We have 3 sprogs and it worked out marginally cheaper to get a nanny. It's also much, much simpler logistically. We have her for 3 long days and pay is c 10 ph.
Fwiw we interviewed several potential nannies and one of them was working for a nursery - she wasn't being paid anywhere near minimum wage and they seemed determined to keep her as an apprentice to facilitate that.
Another example of people with no understanding of what life is like for tha majority of people. I say it again. You are paying an amount for childcare that is out of reach for the vast majority of the population
To be able to pay that much puts you in the richest section of society
All I was trying to do is put it in perspective
And getting it completely wrong. If, as you say, a lot of people can't afford childcare, then that tells you why comparatively good earners struggle to make ends meet.
Another example of people with no understanding of what life is like for tha majority of people.
It's very clear that you have a deep understanding of what life is like when raising young children.
Maybe he was sensible and looked at the costs of having a child then giving that child away to someone else for 10 hours a day and decided it was not a good move.
do you have children tjagain?
You’ll never regret spending more time with your kids. I’d rather change jobs to spend more time with them. Seems crazy to work and spend all the earnings on outgoings to enable you to attend that workplace.
Don't know about that. Some people might truly feel that but there are others, myself included, that don't agree. I love my 15 month old boy to bits and love spending time with him, but it can be hard work. Outsourcing the constant monitoring required for a small child for a proportion of the time does wonders for my sanity and helps me to enjoy the time that I do have with him. The best part of my day is when I pick him up from nursery - always greeted with a massive smile and a hug. He loves it at nursery and the chance to interact with other people/children/toys and do activities different from those at home makes him happier.
Furthermore, some people (again myself included) just can't afford to not work full time and statements like that quoted can make people feel guilty (not me included). We might spend a proportion of the extra income on extra childcare, but we earn more than the childcare costs so it is a net gain that does actually make a difference to our lives.
We are extremely lucky to have my wife's parents down the road who look after our boy 2 days a week, which allows my wife to only work 4 days a week, but if that weren't the case then he would have to be in nursery full time.
There's more to bringing up a happy child and doing the best for them than just spending as much time with them as possible.
Its not bolloxs. You are paying the equivalent of the national average take home pay for childcare - an option not available to the majority of people in this country because they don't earn enough.
????????
Surely the fact that this option is not available to the majority of people sort of backs up the OP's point that childcare is really expensive????
A couple's combined income exceeds the national average take home for one person, thus allowing them to afford childcare. Hardly "a first world rich folk issue" 🙄
TJ - of course it's a poor person's issue too. Just like it is when the cost of new BMWs increase. After all, the poor can't afford them either.
I guess the solution would be for the state to provide free childcare. Of course, that would mean a big increase in taxes - probably for the higher earners.
Ta Scotroutes.
I feel for all you baby makers
s you say, a lot of people can't afford childcare, then that tells you why comparatively good earners struggle to make ends meet.
Doesn't that mean he's actually correct? If you're saying comparatively good earners struggle then obviously the masses under the average wage will struggle even more / not have this as an option as TJ suggested. I have no kids if that makes any difference.
There's more to bringing up a happy child and doing the best for them than just spending as much time with them as possible.
+1
still waiting to find out if TJ has kids or not.
What this helps to highlight is the ridiculous mess we've got into whereby folk could be forced into making a decision not to have children based solely on the costs incurred as both parents need to work full time to keep up mortgage/rent payments, especially in areas like the SE.
What this helps to highlight is the ridiculous mess we've got into whereby folk could be forced into making a decision not to have children based solely on the costs incurred as both parents need to work full time to keep up mortgage/rent payments, especially in areas like the SE.
true. however, Tj will be along in a minute to tell you that folk in the SE are rich enough to cope though so...
Don't people use their parents or even grandparents any more? Thought that's what they were there for. But then whadda I know 🙄
I guess the solution would be for the state to provide free childcare. Of course, that would mean a big increase in taxes - probably for the higher earners.
Free or heavily subsidised childcare is the norm in Scandinavia, and its my understanding that its normal for women to return to work after maternity. Then the returnees start paying tax again.
Doesn't that mean he's actually correct? If you're saying comparatively good earners struggle then obviously the masses under the average wage will struggle even more / not have this as an option as TJ suggested. I have no kids if that makes any difference.
If a lot of people struggle to afford, or can't afford childcare, then it's a problem for a lot of people.
Don't people use their parents or even grandparents any more? Thought that's what they were there for. But then whadda I know
yes. most do i would say. MIL had to re negotiate her work contract to facilitate one day a week to give us a financial break- the bigger picture is of course, she shouldn't have to, nor should we look to her for that help. That's an OT/political debate.. but yes many like us are lucky to have that, even a single day a week covered is a £200 monthly saving for us. My entire family live hundreds of miles away so its not a resource we could rely upon initially when planning a family.
We've got a place at one nursery to start December that £67 a day - my wife works for a company that the nursery is attached to so she can pay gross out of her salary for it.
However we're rethinking it as her work is the other side of the City and it gives us less options around drop off / pick up if she has to travel with work.
Went to visit a similarly ofsted rated nursery local to us and it's about £55 a day and they could squeeze out daughter in there. Might go with that option for convenience.
We're lucky in that both sets of grandparents are recently retired and love our daughter to bits so they're going to have her 2 day a week each, plus my wife's work are going to let her go back 4 days a week. So only 2'daysnof nursery a week to pay for - but it's still a huge amount of extra money to pay. The wife wants a 2nd child too - trying to delay that slightly at the moment- imagine paying for 2 kids in nursery
The wife wants a 2nd child too - trying to delay that slightly at the moment- imagine paying for 2 kids in nursery
that is my reality in t-minus 6 months.. i dont have to imagine it.
Don't people use their parents or even grandparents any more?
We would but the six hour drive every day would get pretty dull.
The wife wants a 2nd child too - trying to delay that slightly at the moment- imagine paying for 2 kids in nursery
I don't have to imagine it! Luckily, we're now through the other side.
We would but the six hour drive every day would get pretty dull.
Quite. My parents are great, but it's a 200 mile drive from theirs so we only ask them to help out a few times a year.
Don't people use their parents or even grandparents any more? Thought that's what they were there for. But then whadda I know
I find it hard to believe that is a serious post (or is the eye-rolling supposed to indicate that?), but I'll bite anyway.
Some people don't have parents or grandparents. Some people don't live anywhere near their relations. Some people don't have the luxury of choosing where they live due to availability of work (or other reasons). Some people's relatives are not capable of looking after children, or are just not willing to. Some people don't get on with their relatives.
Very easy to judge people's choices without having any idea of their personal circumstances.
Back to the OP's original question - we pay £40 per day. It is likely to increase as the nursery has only just opened and are trying to keep costs low to attract people. It is attached to a very popular school, so no doubt prices will go up once they've established themselves.
Don't people use their parents or even grandparents any more? Thought that's what they were there for. But then whadda I know
No, they're dead and infirm, so cannot look after our child.
It's this simple TJ...
Mrs Weeksy used to earn £1300 a month after tax.
Our childcare bill was £950 a month....
If Mrs Weeksy gave up work, we're still £450 in the red.... so despite it being the best part of £1000, it's still less than she earned.
I expect in the OPs context it's the same.... it may only be a few hundred quid over the childcare costs, but it's still a few hundred quid needed to be found.
Don't people use their parents or even grandparents any more? Thought that's what they were there for.
Seriously???
Don't people use their parents or even grandparents any more? Thought that's what they were there for.
Can’t ask too much of the baby boomers. They earnt their early retirement 😉
Mine are close-ish (45 mins away) but like a lot of retirees quite happily fill their days with various activities. If we need a particular day it needs arranging weeks in advance and not clashing with yet another holiday or un-moveable appointment.
Very common arrangement though to lean on grandparents for extra support - the family we were neighbours with as kids seem to use them like a nursery, every day of the week there's a couple of them with granny for the day.
In the South East. I earn ‘ok’ from a national perspective but it’s damn hard here. Partner has given up work altogether to care for the kids.
What would make a MASSIVE difference and possibly solve this is if the tax free allowance for individuals could be shared between couples for let’s say, the time until kids are 10. We would actually be financially better off each month if I quit my public sector job and we both worked in Starbucks. Obviously long term this isn’t what is best for us as a family or probably for the country but its so bloody hard at the moment making ends meet.
Don't people use their parents or even grandparents any more? Thought that's what they were there for.
to be fair,there is a twisted logic here to that post, and some uncomfortable truth, but it's a one dimensional view of the problem that goes back to the ancient times... As others state- its not a resource to be cashed in when you drop another sprog out even if you are lucky to have capable elders close by.
only one out of both families is in anyway capable in our situation based on a number of factors. Interviewing my MIL for the job was a frosty affair though let me tell you but 'rules are rules' as i tell my wife.
TJ's got a point about the cost issue but I'm not sure he's entirely right about the numbers. The mean salary is around the £24k mark, but the mean household income is more like £32k I think. Either way, the take home pay after tax is a lot more than £1200, being £1700 for £24k and considerably more for houeshold income. You also need to keep in mind that the mean figures vary considerably by age; household income is a more accurate number to use to evaluate how affordable childcare is for the average household.
£1200 for one sounds about right. Have another child through and it gets a bit sill especially if one of you works shifts.
Our child care bill is £2100 a month as the pattern of work my wife and I both keep requires us to employ a nanny. We even have both kids in school now and still need to keep her on full time if everything is going to work during times like holidays and what not.
For the record, our nanny is brilliant and worth every single penny.
weeksy - so what most of my friends and colleagues did is stop full time work and do a little part time work at times the main wage earner wasn't working to make up the shortfall. win / win. better off overall and the child is being raised by its parents
being £1700 for £24k
simply wrong. I earn £30 000 a year and take home £1600 ish
simply wrong. I earn £30 000 a year and take home £1600 ish
Wow, our nanny earns £25,500 and she takes home £1690 after student loans and pension contributions.
better off each month if I quit my public sector job and we both worked in Starbucks.
dat pumpkin spice latte doe
weeksy - so what most of my friends and colleagues did is stop full time work and do a little part time work at times the main wage earner wasn't working to make up the shortfall. win / win. better off overall and the child is being raised by its parents
So, maybe a bit of part time work for the lady, give up her career, pay less tax and little prospect of something better once the kids go to school.
I guess we have different definitions of "win/ win".
simply wrong. I earn £30 000 a year and take home £1600 ish
Then you either don’t earn as much as you think, or take home more than you think. Or have lots of extra deductions.
£30k should net about £1900 a month.
https://m.thesalarycalculator.co.uk
extra tax for public sector workers of 11% ( pension contributions) My take home varies depending on weekends and stuff so maybe my average is nearer 1700.
simply wrong. I earn £30 000 a year and take home £1600 ish
So, one of the "rich folk", then.
^ yup
or the man. I know two couples where it was the man who gave up full time work.So, maybe a bit of part time work for the lady, give up her career,
tjagain - Member
weeksy - so what most of my friends and colleagues did is stop full time work and do a little part time work at times the main wage earner wasn't working to make up the shortfall. win / win. better off overall and the child is being raised by its parents
Yes possibly, i can see that... Not always quite that simple though given the numbers as any part time work seemed to be minimum wage, which would have meant Mrs Weeksy would have had to do 30 hours a week anyway to make it up to the same figures, so i'd have been at work 9-5 and she'd have then gone out from 6-10 each evening and all day on one of the weekends, so we'd have only seen eachother for 1 day a week. She'd have also missed out on bed-time etc with our boy every day and not seen him for 1 day during the week.
Once you then add into the equation that in nursery they learn, both socially with other kids and actually with learning to read/write/draw etc, we felt he would have been missing out also.
She'd love a 2nd child, but the numbers don't add up currently and there's no way we could afford her to have time off to actually give birth, let alone the time off afterwards
Oh I fully acknowledge I am in the richest part of the population. ( top 20%???)
extra tax for public sector workers of 11% ( pension contributions) My take home varies depending on weekends and stuff so maybe my average is nearer 1700.
how much of that is spent on child care?
