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

lol!

I wouldn't employ an unqualified nanny with not much experience to care for young children alone in my house, especially not a 19yr old. As a mothers help perhaps but not solecharge 5 days a week.

I was that nanny, I was 18 and had very little experience aprt from working on a few playschemes, I had sole charge for over 10 hours a day 5 days a week, didn't earn £25k though, about £75 a week and an extra £5 for doing ironing.

So seeing it from the other side as I mum now I def wouldn't employ a nanny like that.

If I was paying a nanny £25k she would have to be fecking good, qualified (2yrs NNEB min), plus additional training in nursing or teaching and at least 10 ys experience. Wouldn't pay an unqualified 19r old with a bit of babysitting experience much more than minimum wage, but then I wouldn't employ a nanny like that.

cloudhopper, thanks for putting up the sums for us!

I feel a bit like that at times so here's our costs:

Household income per month AFTER TAX= £3,500

Costs:
Mortgage = £1,000/ month (and round here to get a 3 bed terrace rental wouldn't be any cheaper)
Utilities = £500/month
Food = £400/month
university fees and associated costs (because I am putting myself through uni) = £100/month
Clothes = £50/month
Toiletries, nappies etc = £50/month
Car hire (we dont' own a car but hire one 4 times a year to visit family) =£100/month

that leaves £1,300 to cover f/t childcare and any other fripperies like holidays etc. Now I can work with those sums, we did make a decision to have a kid and knew there would be a financial burden. Two things annoy me though:

Firstly; DH and I both get taxed on our earnings. (thats two lots of tax) Then if we pay a nanny we have to pay tax on what we pay her (tax 3) then she gets taxed on her pay (tax 4)

Secondly; As I said before I would strongly resent paying an unqualified nanny with only 1-2 yrs experience MORE than I earn.

I don't think being a nanny/childminder is a 'low skill' job. But I don't think that every nanny is worth £25k!

Apologies if I am about to get thrown rotten fruit at but here goes....

Not everyone can just up sticks and move to the location of their choice, just because of house prices. This is a non-argument along the lines of Xenia's favourite "Everyone has the opportunity to be rich if they really want to" line.

In my case, DH is fairly specialised and would find it fairly hard to relocate. I work part time and there is no way I could find an equivalent part time job elsewhere - not built up the reputation and history in the job etc. That's before you consider schools, nursery places, friends, support network.

Yes we could emigrate or move to the north, but we would be no better off without two jobs. And we would lose a lot more.

Within commuting distance of both our jobs, we could not find a house for less than 300k. We don't have a house, it's a modest flat that we bought 6 years ago.

I imagine that someone round here on 100k would want to buy a house. It is one of the cheapest areas in the SE. If they can afford a 300k mortgage, then that's probably what they would get. It would not be an outrageously good house for that money either.

Okay can I ask a thick question why does someone need a £300k mortgage? Unless they suddenly get pregnant with quads and need to buy a 3 bed terrace?????? Surely renting would be cheapers.

Sorry I shouldn't skim read but if you can't afford your house live somewhere cheaper!

Just skimmed and seen the CM rate £3.20 per hour [thud as I fall of the chair] average going rate around here is £5.50 ie I know one who charges only £4.50per hour I know several charging £6.50ph and most are somewhere in between. There again we would qualify for a little bit of help towards childcare via CTC oh and if I return to work we will be a whole £50 per week better off.........mmm that's all be education and professional qualifications are worth.

However, 4 dc is was my choice so we shall continue to live a frugal life and be glad that I have the dc I wanted!

Well I suppose you could combine the two, buy the clothes at a charity shop and therefore save yourself the overdraft!

clothes and charity??????

What are these things you talk about, please explain yourself.

£70 a month on clothes??

howe many of you are there and have you tried leather knee/elbow patches?

Charity begins at home in my book.

There's NO WAY I'd give such a percentage of my wage to charity, if it meant I was increasing my overdraft by the same amount each month.

JMI - Sally

1100 pcm to cover basic costs

250pcm food and household items
200pcm student loans being paid off
150pcm council tax
150pcm energy bills, water etc
150pcm payment on a car loan
100pcm insurance on car, house, car tax etc
50pcm donation to charity
70pcm clothes for the family
50pcm petrol

That leaves them with a net overdraft increasing by 70 per month.

I would describe that as basic costs.

you know I'm nearer to couple 1 than any of the others you mention

and I would never presume to say that my income covers only basic costs

I'm going out for a meal tonight. That's not a basic cost. Nor is my lovefilm subscription, nor is the wine in my basement and nor is my lipstick

to say that these costs are basic is insulting to people who really are covering basic costs

you're not telling me that poor Brummie never eats out

Alright then.

Take a couple in Greater London on 100k. They take home 5100 per month. Of this in order to work full time, they pay 2000pcm in childcare costs (with even two children that is good going). They bought a modest 3 bed property in an unfashionable suburb for 300k a year ago, which now costs them 2000pcm in mortgage.

This leaves them with 1100pcm to pay for everything else. The same as couple 1.

No-one would argue with couple 1 on 30k saying that their income just covers "basic costs", and the figures I have quoted for london are for a very average family.

cloudhopper everyone jumped on Brummie because she claimed that an income of £100k only covered 'basic costs'

just a mite up itself dontcha think? the question posed was, what on earth does she mean by 'basic costs'?

I just cannot understand why you have all jumped on Brummie like that, unless there is something overhanging from another board?

Dh and I earn significantly less than 100k and I have no problem with Brummie demanding tax free childcare. Just because someone is wealthier than me doesn't mean I can't see things from their point of view.

Anyway, income is a very poor indication of poverty these days. Take 2 different families:

Family 1: Living in Preston. Earn 30k between them. Family live nearby and thus reduce childcare costs, and the mother works part time. They bought a detached 4 bed house 8 years ago for 90k (would now cost 250k). Their mortage costs 600 per month, childcare of 200pm. After tax they take home about 1900pcm, topped up by tax credits. Of which they have 1100pcm left to cover other expenses.

Family 2: Living in Manchester. Earn 55k per year. No family nearby so paying full childcare costs. Bought a house recently - a 3 bed ex-council semi for 250k with a 100% mortgage. Take home pay after tax 3055pcm. Their childcare costs are 1200pcm and their mortgage is 1700pcm. This would leave them with 155pcm to cover all their other expenses.

The first couple are receiving tax credits, the second not. Is this fair? Probably not, but that isn't because tax credits are a bad idea in principle. Nor is tax deductible childcare a bad idea just because some people will do better out of it than others.

ok, the 'holiday' comment was insensitive. i apologise if people were offended.

I have no idea how families on much lower incomes cope. Which is WHY it's important that one of the major costs borne by families - and particularly by women - is given much more political credibility and priority.

Forget salary levels and means-testing. It hasn't worked and can't account for massive regional differences in costs.

I've said it 1,000 times (apologies in advance) but if a huge proportion of working men were priced out of the job market by a cost of getting to/doing that work, this would be dealt with as a major political issue.

i never said your income was outrageous or unjustified

i am not judging your income

but you cant say that you 'just cover' 'basics' on a salary of 100k

"and thats not including holidays" if that quote wasnt so sad i would laugh

how do you think people of less than half your salary survive?

It really doesn't matter whether you judge our household income is outrageous or unjustified, or whether you judge we're utter spendthrifts because we live in a 3 bed house in an ok area.

I just wanted to support a very reasonable suggestion that much higher priority should be given to making childcare affordable for all working families.

Nanny/child carer salaries aren't the problem, they're only just getting to a fair level themselves, it's the fact they come out of heavily taxed income.

well, I think the point Brummie was trying to make is that childcare costs affect everyone. Of course, it's MUCH more of an issue if you are near the breadline and struggling to make ends meet but it is an issue for middle/high earners too. In London, it's certainly not unusual for couples to have a combined income of say £70k (and have a reasonable mortgage) and still have to worry about money.

changes can be made there fox

its not exactly living on the breadline