Advanced search

To work for £150pcm?

(68 Posts)
iamdivergent Mon 02-May-16 14:22:52

Basically I'm pg with dc3. When I go back to work next year our childcare costs will be for a baby term time plus 6wks holidays and a 9yr old in holiday club for 6wks. After paying for childcare I'd effectively be working for £150pcm, DH works f/t so our normal costs are covered, the £150 would be part of any 'disposable' income each month.

DH thinks it isn't worth it but I think it is, we would have approx 3yrs of both DC being in nursery before dd2 was at secondary and too old to attend and by then dc3 would get funded sessions so the cost would drop dramatically.

So AIBU to accept that I'd be working for £150pcm for 3yrs?

Seeyounearertime Mon 02-May-16 14:26:16

But you're not working for £150 pcm are you?
You're working for £150 plus what childcare costs.

I fin it really odd when people work things out like this. Why do you do it with children? Why not rent? Or mortgage? Or gas and electricity? Or food shopping?

In fact if you're going to work it out with childcare then every expense should be included, if every expense is covered and you still have £150 every month then I'd say you're better off than a decent proportion of the population.

rubyslippers Mon 02-May-16 14:26:23

Think about the other pluses from remaining in work

Pension and NI contributions
Skills set
Keeping yoursel afloat in a competitive job market
Your passion for the job is important

FWIW I don't do working out of my sole salary - the £150 is surely family money?

I've always worked full
Time and the first years I was at pay neutral (if I worked out childcare etc in my sole salary)

It's been worth it for me in many ways

marfisa Mon 02-May-16 14:27:22

YANBU if that is what would make you happiest. Money isn't the only thing to take into consideration here. You also have to think about whether you find the work enjoyable/fulfilling (I adore my DC but I never could have survived as a full-time SAHM - I'm just not cut out to be that kind of mum). And whether it's important for you to keep a foot in the working world. If you give up work for years to be a SAHM, you might find it hard to take up your job again where you left off, once you're ready to start working again.

But if you would RATHER stop working, YWNBU either.

SilverDragonfly1 Mon 02-May-16 14:27:35

if you want to work, or need to for career reasons and can afford childcare, ywnbu even if you had no disposable income! £150 can buy quite a lot, or can be a big help the month the washing machine breaks down or all 3 dc need shoes. Go for it smile

Summerwood1 Mon 02-May-16 14:27:38

How many hours a week do you work?

marfisa Mon 02-May-16 14:28:10

x-posted with Ruby - I totally agree with her.

herecomethepotatoes Mon 02-May-16 14:28:49

I would.

See it as keeping your sanity with a £150 bonus.

At the same time, if you want to be a stay at home mother then the cost of doing so is £150.

MiddleClassProblem Mon 02-May-16 14:29:14

To me £150 would go a long way so agree with you. If it was £50 then probably not. I'm a sahm and would be minus money to go back to work but I miss it and I miss adult company and very stuck in ground hog day with no local friends. I would go back just to feel a bit more me again. It is also seemed easier to go back full time when the time comes if you have kept your toe in the water.

MarthaCliffYouCunt Mon 02-May-16 14:29:28

Oh not another one of these threads.

Did you expect children not to cost money?

52dietname Mon 02-May-16 14:31:08

Didn't you do this thread last week?


What you could do though is stop working for ten years then gave very little chance of re entering the job market.

So yes I would work now whatever the cost

And I REALLY wish women wouldn't only talk about their salary when considering childcare costs

It really doesn't help our cause when we want to be taken seriously in the workplace to continually consider the men's salary more serious because ur doesn't go to childcare costs - when obviously it bloody does!!!

albertcampionscat Mon 02-May-16 14:31:44

You're not paying for childcare. You and your husband are - taking childcare costs out of the woman's wages implies it's the woman's responsibility alone.

More practically, it's bloody hard to get back into work after a long time out, so even if right now you won't be much better off as a couple it could make a massive difference 5/10 years down the line.

Crisscrosscranky Mon 02-May-16 14:32:10

Depends if you need the £150 I suppose or if you would rather lose £150 to be a SAHM?

When I went back to work I earnt £50 more pm than my childcare but I needed the social interaction and knew I wanted to have a career as well as a family. A five year break until DD went to school would have made that difficult for me. We're in a comfortable position 8 years later because of those difficult first couple of years.

Cleo81 Mon 02-May-16 14:33:44

I work for £200 per month after childcare costs. It's not a lot right now but in 18 months dc1 will start school so the childcare costs will go down but not by loads. I think it's important to look at the bigger picture as it's much harder to get a job later on so keeping your hand in work Is probably better. Plus, I personally found once I had dc2 I wanted to go back to work for myself and needed that time away from the kids. It's important not to just look at financial factors as money isn't everything. I don't earn much money and we are lucky enough that I didn't need to return to work but I chose to for other reasons than financial ones . So totally worth it to me.

MiddleClassProblem Mon 02-May-16 14:36:34

I'm a bit confused by the people complaining about how it's calculated. If all the other cost are covered by his salary already then the only major changes would be childcare and her travel money (which mean no different to taking the kids out as sahm) m. So surely that's how you calculate it...

iamdivergent Mon 02-May-16 14:38:06

No I didn't 52

I work p/t - 24hrs

I realise that £150 is alot to many people, a few years ago myself included. I didn't work when my other DC were small, so this is the first time I'm going through it with the baby aspect thrown in as well so wasn't sure if this was the norm hence asking.

We do have one pot of family money, joint bank account etc. I don't earn enough to pay tax but I do pay NI and into works pension.

MiddleClassProblem Mon 02-May-16 14:38:45

And yes both incomes are theirs as a joint but one salary doesn't cover everything so the one thing it doesn't cover, the latter salary should with a bit to be comfortable too would be nice...

iamdivergent Mon 02-May-16 14:40:32

Yes middle that's just how I calculated it in my head.

tethersend Mon 02-May-16 14:47:30

Factor in your earnings in five years' time if you've been out of work. Staying in work is likely to be worth more than £150 a month in the long run.

Tiredemma Mon 02-May-16 14:51:16

Even if I only had £10 a month left over I would still work- for pension and NI contributions alone.

hibbleddible Mon 02-May-16 14:54:49

Have you considered other costs of working? Eg travel, food, clothes

You may be working for far less than 150/month.

Ni contributions are irrelevant as they are protected when you have children.

NewLife4Me Mon 02-May-16 14:54:57

It depends on how you look at it.
I wouldn't do it/ have done it as it makes no sense to me because I enjoy being a sahm and we just about manage on one low income.
If we couldn't manage or I wasn't happy, then of course working for a small/ large gain of £150 would be worth it.
I calculated how much working would actually cost, including childcare, running 2 cars and their costs, and found out it would have been a negative mostly.
Whereas not working plus top up tc and being able to shop around for bargains was financially beneficial.
I think it's a personal decision tbh.

nobilityobliges Mon 02-May-16 14:55:17

YANBU. First of all, your childcare costs are split between your DH and you. So you're not working for £150, you're working for whatever the gross pay would be, minus 50% (not 100%) of childcare. Secondly, if you stay out of work there's no guarantee that you'll get a job as soon as the three years is up - so you'll be losing the earnings that you would have had from the end of the three year period til you get a job. Thirdly, as others have said, you'll be further ahead in your career by three years - so any pay rises etc will come three years earlier. Fourthly, it's more tax efficient to have two working adults rather than one, so you may find that you're better off once you've factored that in. Fifthly, if you want to go back to work, that's a reason in itself to go.

BBQueen Mon 02-May-16 14:59:04

If I use your way of calculating income vs childcare costs, I make -£200 per month (2 DC in nursery). I don't care, totally worth it to save my sanity and will be worth it once school starts.

AndYourBirdCanSing Mon 02-May-16 15:06:41

It's not just that money- you need to weigh up what is best overall.

So plus points of course being career prospects/progression. Not going out of your mind as a SAHP (I am one and have found it very isolating but others may be better at it! I have, however, loved being with them but a time limit is a good idea)

On the other hand... working often comes with extra costs. You can, in theory, save money being at home as you have more time. You are also there to cover sickness, appointments etc which I know some people find difficult to sort out. If I was essentially working for an extra £150 after childcare (we share all money in this house so would be our salaries minus childcare of course) I know it would be swallowed up so would be irelevant. I would be doing it for other reasons.

Some families find they work much better with one parent being at home for a period- others the opposite. It really does come down to personal circumstance.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now