslave]

Would you expect anything but BS figures from a" conservative think tank"? Likely laying the ground work for some serious cuts.

No but I would from a leftarded one. Especially one with an agenda. The cost of raising a kid depends a lot on your lifestyle choices. Disneyland every year is NOT an essential for good upbringing. Nor is the latest fashion in clothes and electronic toys.

 

[gerryh]

This would be the sort of low-end child who doesn't expect any frills, right? The one we "fill the bus" with school supplies for, not the one in the computer ad who shows up in Grade 4 with the even-newer laptop. The one who learns trash talk while playing street hockey, not the Upper Canada College groomed for leadership.
The point is: Come on, poor people! Make more peons that we can deprive of collective bargaining and social services.

You're an idiot. I've had 7 kids and not one is on social services. They all got what they needed, when they needed it and in a lot of instances what they wanted when they wanted it.

If you are a working couple you will pay 3,000-6,000 for daycare alone, per child.

Yup, or you can have one work from home so that you don't need daycare. That's what we did most of the time.

And they'll be even cooler if the parents stop at two, like rich parents do, and don't have to fight one another so hard for too few opportunities.

and what "opportunities" would that be and who is fighting for them?

 

[Palindrome]

I've had 7 kids and not one is on social services. They all got what they needed, when they needed it and in a lot of instances what they wanted when they wanted it.

Really? No free vaccinations, public school or visits to a doctor - ever? No student rates on public transit; no use of public libraries, beaches or parks? No minimum wage, family allowance, paid vacation or Sundays off? That's some severe family life!
Us idiots have done a wee bit to provide those social services for people who do need them - and also for people who take them for granted and think they've done everything on their own, without help.

 

[gerryh]

Really? No free vaccinations, public school or visits to a doctor - ever? No student rates on public transit; no use of public libraries, beaches or parks? No minimum wage, family allowance, paid vacation or Sundays off? That's some severe family life!
Us idiots have done a wee bit to provide those social services for people who do need them - and also for people who take them for granted and think they've done everything on their own, without help.

Wonderful, and now that I am making a 7 figure income instead of a 5 my taxes are helping others who are where I used to be. Canada is not the u.s. We have socialized medicine, public areas for everyone, subsidized education, family allowance, etc. It's a small price to pay for society to help society. I don't begrudge any of it for those that need.

Your implication was that low income families beget more low income families. That is not necessarily true. Stating otherwise shows you for an idiot that has never been there.

 

[Palindrome]

Wonderful, and now that I am making a 7 figure income instead of a 5 my taxes are helping others who are where I used to be. Canada is not the u.s. We have socialized medicine, public areas for everyone, subsidized education, family allowance, etc. It's a small price to pay for society to help society. I don't begrudge any of it for those that need.

We have those things because we fought for them. We have those things in spite of the elitists who fought very hard against them, and who will claw them back - have already made a pretty good start at clawing them back. It's sweet of you not to begrudge your taxes, but you're in the minority of 7 figure earners if you don't try to get out of paying your share.

Your implication was that low income families beget more low income families. That is not necessarily true.

But it's far more often true than not, and for a very good reason: the deck is stacked. And these Fraser guys want to keep it stacked in their favour.

Stating otherwise shows you for an idiot that has never been there.

Been where? Regent Park? Hastings and Rosser? I may have cruised by in my Jag sometime.
You did okay, so you figure everybody can. Idiots disagree.

 

[Kreskin]

Yup, or you can have one work from home so that you don't need daycare. That's what we did most of the time.

That might work for 1 or 2 out of 10 couples, because most employers don't offer telecommuting work.

Hell, everyone could work for nothing, on paper. Just fish for food and scavenge land fills for clothes. You could really bring the numbers down. But ignoring reality just to make things look cheaper is silly.