Personal Finance
What a SINK, DINK or DINKY lifestyle means for your money
In this photo illustration a man looks at the post by Taylor Swift endorsing Democratic Presidential candidate Kamala Harris on the online social media and social networking site Instagram displayed on a smart phone on September 12, 2024 in Bath, England.
Matt Cardy | Getty Images News | Getty Images
The stigma of the “childless cat lady” persists, but these days, more young adults are embracing that label and opting out of parenthood — and benefitting, at least monetarily.
Nearly a quarter, or 23%, of millennials and Generation Zers without children do not plan on having children, primarily due to financial reasons, according to a recent consumer spending and saving index by MassMutual.
A preference for financial freedom and the inability to afford children are equally cited by 43% of younger generations, MassMutual found. The survey polled 1,000 adults in July.
More from Personal Finance:
‘Vibecession’ is ending as economy nails a soft landing
More Americans are struggling even as inflation cools
Even high earners consider themselves ‘not rich yet’
To be sure, money is a major reason some young adults are choosing not to have kids.
But also, over decades, attitudes about marriage and parenthood have changed.
Since the 1970s, the overall share of married adults has declined and fewer couples are having children, according to a 2023 report from Pew Research Center. Last year, the U.S. fertility rate reached a historic low.
Now, adults without children, both married and unmarried, are better off than than their peers with kids, in terms of median wealth and retirement savings, a separate Pew Research Center study found in May.
The majority of adults without children said not having kids has made it easier for them to afford the things they want and be successful in their job or career, Pew also found.
Although there is a financial benefit, “it’s not like you are child-free and checks fall out of the sky,” said Jay Zigmont, author of “The Childfree Guide to Life and Money.”
Financial considerations for SINKs and DINKs
In many cases, being a SINK (single income, no kids), DINK (dual income, no kids) or DINKY (dual income, no kids yet) does come with certain financial planning considerations that differ from the standard strategy.
“Nearly all financial planning assumes you do or will have kids,” said Zigmont, who is a certified financial planner and founder of planning firm Childfree Wealth. But child-free couples often have different goals when it comes to building up a cash cushion, estate planning and long-term care.
For example, “most child-free folks don’t make passing money down to the next generation a priority,” said Zigmont, who plans to leave his own nephews only a modest inheritance — “if they get $1 million, I’ve made a mistake.”
Often Zigmont advises clients to spend down their savings, rather than build it up, which could open the door to pursuing a passion project or continuing education later in life.
And while technically not part of the “sandwich generation,” child-free adults may also bear the brunt of caregiving responsibilities for aging parents or relatives, making it even more important to take into account long-term care for their parents and themselves, “which is stupidly expensive,” Zigmont said. “That’s half a million dollars you need a plan for.”
Then, consider “how much money do I have to spend to bring down my net worth,” he said. “It’s backwards from the way we are trained.”
Parenthood is now an election issue
Decisions around parenthood are not just about personal finance, said Brett House, economics professor at Columbia Business School.
Since having, or not having, children also impacts employment, wages and wealth, it is “really an economic growth and productivity issue as well,” House said — and that affects all Americans, making it “one of the most important issues for policy makers and for businesses,” House said.
Heading into a U.S. presidential election, parenthood has already become a point of contention on the campaign trail after Ohio Sen. JD Vance, the running mate of former President Donald Trump, accused key Democrats — including Vice President Kamala Harris — of being miserable “childless cat ladies.”
In July, Vance said on The Megyn Kelly Show on SiriusXM that his remarks were “not about criticizing people who for various reasons don’t have kids,” but rather “criticizing the Democratic party for becoming anti-family and anti-child.”
When Taylor Swift announced her endorsement of Harris in an Instagram post that featured a photo of herself with a cat, she signed the post with her full name and “Childless Cat Lady.”
Concerns about the future of the Social Security Administration may tempt some workers to claim retirement benefits early.
Yet experts warn that may not be the best decision.
It’s no secret that Social Security is running low on funding. Fears that the program might not be able to pay benefits in the future — or that benefits might be cut — have prompted people to take their money earlier, even if it means receiving a smaller monthly payment for the rest of their lives.
In 2024, the trustees projected the trust fund used to help pay retirement benefits may be depleted in 2033, when 79% of benefits will be payable. Social Security’s trustees have not yet released new trust fund depletion projections in 2025.
More from Personal Finance:
Nearing retirement? These strategies can protect from tariff volatility
Experts see higher stagflation risks. Here’s what it means for your money
20 items and goods most exposed to tariff price shocks
Changes at the Social Security Administration — including staff cuts and long wait times for service — do not encourage more confidence in the program, noted Kelly LaVigne vice president of consumer insights at Allianz Life Insurance Company.
A recent survey from Allianz found that 64% of Americans are more worried about running out money than they are about dying. Meanwhile, Social Security not providing enough money was the second reason cited for those worries behind inflation, the survey found.
On average, Social Security benefits replace about 40% of a worker’s pre-retirement income, according to the SSA. As Congress eventually seeks a fix to the program’s funding woes, that may require Americans to pay more taxes and/or receive less benefits.
“If you cut that, or there’s a threat of cutting that, that does make the fear of running out of money even greater,” LaVigne said of Social Security benefits.
Why it’s generally best to wait to claim
Many people may be tempted to claim Social Security benefits now to get the money while they can.
“There are people who make the comment, ‘I want to start taking from it now, before it’s taken away from me,'” said Andrew Herzog, a certified financial planner and associate wealth manager at The Watchman Group in Plano, Texas.
In those cases, Herzog said he typically reassures clients that scenario is “very unlikely,” particularly for older generations who are already in or near retirement. Lawmakers including President Donald Trump have promised not to cut the Social Security benefits retirees are already receiving. For future retirees, it is possible benefits may be reduced, though it is unlikely the program will entirely run out of money.
Individuals who want to take their retirement benefits at age 62 — otherwise known as the early eligibility age — need to understand their benefits will be reduced, Herzog said. By waiting until full retirement age — generally age 66 to 67, depending on date of birth — beneficiaries may receive 100% of the benefits they earned.
For workers whose full retirement age is 66, claiming early at 62 will result in a 25% reduction in monthly benefits. For workers whose full retirement age is 67, claiming at 62 prompts a 30% cut to monthly benefits. Yet most people claim before full retirement age, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Workers who wait even longer to claim retirement benefits — up to age 70 — stand to receive the biggest monthly checks. For every year individuals wait past full retirement age, they stand to receive an 8% increase to their benefits. For workers whose full retirement age is 66, that represents a 32% boost to monthly benefits. For workers with a full retirement age of 67, that’s a 24% boost.
“For those who expect to have a normal life expectancy of 80 years plus, then it can make sense to wait to age 70 to get the maximum benefit,” Herzog said.
To be sure, the decision comes down to many factors, including how long someone is able to work, whether they can draw from other investment income and the choice that will help them best sleep at night, Herzog said.
Notably, delaying even just one month can help increase monthly benefit checks.
When to claim Social Security benefits early
Most workers who expect to live long lives will want to prioritize the risk they could outlive their money, and therefore delay claiming benefits, according to Vanguard research.
But for those who do not expect to live as long, the prospect of break-even risk — or the risk of receiving a smaller total sum by delaying — should be prioritized instead, according to Vanguard.
Claiming early can provide other perks, such as making it possible to spread the tax burden of that income over more years, Vanguard’s research notes. Plus, with lower monthly checks, less of that Social Security income may be taxed and it may be possible to keep Medicare income-related monthly adjusted amounts, or IRMAA, low, according to the research.
Yet for many individuals, there are other reasons to wait to claim that are compelling, particularly if their spouses may need to live on their benefits once they die. Moreover, having higher monthly benefits means they may be better prepared to withstand unexpected financial shocks, according to Vanguard.
A trader works on the floor at the New York Stock Exchange in New York City, U.S., April 28, 2025.
Brendan McDermid | Reuters
Periods of extreme volatility in the stock market may feel painful for investors — but such periods are generally followed by strong stock returns, if history is a guide, according to market analysts.
In that sense, many investors would be wise not to sell stocks — and should perhaps even buy more, analysts said.
The VIX index, also known at the Wall Street fear gauge, measures the market’s estimate of expected volatility in the S&P 500 stock index.
When the VIX has spiked to a level above 40 — indicating “significant” volatility — the S&P 500 has been up 30% a year later, on average, according to a Wells Fargo Investment Institute analysis of the market from January 1990 to April 16, 2025.
The odds of stock returns being positive 12 months later were also above 90% during these periods, the analysis found.
In other words, volatility creates a “potential opportunity,” Edward Lee, a Wells Fargo investment strategy analyst, wrote in the analysis on Monday.
“Concern is normal, but history has taught us that periods of higher volatility have historically led to higher returns,” Lee wrote.
So, why is there a greater probability of positive and higher stock returns relative to periods of lower volatility?
Volatility “tends to coincide with times of high drawdowns and investor panic, both of which lead to higher probabilities of investing success of the next 12 months,” Lee wrote in an e-mail.
Stock volatility spikes on Trump tariff news
Stock volatility spiked in early April after President Donald Trump announced unexpectedly high country-specific tariffs, and the S&P 500 sold off almost 11% in two days.
The VIX reached about 53, among the top 1% closes for that index in history, Callie Cox, chief market strategist at Ritholtz Wealth Management, wrote last week.
More from Personal Finance:
Is now a good time to buy gold?
Trump-fueled backlash ‘intensified’ flight from ESG funds
Why tariffs will hurt low income Americans more than rich
But low expectations often lead to “relief rallies,” when people pile back into stocks because the initial news isn’t quite as bad as they thought, Cox wrote.
For example, since 1990, about half of the S&P 500’s 14 selloffs of 10% or more ended within a week of the VIX’s highest close, and three ended on the day of its highest close, Cox wrote.
Such selloffs are usually “V-shaped,” meaning there’s a sharp downturn and then a quick rebound, she said in an interview with CNBC.
However, things could be different this time around, she said.
“We’re [still] trying to figure out where the new center of gravity is” with trade policy, Cox said.
“The unexpected news part of the sell-off is probably past us, and if you are a long-term investor, now is probably the time to start buying,” Cox said. “But you can’t expect this to be the bottom of the sell-off. And history isn’t always gospel.”
-
Economics1 week agoDonald Trump wants a certain kind of immigrant: the uber-rich
-
Economics1 week agoTrump tariffs could cause summer economic slump: Chicago Fed president
-
Personal Finance1 week agoConsumers are making different financial choices in response to tariffs
-
Economics6 days agoBusiness already are trying to pass tariff cost onto customers, Fed report says
-
Economics5 days agoECB members say inflation job nearly done but tariff risks loom
-
Accounting5 days agoAt Schellman, AI reshapes a firm’s staffing needs
-
Economics4 days agoAmericans are getting flashbacks to 2008 as tariffs stoke recession fears
-
Economics5 days agoTrump insists bond market tumult didn’t influence tariff pause: ‘I wasn’t worried’