"Can't afford to go back to work"

[sphinxa]

Genuine question ...

I often see people saying they couldn't afford to go back to work because of the cost of childcare when they only have 1 child.

The minimum wage is over £7 and the average cost of a nursery is £5/hr. There's tax free child care or vouchers to reduce that cost.

So what do people mean when they say "my wage wouldn't cover childcare costs"?!

When I went back after my 2nd child, I had two under two and after childcare costs I think I came out with about £50 a month. We decided it was still worth going back to work for the benefits of maintaining my own career, pension contributions, autonomy... and eventually when the kids get their free hours we'll be laughing (hopefully).

If people want to stay at home that's great but do people use "can't afford" instead of "want to be a SAHM"?

I come out with £1100/month. My childcare for the hours I work would be £1200/month.

I'm very lucky to have a DH who also works and free childcare, however, if I was a single parent with no help my wage wouldn't cover it, let alone pay bills etc.

NOT at all. In my case I don’t think it’s worth going back to work for £50 a month. I’d miss milestone moments and time with the children whilst they’re young that you can’t ever get back. Would I trade that for an extra £50? No

You said it yourself. You came away with £50 a month. Travel/clothes on top of that? If you dont have a career, just a job that you can pick up again a few years on, no real pension worth keeping, then for £50 why bother? All the stress of juggling sick days, cooking last minute, rushing to collect from nursery. All so your kids can be looked after by someone else on minimum wage. Illogical.

I think it's just used as an excuse rather than them come out and say they don't want to work.

For many it's like no consideration was given whatsoever as to the costs of a child. Many expect them to cost nothing.

Child will likely be in childcare for 2 hours longer than a persons working hours as they'll need to travel there and back. Also working has additional costs eg travel (which can be a LOT in places like London) so it could be actually more expensive to work or break even so why would anyone want to

Plus add travel times, my daughter is in nursery for two extra hours everyday due to my commute and timings

Take home was £1700, 2x nursery was £2000.

Travel time costs as well, so add an hour on per day to childcare for that. Wiped out the £50 already.

It's not that easy.

Going to work means other expenses - travel, clothing, lunches.
Some jobs are just that, jobs, no career prospects, no pension, not interesting, not really life enriching.

So I can see how someone takes the easier, so to speak, option and stays at home.

It's not hard to imagine surely? 2 children... one in prechool and one at nursery. 3 days a week =1000 a month bill. Salary 1200 a month. Therefore working 12 x 8 hr days for 200 quid. Deduct travelling expenses and profit for month= zero.
Luckily I have a husband who makes good money and I've been able to stay in my career.

The real question is why isnt it seen as a shared cost?

Unless you are working 1 minute from the nursery, you always need to pay for more hours of childcare than you work.

no way would I trade in precious time with my dcs for £50 per month!

Rent 400
Council tax 100
Electric/water 60
Car ins. 15
Phone 20
Car tax 20
Food&toiletries, cleaning products etc 240
Fuel 120

= 975. Wage 1200 leaves 225/mo for clothing, childcare, savings, trips out, xmas, birthdays, appliances and car maintenance.

The real question is why isnt it seen as a shared cost?

I've never understood this argument.. in our household it is a shared cost.. that doesn't change the fact that childcare for us, once you factor in commuting time and associated costs, is more than I would take home. The household pot would still be worse off if I were to go back to work.

Not sure why that's so hard to comprehend. It's basic mathematics.

Re the shared cost comment.

Even if a couple do work with joint bank account.
If each parent puts in £2000, and childcare is £2000 surely it still makes sense for one parent not to work? Remove the stress of drop offs, pick ups, lack of time generally.

It really depends on individual circumstances. I was lucky enough to be able to reduce my hours and I work the maximum I can before I would start losing money.
If I was to go back full time I would gain £500 a month on my pay before tax & ni. I would however have to pay an additional £332-£405 per month childcare depending its a 4 or 5 week month, this figure doesn't include school holidays. In addition I'd probably have to fill the car up at least 1 more time a month which would be about another £60 a month. I'd be paying to work more hours and see my kids less.

For many its a reason , not an excuse.

Universal credit will pay up to 85% , up to about £650 towards your childcare fees. Imagine you are a single parent of a 1 year old living in London that would earn about 1.5k per month working full time. Childcare fees are around £1250 here , so in this case a person probably can't afford to return to work.

I have £10 a month after I've paid for nursery. That's using tax free childcare as well.

This only works if you have a partner to support you financially whilst you cover nursery costs.

If I didn't work I would be labeled lazy and unmotivated. I hate the fact that I basically pay to be away from my 8 month old baby.

Your post is insulting, naive and uninformed.

It's always been a shared cost here, I think it is for a lot of people.

However it doesn't sit the agenda when trying to justify not working to see it as a joint cost.

The "precious time" comments always make me smile though. No thought it given to the person or tax payers missing their precious times to finance those moments.

Yabu as you are not considering the amount of 0 hours minimum wage contracts out there. Nursery is set hours a week but on 0 hoursyou can go from 40hrs then dropped to anything from 0 onwards with no notice at all. Still have to pay childcare.
Then also the waiting time for supporting benefits to catch up and help in these short time situations. You'll get into debt.
Then when (if) your back at 40hours youv got the debt to pay plus any charges. Maybe you paid childcare on credit card so youv got that too.

Repeat the cycle a few times a year = better off on benefits as single mum to young child. Or better of as one working parent and one SAHP as a low earning couple

It's not as simple as that. For a start you pay for more hours of childcare than the amount of hours you work because you have to allow travel time. Add on travel and other costs and it's easy to see how you could end up earning nothing.

My children are school age now but just as an example, for one of them to go to nursery to cover my working hours plus travel time would be £50. I'd earn £41.

Even if people do class it as a shared cost, if it costs 1200 a month for childcare and the person takes home 1100 it might be in the best interest of the family for the parent taking home 1100 not to work.

Not everyone has a high earning partner and can afford to lose that £100.

it doesn't sit the agenda when trying to justify not working to see it as a joint cost.

What do you mean? As a pp has said, most households look to maximise their income.

Partner A earns £2000 per month
Partner B earns £1000 per month
Total = £3000 per month

Professional childcare costs the household £1200 per month
OR
Partner A becoming a SAHP costs the household £2000 per month
OR
Partner B becoming a SAHP costs the household £1000 per month

Currently unavailable employed single parent.

£1000 from UC a month.
I'm.looking for work.
If I get a job starting 1st of march I have to pay all childcare.costs for march, claim back those costs in April from UC who will pay 85%

So, clever mathematicians of MN.
£1000 from UC
Minus- Rent, gas, electric, insurance, council tax, food, leaves £50
Minimum childcare at £5 p/h for 2 hours a day (1 before school, 1 after)
£50 a week multiplied by 4 weeks £200

£50 - £200 = -£150

Well that's that fucked then.