Minimum £72k salary required to allow me to take home same as my 19 year old nanny

Exactly, cloud.

If the place is £300,000, and you make £30,000 b/c that's what is considered a very good sum in some regions, well, then, you may as well stay where you are.

That's the thing, lots of people bang on about how 'cheap' housing is in some locations, but they fail to point out a) chances for employment are limited, meaning you face a llllooonnnggg commute or unemployment/season employment b) wages tend to be lower as well.

Yes, but you don't have anywhere NEAR the percentage of people making £100k/pa in that region as you do in the Southeast, naily.

It's ALL relative!

OMG nailpolish!

I have been trying to persuade dh to move out of London for about 6 years now, and have finally accepted that we are staying.

I like it except for the crap housing.

But maybe it shows what I mean about your income being virtually irrelevant before your cost of living is considered?

omg you get

this

for 300k here

Where I live, this is what you get for 300k, an amount of mortgage that we will never be able to aspire to in a million years.

Raynes Park

Believe me Raynes Park is a very ordinary suburb - no high rollers here.

Or down the road in Worcester Park, slightly further out.

Worcester Park

Or finally, Sutton, which is a very mixed bag of areas. This house is in what I would describe as a run down suburban road, with a fairly high count of "washing machines in the front garden".

Sutton

Much as I like it here, I would not say it is

Bugger, link doesn't work! Oh well, you can only find two bed flats. A very small two bed house starts at around £325K

You can't buy a house for £300K in my area, a not that salubrious suburb of London, with the odd gastropub but no tube and right by Peckham! look

show me CD

eluisis (see I have managed your new name ) my nursery charges £31.50 a day - so for two children (both under the age of 3 when the nursery grant kicks in) that would be £63 for a 10 hour day. Could I really get a live-in nanny for £63/day, including the associated living costs?

However in my case, I work 3 days a week, so having a live-in nanny is, therefore, much less viable.

Buffy have you seen what 300k buys you in London?

I agree, Cloudhopper.

Live-in nannies are cheaper than nurseries or childminders for two young children in every area in which I have looked. I probably neglected to say "live-in" earlier. Sorry.

We rent because we can't afford to get on the property ladder. And, we actually moved to a bigger house in order to provide a room for a live-in nanny. The cost of the nanny including such things as the increased rent and grocery bill is cheaper than a nursery.

We are normal people and we can't afford to no have a live-in nanny. One of the reasons I support this thread is because it brings this fact to the attention of many who think nannies are for the rich. Live in nannies are the most economical form of full time childcare for 2 or more young children.

I have been thinking about why I, on my comparatively peanuts salary (and with my tax-deductible childcare), feel so strongly about this issue for higher earners than me.

And I've come to the following conclusion. If lower and middle income families are struggling financially, they cannot earn their way out of it at the moment. Generally speaking if you work more hours, you pay most of the extra in childcare and tax. If you get a better job, the salary increase is totally dwarfed by the childcare costs.

Equally, pay rises are netted off against loss of working families tax credit, or at the bottom end benefit payments. There is no incentive to climb your way out and up the salary ladder, even if you can.

Fio I thought it was because I posted:

"Normal people on average incomes do not have nannies." Which was in response to a post from uwilla which used the expression "normal people on average incomes". (I know I should use her new name..)

I actually agree with the idea of tax breaks on childcare, but I think it is the assumptions, like you say.

I am actually offended by this:

By knakered on Tue 13-Feb-07 23:50:10

throwing "normal people cant afford a nanny" as some sort of insult is just shooting yourself and all of us parents in the foot...a nanny is by far the cheapeast option in my area if you have 2 under school age

It was not an insult, it was a statement of fact. Why is it shooting myself in the foot? I work (and fortunately for me on significantly more than the minimum wage), I did have two under school age, I do not have family nearby and I could not have afforded a nanny. So in my area (and most of the country) a nanny is not the cheapest option. I have a good education, and a decent lifestyle so why would I be jealous that I cannot afford a nanny?

Do you not think part of the problem now is that the family support people would have traditionally had with regard to childcare just doesnt exist anymore.

We often dont live near our extended families and if we do our (retired) parents are still working as they cannot live on the pension alone.

Knackered...I wasnt responding to your op but some of the other comments on here.

It seems strange to me that some people discuss the "cost" of an nanny in the same way as the cost of a weekly shop. Surely this person is looking after the most precious thing in your life, for very long hours.

Just because she doesnt have a degree it doesnt make her worth the money any less - if you get someone who is professional, reliable, your feel safe & happy leaving your children with her and they like her surely she is worth it?

I guess its just one of the sacrifices you make when you decide to have children, I could never earn enough to cover the expense if I worked part time and I sure as hell dont want to miss out on the years of my childrens lives when they actually want to be with me by working full time.

knackered - I do think you make a fair comment, but one of the joys of mumsnet is that people from very different perspectives will comment, and make you see your ideas from a different point of view.

I think it is a worthwhile debate to have - there are things wrong with our society, and I don't see a problem with questioning the staus quo in this way.

There's an affordability time-bomb waiting to go off for young people who didn't buy their houses in time and who are paying full-whack for their childcare living away from their parents.

And your example at least shows something about the take-home pay of a mother after tax and childcare.

I wish I had more disposable income than my nanny, but I do think we are in a phase of our life where the overhead expenses are just at its peak and hopefully will come down some time in the near future (we have 2 kids under 3). Having said that, I am trying my best to pay her the best rate i can as i think she is fab fab fab and love her to bits. In fact, i actively give her advice on how to manage her money so that she can have a nice nest egg when she finishes her career as a nanny (D and I work in stock market/fund management) - that way, when it's her turn to have children, she can have options in terms of childcare if she chooses to go down this route. I wouldn't necessarily jump to the conclusion that because some mothers wish they had more disposable income than their nannies mean they are jealous/unappreciative of them.

did your nanny enjoy her Caribbean holiday?