to ask how many mums out there can actually afford to go to work?

[tinky19]

Ok, so I'll start by saying I'll win all prizes for ignorance with this but please bear with me.
DS is 16mo and DC2 is due in Dec. Now, up until my maternity leave starts we have been very fortunate to have GPs looking after DS so I have worked 3 days a week.
DH has now got a new job so we are moving 250 mile away from all family and having looked into child care, I've realised we can't afford for me to work. It's not like I have a badly paid job (I'm a teacher) but at most after paying childcare I'd have £100 a month left from my pay.
Now I know some mums would choose to work anyway but unless I'm really makibng an extra contribution, I'd rather be at home with me children.
So how do people afford it? Are you all high powered, high earners? This is a genuine question and I'm not critising anybodies choice to be a working mum or SAHM.
Thanks

When DS was a baby I went back to work and he went to the CM.....DH and I paid half child care each as we didnt see why it should just come out of my wages.

It was hard to afford sometimes but I have a good job and wanted to keep it as not much opportunity for my career elsewhere. Fast forward 9 years and DS is at school, I have gradually upped my hours again and am working at the same place for a good salary.

It is a means to an end.. they wont be little for long and at least as a teacher you will get holiday time off with them.

You chose to have children, so either stay at home or pay up

I would turn the question around and say "How many parents can actually afford to be a SAHP?"

The answer is, not many. Most people have to work in some shape or form.

Ladyintheradiator, I know that we can afford it, but as I have said, I would like to be with my children and don't feel like £100 a month is enough of an insentive to leave them IMO.
Fuzzled that sounds great! But according to my wages, it seems to make no difference how many days I work (1-5) we'd still be left with £100 extra.

I work nights. Partner works days.

No other feasable way around it. But of course it does mean no childcare costs.

Hiya, I earn £25k a year, and after a DD had a very bad reaction to nursery we got a nanny 4 days a week. It required some belt tightening as wage works out at about £1200 per month pre tax, mine after tax is about £1300, so I am in the identical position to you (and yes completely get points about it not being just about the wife's wage, but the fact is the net financial result to us is the same).

Is it worth it? yes, because I enjoy my job, I thought I couldn't hack being a fulltime mum, and as others have pointed out, it keeps me in the job market a little longer, and in my career (which is over-subscribed and youth-focused) that's vital.

FWIW once you have multiple kids it's cheaper/the same to get a childminder/au pair/nanny as it is to get a nursery place.

Oh dear, I didn't mean to wind people up. I'm not asking for anyone to apologise for our situation, just stating our facts at present. DH needed to move here for work, no other option and as a teacher, I have the potential to find work all over the country.
I have looked into childminders and nurseries and the are both about the same, maybe £10 a week difference tops.

Ladyintheradiator, I don't have a problem, I was just a bit surprised that's all.

I was a secondary school teacher but don't work anymore. I now am a SAHM to my 2DD (1yr and 2 yrs).

After I looked at the nurseries in the area I realised that our family would only be making about £150 a month after paying two lots of fees. That small amount would be entirely eaten up with travel costs so for us we weren't prepared to put the DDs in childcare for no real financial benefit for the family.

I will go back to it in time but at the moment my time is better spent at home.

And actually, £1200 is not to be sniffed at. That's a holiday.

And you're a teacher, aren't you? You'll have plenty of time with your children!

That is what I mean MyMaisyMouse.

ha ha at teachers having plenty of time with their children.

Sorry, X posted!

Just wondering, to the people like sinkingfeeling and mymaisymouse who looked at nurseries/CMs with multiples, did you explore the nanny route? (not live-in nanny by the way so house-size not relevant)

It definitely works out cheaper in London, particularly when you factor in no travel costs, but perhaps that doesn't apply elsewhere?

Sorry, posted before I checked it, I meant "our family would only be making about £150 extra a month".

tinky, perhaps it's naive of me but - I get 20 days holiday a year. Teaching offers considerably more than that so therefore surely you get more time with own kids?

Well, if you both get childcare vouchers that makes a massive difference, have you taken that into account? Also as a teacher you may be able to find a childminder who only does termtime so you won't have to pay over the holidays, at least that's what my sister does. And don't forget your eldest will be entitled to 15 hours free when she turns 3, which will help. It all adds up!

We get round it by me working at least one day a week over the weekend, so DH can cover some of the childcare.

Nurseries in this country are expensive. It was national news only last week that UK nursery rates are the highest in Europe. So YANBU.

Whether or not you want / can afford to be a SAHM is slightly different and also depends on your long term goals. But you aren't BU in wondering how people afford such costs.

FWIW I can't afford nursery and DS medical needs mean that I have needed to be a SAHM for the last few years. Hopefully I'm going back to work soon, but I will be worse off for the first couple of years initially.

I don't really think that the issue is whether the money is coming out of the OP's wages or from the her Dh or both.
What you should be looking at is the total money brought back home when both parenst work minus the childcare and compare it with the total money availale when only H is working.
In this case there is a difference of £100.
So to your question, can you afford to work? Then the asnwer is YES.

But the question is different though isn't it? tinky19, is £100 something that you have to have because otherwise you can't pay the bill? Or is it something you can do without?
When your dcs will both at school, will it easy for you to find another job after 5 years wo work or will it be difficult?
Are you sure you will enjoy being a SAHM and won't regret working at least a couple of days per week?

Personnally, out of personnal experience, I would always ensure that the woman is working. Even if it means that there is no difference in how much money there is at the end of the month. My experience is that being a SAHM has implications that I didn't like on the way our relationship went. It can be very difficult to find a job afterwards if you want/need to. You are getting financially dependant on someone and it can be an issue (if your partner has an illness and can't work, if you want to get divorced etc...).

You might argue that childcare is expensive. But is it? Have a look at the running thread about childcare cost.

YABU - your title is completely misleading. Clearly you can afford to work, you just choose not to.

In financial terms, you working is worth more than £100 a month though, as you have to factor in your pension contributions, and your increased earning power by remaining in the workforce. If you take 4-5 years out of teaching, how easy will it be to get back in? And of course you will miss out on the increased wages and experience you would have accrued whilst working.

Don't forget too that by the time you come off your second lot of maternity leave, your DS will be 3, and you will be entitled to nursery vouchers. So you would actually have a net gain of rather more than you think.

If you want to give up work and become a SAHM, that's not unreasonable at all. But it is unreasonable to make out it is because you can't afford to work.

x-posts

Entirely agree with CactusRash. It is not unreasonable to be a SAHM, but it is not a route I would choose or advise my daughter to choose because of the financial implications.