Americans are having fewer kids due to money concerns: Survey
(NewsNation) — With the cost of raising a child nearing $300,000, many parents are rethinking just how many kids they can afford.
According to a recent LendingTree survey, almost half (46%) of parents with young children said they have fewer kids due to financial constraints. And 77% said raising children has been far more expensive than they expected.
Would $5K 'baby bonus' be enough to boost US birth rate?
Those challenges aren't imagined. Over the past two years, the annual cost of raising a small child has surged from $21,681 to $29,419 — a 36% jump, LendingTree found. Much of that increase is due to skyrocketing day care costs, which rose more than 50% over the same period.
Parents in the U.S. can now expect to spend $297,674 raising a child to adulthood — and financial support often doesn't end there. A recent Savings.com report found that half of all parents are providing regular financial assistance to their adult children.
Perhaps most alarming, about two-thirds (64%) of parents surveyed by LendingTree said they have gone into debt to make ends meet for their kids. Financial strain appears to be a key reason Americans are having fewer children.
$5K baby bonuses not likely to meaningfully increase US birth rate: Demographer
Recent CDC data shows that the U.S. fertility rate remained near a record low in 2024, continuing a yearslong trend that has alarmed demographers and drawn the attention of the Trump administration.
Now, Trump is reportedly considering a $5,000 cash 'baby bonus' for new mothers. Another proposal, according to The New York Times, would reserve 30% of scholarships in the prestigious Fulbright program for applicants who are married or have children.
When asked which factors would make raising kids easier, most parents (52%) said 'more financial resources,' followed by 39% who want workplace flexibility like paid leave and remote work, according to LendingTree. Some 28% said affordable child care would make raising kids easier.
LendingTree's findings come from an online survey of 630 parents with kids younger than 18. The poll was conducted from March 4 to 6, 2025.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
25 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. appeals court rules
A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The Federal Circuit said the litigation raised issues of "exceptional importance" warranting the court to take the rare step of having the 11-member court hear the appeal, rather than have it go before a three-judge panel first. It scheduled arguments for July 31. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed.
CNN
27 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump's most sweeping tariffs can remain in place for now, appeals court rules
President Donald Trump's heftiest tariffs cleared a court hurdle for now, after a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that they could take effect while legal challenges play out. The decision came after the Trump administration appealed the Court of International Trade's ruling finding the president exceeded his authority to impose country-wide tariffs claiming a national emergency. 'Both sides have made substantial arguments on the merits. Having considered the traditional stay factors… the court concludes a stay is warranted under the circumstances,' according to the ruling. The stay is pending the course of the appeal, the court wrote, adding that the case will be heard on a sped-up basis by the full panel of judges at the court. 'The court also concludes that these cases present issues of exceptional importance warranting expedited en banc consideration of the merits in the first instance,' the order said. The appeals court ruling, however, has no bearing on the sector-wide tariffs Trump previously enacted, including those on aluminum, steel, cars and car parts. That's because he imposed those levies under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – a different law than the one Trump cited for his broader trade actions. Section 232 gives a president significant power to levy tariffs on specific sectors if they believe there is a national security threat risk. This is a developing story and will be updated.
CNN
27 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump's most sweeping tariffs can remain in place for now, appeals court rules
President Donald Trump's heftiest tariffs cleared a court hurdle for now, after a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that they could take effect while legal challenges play out. The decision came after the Trump administration appealed the Court of International Trade's ruling finding the president exceeded his authority to impose country-wide tariffs claiming a national emergency. 'Both sides have made substantial arguments on the merits. Having considered the traditional stay factors… the court concludes a stay is warranted under the circumstances,' according to the ruling. The stay is pending the course of the appeal, the court wrote, adding that the case will be heard on a sped-up basis by the full panel of judges at the court. 'The court also concludes that these cases present issues of exceptional importance warranting expedited en banc consideration of the merits in the first instance,' the order said. The appeals court ruling, however, has no bearing on the sector-wide tariffs Trump previously enacted, including those on aluminum, steel, cars and car parts. That's because he imposed those levies under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – a different law than the one Trump cited for his broader trade actions. Section 232 gives a president significant power to levy tariffs on specific sectors if they believe there is a national security threat risk. This is a developing story and will be updated.
