> £4,000pcm nursery fees

[MidnightPatrol]

For those of you paying this, how bad is it? How do you cope?

I am hoping to have a second baby but it’s going to cost ~£4,200pcm (ignoring any future fee increases…!) in childcare for a year or two.

Slightly terrifying, particularly in context of higher interest rates / higher cost of servicing a mortgage when I come off my low interest deal next year.

Absolute batshit. I live in Yorkshire and send 1 DC to nursery 4 full days a week, it’s £370 a month when the universal hours are taken off.

Again, the tax she’s paying goes towards the schools that her kids will be attending and the NHS care through the pregnancies and births she’s just had. The tax system is set up so that people who can easily afford to pay more, do so, which seems fair to me, and we are in the higher tax bracket. If people choose not to work because they no longer find it worthwhile to only earn half of £200/hr, or are paying more tax than earnings, that seems to underline the privilege you seem to be blind to. Playing victim because ‘people hate you because you’re rich’, in order to get childcare workers to earn less/poorer tax payers to pay more, in order to fund your lavish choices is such gaslighting it’s sad.

@SouthLondonMum22 @Flamesatmytoes @Delatron I agree with pretty much everything all of you have said.

What is wrong with you?

I work part time and don’t use any childcare. No privilege here. But keep ranting away.

It’s a fact that childcare in this country is prohibitively expensive and that it is mainly women that suffer because of this and have to leave the workplace. I was one to be fair.
If it costs thousands of pounds a month for childcare then quite often many families decide that one person stays at home/goes part time or retrains. Due to the way this society is structured and the workplace, sadly that is mainly women. Why are you suggesting otherwise? It’s simply not true. You don’t see thousands of men leaving the workforce?

To downplay this and blame women is quite abhorrent.

You’re misinformed. You don’t earn half of your £200, you end up with none. What sort of perverse ‘incentive’ is that?

Here we go with the name calling and tantrums at an opposing argument. Childcare in this country is paid at a rate that funds the childcare workers a fair pay. Families choose whether to access it, like you have, based on whether you want to work or look after your children yourself. Are you saying you’d rather be at work, or do you enjoy the privilege of being at home with your children? The plain fact is that you could work if you chose, and your husband could stay home if he chose. I’m not ‘blaming women’ at all, I’m empowering them to make their own choices. I just don’t expect childcare workers or tax payers to remove the consequences of those choices. The women we are responding to are earning over £100k/year and complaining about childcare costs for a few short years. I’m suggesting that they are actually privileged and don’t need help on the backs of poorer women. That’s real feminism and not the abhorrent rich passive victim playing that dilutes the cause.

Earn £100k - 2 kids get £4K of help

Earn £110k = 10k taxed at 60% 4k tax, minus 2% NI

= £3,800

Remind me how much I get to take home?

@Numberfish how’s that for an incentive.

I’m not ‘misinformed’, you just need to read my question more carefully. I say ‘or are paying more tax than earnings’.

@Numberfish You’ve lost the plot. Who has ever mentioned childcare workers earning less/poorer tax payers paying more?

’Lavish choices’ like huge sacrifies to almost every aspect of your life in order to have children. Children, whom most of us are doing our absolute best to set a fantastic example for and create improved versions of ourselves who will hopefully be able do a lot of good in their lifetime. The lavish choice would have been not to have children.

@Numberfish but in other countries they manage it - or do you think that is wrong? That childcare should not be subsidised at all? You know full well that it’s normally the woman who ends up giving up work.

Yes all the husbands could give up work and stay at home with the baby. But, due to how society is structured they don’t do they? And why should anyone be giving up a career and a job they love?

Sorry how you are empowering women by criticising them for wanting to work? Your argument makes no sense.

It would be nice if our country was like other countries that’s all. I don’t know why that causes you so
much rage..

Indeed he/she has completely lost the plot. Luckily that does not help their argument.

I want childcare workers to be paid a good wage. It’s an important job. I want the government to simply do what other countries such as Germany manage - subsidise childcare so women and men can stay in work and have children.

I’m sorry, can’t stop laughing at your woeful situation that starts with ‘earn £100k’.

Seriously, what do you spend the rest of your earnings on that are more important than quality childcare for a few years?

Who is to subsidise your awful position? I mean, I’m doing as well as the next gal, but if I ever get to £100k I’ll certainly be able to manage my money and life choices better than not coping with predictable childcare costs for the years they’re needed. I didn’t expect to keep all my earnings and ability to stay in work and spend time with the kids. That’s fantasy land and smacks of entitlement.

Someone’s jealous…

Not one person has said that childcare workers should be paid poorly. In fact, one reason why it bothers me so much is that I'll be paying £6k per month for 3 children knowing what a pittance childcare workers are actually paid.

It doesn’t cause me ‘rage’. That’s a childish attempt to minimise my argument and only weakens yours. I’m simply arguing a different POV to you, one that might be informative and at the least make you see your privilege.

Why is it ‘usually’ the women that stop work? Do they prefer to? I know I did. Is it because they’re better at childcare? Is it because they haven’t worked their way towards higher earnings as their husbands? The answers aren’t as simple as playing victim.

Look @Numberfish I disagree with everything you’ve said. And it’s a fact that many women (for whatever reason) end up giving up their careers or changing careers and this is largely down to the extortionate childcare costs that seem to affect mainly this country.

You are arguing therefore it’s worse in Germany? Where childcare is a few hundred pounds a month? Where women can stay in the workforce? That it’s better here where we pay thousands?

You may find it funny but as the big earners are the big tax payers, we need these people to work. Funny as you find it, it’s this sort of thing that hurts the UK.

You do realise NHS consultants are some of the professionals hit by this. Next time you need an NHS doctor, think about the 4 day a week contacts that are cutting provision even further.

FWIW, this isn’t my situation - DC are older. However I want a growth economy, successful women, and a fair tax system. I’m not totally sure what you want, it seems a little wrapped up with making big earners disproportionately pay.

It's usually the woman who gives up working because women are usually lower earners and there's societal issues such as the gender pay gap.

If a woman wants to give up working, that's absolutely fine but the issue is if she is forced into it due to the fact that nurseries are so expensive. It should be a choice.

As the OP has astutely noticed, there are no childcare providers in her location because property prices are so horrendous that they cannot afford to live anywhere near where they are required.

You cannot fix that in a society where houses are investments, not merely shelter. 50 years of pushing home ownership and ludicrous control over the building of new homes has seen to that and no-one is ever going to balance the conundrum as house prices would fall as demand reduced.

The OP has to get out of London to make the argument work.

The system disproportionately impacts professional women. What you fail to grasp is that these women often invest years of their life towards bettering themselves and pay a huge amount of tax. In terms of absolute terms they would be the ones paying a significantly higher amount of tax however when they have kids and go through a period of time when they need to access childcare they are again disproportionately impacted by the costs.
You might think £100k is loads but this often comes at a sacrifice and is not just landed onto a plate.
My view is the free hours should be offered to all regardless of income as they would have paid so much into the system to just get nothing. The sad thing is that those who earn the most and pay more are the ones that are the most penalised in the end.
This does not encourage people to do better when they are earning very little of their income once tax is taken out. There’s no incentive to keep earning more.
Also you mention that they can pay. What if someone has several kids for example twins or triplets and need help. The reality is that someone might be getting £5k net a month and nursery will be £5k. That same person earning £4k would get 30 hours free childcare for all 3 kids and be able to work. How is that fair? In my view, the system is poorly structured.

I do think that the government should make an investment into this and perhaps just allow people to pay for nursery from their gross wage rather than be using their post tax income to pay for their nursery bill.
i mean I “sucked” up the cost as we had no choice and we could afford to pay but it would of been great to get some support.

I assume you get 30 hours which are not applicable to higher earners. You may also be using the 20% tax free government discount which again isn’t available to higher earners.

I’m not in the SE but still have to pay £70 per day. It costs around £1250 per month for 4 days with no free hours.

@SouthLondonMum22 I work part time, 4 days. I'm assistant Head in a Special School and there are 4 others with different things they lead on. I can honestly say that I don't feel like the part timer at all. My work colleagues, all men, treat me with the same respect. I don't have any less responsibility, I just do it in compressed hours.

Our head (male) is married with 2 children and understands family life. I always think of it as a good deal for both of us as they pay me less per year and I get a long weekend (I look after our 2 year old.) I think I'd done right it can definitely be beneficial for both the employer and employee to work 4 days.

That's great. It can absolutely work in some industries but mine just isn't there yet.

There's something seriously wrong with you.

Your entire argument is why the system is broken in the first place. If (for arguments sake) all mothers couldn't afford to work and gave up working to look after their children, our workforce and economy takes a massive hit.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the high earners you clearly despise (jealousy?) Get free childcare. But, simply, it shouldn't cost them the remainder of their take home pay after bills, and in some places more than, just to be able to carry on working once they are parents.

Make it affordable. That's what's being discussed.