to think childcare costs for 3 primary school aged children are too expensive to make working worthwhile?

[pingu2209]

Now that my last child has started school I decided to look to get back into paid employment. To pay for 3 children to go to breakfast club and then after school club, during term time, the fees will amount to £1350 a month. During school holidays the fees will amount to £1690 a month. On the basis my husband and I will try to take our holiday over a chunk of any school holiday, any salary I earn needs to cover the £1350 childcare costs PLUS any costs for parking and fuel for commuting.

On that basis I need to earn £25k/yr to break even.

I have applied and applied for jobs and can not get anything near the amount I need to warrent me working.

Due to my husband's salary we won't get any support for childcare costs.

I am so pissed off. I really want to work. I am worried that I will have bugger all pension and to be frank, we could really do with more money because everything is going up in price.

As I have a degree, a masters, a professional dimloma and 13 years work experience in marketing that is my preferred option. However, as I haven't done any paid work for 5 1/2 years nobody is interested.

Am I unreasonable to think that it is actually not financially viable for a mother to work if she has 3+ children?

I think you are not so much BU as being a bit unimaginative. I have 3 dcs and we would quite simply have starved if I hadn't found a way to bring some money in whilst they were little, let alone of school age. I suspect the fact that you can afford not to work means you are taking the most pleasant option - and nothing wrong with that. But it's just nonsense to say you can't earn enough to make work worthwhile after childcare costs if you have 3dcs, esp of school age.

Of the mums at school I know, a large number run their own businesses of varying types to get the working hours they want. They probably don't earn loads, but at least they can still be there for the kids when necessary, without incurring such large (or any in some cases) costs. I did this myself when my dcs were younger. I now do about 5 different pt jobs which are all pretty flexible in terms of hours and nearly all involve working from home, so I can fit in with school times - it does mean I end up working after they've gone to bed sometimes, or have to work when it's the weekend or school holidays, but not full time, so can look after them myself, and as others have said, a school-age child - 3 school aged children even more so - can happily entertain themselves for extended periods of time. In some ways, I'd think this would actually be much harder with only one child as they'd want you to play with them - 3 kids can have lots of (slightly messy) fun with no help needed, so you can childmind and work fairly successfully. So childcare costs ae pretty negligible (I have no help from family either).

Re marketing, my elder brother set up his own marketing consultancy and managed to both greatly increase his earnings and reduce his hours (which were all at home so he could see lots of his baby ds at the time).

Yes, you may need to think outside of the box a little. But with a little imagination, especially with the qualifications and experience you have, you should be able to find something with hours that suit you and gives you some earnings. They may not be as high as before; the types of jobs might be slightly different. But it is definitely doable. :)

Oh, and agree about the student for babysitting - it's how my MIL managed to do a Phd whilst a single parent. My DH was quite happy with the childcare he received.

I worked out that by the time my DC no longer require childcare, I will have spent more than £160,000 on it. That's factoring in the decreasing amount they need as they get older, and doesn't include inflation. So that's £80,000 for one child for a parent working a monday-friday 9-5 job including commuting time (less than an hour each way).

TBH I think it's amazing anyone manages it without either earning a top 25% salary or qualifying for WTCs.

Of course those costs can come down if you use an au pair, a student, a family member or friend, or share duties with another parent. But in today's fractured communities where people move so often because of work, where OFSTED-type rules have actively discouraged people from coming up with mutually beneficial arrangements, and where the media encourages us to see paedophiles round every corner and insist on CRB checks for everyone, it's not that easy...

I took the statutory maternity leave, which wasn't that much - I think I got 12 weeks with my first and 18 weeks with my second. I was pretty much working for almost nothing when they were small, and we had a live-in nanny, but carrying on working meant I could stay on the career ladder. My youngest is now 10, and I got accelerated promotion when she was 5, so my career and salary have taken off. Had I taken 5 years off, I'd have gone back to work in the same low grade job with not particularly good pay, and probably still be there now.

The first few years were really a tight squeeze financially, but we have come out the other side, and neither was damaged by having to spend time in childcare after school.

I would really urge trying to find a local student to cover school holidays. Can you "cox and box" with your DH for before and after school care? We worked shifts for about a year - I would go in early (long commute), be at my desk before 8, leave at 4 and be back by the skin of my teeth to pick them up from the after school club. DH took them to school/school bus in the morning. On days when this wasn't going to work, we had friends that would drop/collect for us, and we would do the same for them. This worked well and was a life saver for us. We would also avoid holiday club at half terms by each of us taking a couple of days leave and having all of the children at one house for a full day, which they all enjoyed.

Look at how much you'll spend on your mortgage over the years. Or on heating. Or food. Childcare is a legitimate expense-why do people expect to do it on the cheap? It strikes me as a bit of a strange way to think. I far more begrudge forking out £80 to fill my petrol tank than I begrudged being able to send my children to a great nursery.

Also- although it seems a lot, it enables you to work. If 'you weren't forking out that £160000 'you wouldn't be earning. And if you're not earning you're not paying into a pension.... How do people expect to manage in their old age?

Honestly it's 'so short sighted to just think about the initial costs of returning to work. I know women in their 40 s and 50s who are totally screwed financially because they never got round to returning to work. One of them is a good friend and a lovely woman but she doesn't have a clue about money and seems to think that if her husband gets sick or dies before her, she'll somehow be provided for. I don't think she even knows whether his pension has a widows element, and what proportion that would be.

Honestly - your future will be a lot more secure op If you get back to work

I agree cat64.

Ime it does tend to be people who have been a SAHP while their children are 'pre- schoolers, and have been out of the workplace for several years, who have this Rose tinted view that they will waltz back into a nice fulfilling job which magically doesnr require childcare!

Whereas parents who have returned straight back to work after ML know first hand that childcare costs a big chunk - or all- of your earnings. Like you, I counted down 'the days til my kids were in school, not because I wanted to wish the time away but because this was the first time ever that I wasn't having to pay care all day every day all year round.

I think there are two ways of looking at this - you either wring your hands and say woe is me, why can't we get childcare on 'the cheap like some countries (while conveniently ignoring some aspects or those countries eg higher taxation, shorter ML)

Or, you can look at how vastly improved 'the system is from 20 or so years ago, with finanicial support for low earners, longer ML etc etc

If 'you are determined to find a reason not to work, then you'll always find one. Ive seen posts before from people who say they want to work but want a job between 10 and 2 pm term time only, oh and they don't want anything menial or minimum wage because they've got two degrees don't yknow! If you set these kind of conditions around finding work, then you are severely limiting your chances or finding it. For most of us work involves some compromise- for us it was having several years when we were NO better off in immediate terms because all of one income went on childcare. But thata ok- we sucked it up and now a few years later we get the payback- we have both kept our pensions going and have worked our way up the career ladder

The op needs to decide what her compromise will be- it may be seeking out alternative childcare to 'the school club, which may be less convenient but also less costly. Or it may be taking a deep breath, starting on a lower paid job and spending all her earning on childcare right now, but working her way up so in a few years she is earning more. There are possibilities here- it's about grabbing an opportunity and running with it. One things for sure though- if the op stays as she is, her chances of getting back to work diminish.

Re the pension: it only applies to married women, whereas I'd like to see it extended to cohabiting SAHMs.

Easier to just get married. The law doesn't recognise cohabiting relationships at any level, so it's never going to feasible to start making exceptions to that, which is what you're proposing. People who are SAHP's and who are not married are financially very insecure, not helped by widely disseminated urban myths about "common law relationships" and "it's only a bit of paper". Yes, a bit of paper that may well save you from poverty.

Agree, bride. If you are prepared to have children with someone and give up work so you are financially dependent on them, it seems odd to not take the step of getting married.
And if a bloke is happy to shack up with you, watch you have his kids and give up your employment but wont marry you.... Alarm bells would ring for me, because as bride says, he is obviously prepared to leave 'you financially vulnerable. A marriage doesn't have to be a big costly affair- if you aren't religious or don't want a big do, just go to a registry office. But it is a very important piece of paper legally

not terribly helpful I know but I can afford childcare for three because as a single parent I get tax credits. I couldn't have afforded to work when DP and I lived together.

For that reason childcare has to be counted as a whole-family responsibillity. It's no problem to the government if a parent chooses not to work because they are looking after children - as long as they aren't claiming any benefits and the family income allows. Nobody should have to defend that choice.

Of course there are lots of reasons why you could want to work, from extra money to career progression to security. IME most working mums have something in their favour to make it all come together - grandparent help, work from home or very near to school, work in a school, partner has flexibility, job has flexibility or they get substantial tax credits... just one or two of these can make it so much more viable. It's hard to make it add up from the 8am-6pm 5 days a week point of view and TBH most people don't use wraparound care to that total extent.

I am speaking as a single mother who went back to work within weeks of giving birth to twins. I am not, and never have been a SAHM, and I have only used WTCs in the last couple of years as I had saved for my childcare before having DC (though I was only expecting one child, so went through my savings twice as quickly, hence the need for TCs). Am I proud of what I've done? Yes. Do I think it entitles me to think that other women are making excuses not to return to work? No. I have found it really, really hard to afford it and I sympathise with other women who find it so difficult they just don't see how they can do it.

I don't begrudge paying a penny of childcare costs and if I could afford it I would actually have paid more because my CM is worth every penny and much more besides. Next to me she is the most important and constant person in my DC's life and we will continue to have a relationship with her long after my DC need her care. However, the truth is that even with WTC those costs have left me on occasion going without food. I have been unable to afford to go to the dentist and replace a crown and waited 2 years over what I should have done to replace my glasses.

Childcare costs have risen far faster than inflation in the last 5 years and they are beyond comparison with costs from 10 years ago.

To qualify for help with childcare costs, you have to use a OFSTED-registered provider, which is easier said than done. Childminders are leaving the profession in droves - 11,000 in the last four years (and not being replaced). There is a massive shortage of CMs, particularly in rural or semi-rural areas. Many nurseries are over-subscribed and have waiting lists. Not all schools provide wrap-around care and those that do can be very unreliable as they will cancel sessions if there aren't enough children to make them viable. That's absolutely useless if you're a working parent.

It is illegal to pay for childcare provided by a non-OFSTED registered provider unless it is in your own home. If you drop your child off at a neighbour's down the road and pay her say £50 a week, you're breaking the law.

75% of working adults earn less than £30,000 pre tax (so c£22,700 after tax). Among women only the figure is far far lower. A NMW earner would bring home about £10,000. Potentially childcare could cost more than the salary, although at this level you would of course be eligible for the full 70% of costs paid for by WTC (assuming you can find an OFSTED-registered provider). As soon as you start earning more than NMW childcare help is deducted proportionally. Before school I was £1400 per month for my two pre-schoolers. Even with WTC help I was left with less than £550 to pay my mortgage, council tax, water, heating, phone, food, petrol, TV licence, car tax, prescriptions, etc. One disaster would have been all it took to send me from just about treading water into full financial meltdown. Working to pay into a pension? Don't make me laugh.

Now that my DC are in school, things are much much better and I am paying into a pension, but that's only because my hours are traditional office hours, so school cuts out 6 hours of paid-for care (though there are still 12 weeks or 3 months where full-time childcare is required. If you work shift patterns and/or weekends, your children being in school isn't going to make that much difference.

For me it was worth it, though to honest I'd never have managed it if I hadn't had a truly inspirational boss who (as a father of 4) completely understand how small children play havoc with things and pick up various illnesses requiring lots of one days off at short notice. However, I have enormous sympathy with the OP. She needs a salary of £25,000 to be able to make this work. That's a national average but it's a national average artificially inflated by large City salaries and male salaries which are generally higher. Even with her qualifications it's not going to be easy for her to find a salary at that level.

I respect 'the fact that you have made it work moonshine- and I'm sure you are a brilliant role model for your children.

While much of what you say is true, I would still point out that there is FAR more regulated childcare now than in previous years. Part of the reason more childminders are leaving is precisely because there are MORE day nurseries around. Day nurseries barely existed when I had my first. Also, there are more breakfast and after school clubs now, so less demand for cm's. Also, increased ML means a lot of mums aren't returning to work until their child is a year old, and this is the point at which Many prefer nursery over cm. I left my 12 week old with a cm - partly because of the shortage of nurseries but also because a cm is often a preferred choice for babies that age. When I returned to work after my second child I used a nursery- because ML had got longer and my child was older. So it's important to look at the whole picture.

Also, although childcare costs have risen, they have never been cheap, and in the past there were no tax credits or free hours. Those of us with older kids returned to work at a time when mortgages were massively expensive too- so some living costs have come down a lot which helps.

The other point I really take issue with is your last point about how much 'the op needs to earn. No she doesn't. She could view this a totally different way. If working is really important to her and she wants to use her qualifications and skills, she would do it anyway- even if temporarily it took a slice out of the family income. She should talk to her dh about how much it matters. After all, if they are investing in anything else as a family, buying something expensive- he's already funding that single handed. If you look at her work life in those terms it makes sense. It may temporarily cost them for her to work- but that wont last forever.

Also- op says she earned 40k in a good job five and half years ago- as 'you point out moonshine, thats way above the national average. She clearly has skills and good earning potential and it should not take her too long to work her way up to command a decent salary.

I feel as though the op is coming across as angry because she perhaps regrets having hung onto the job through all the costs of having two kids, only to give it up with number 3. In hindsight she might have been better taking the financial hit then and continued working. But hindsight is a wonderful thing! What she needs to do now is stop wasting energy on anger and drive herself back into a job.

Yes there is far more regulated childcare than before, but it has not kept pace remotely with demand ? or the legal requirement to use only regulated care if you are paying for it.

Today, as in the past, most women do NOT use regulated childcare. But for those, like me, who have no choice, at least in the past they could pay a neighbour or another mum. That's not the case now because it's illegal and more women work (relying on their own families to help so not being able to offer reciprocal arrangements).

Like I said earlier, wraparound care in many places is unreliable. I use a CM instead because I cannot have a situation where I am told on a friday that the place I'd booked for half term next week is no longer available because there wasn't enough numbers to justify paying staff.

Where I agree with you however, is that it's a mistake for the OP to view these costs as solely coming out of her salary. He is 50% responsible for those children and therefore should be paying half the childcare costs. While that may not make any difference to the household income, when it's looked at in those terms the profitability of working looks far better and should allow the OP to see the non-financial benefits of working - fulfilment, better career advancement, pension provision in later years, etc.

(We managed to find some common ground there in the end, but I really have to leave this thread now or I'll end up unemployed myself. >

From my point of view, the WTC system only helps out a small amount of families - for 2 parent families, both parents' income is taken into account and therefore not too many 2 parent families can claim anything at all. For 1 parent families, the "resident" parent's income is counted but not the non resident parent?? OR am I wrong there? So that means that more single parents can claim than 2 parent families because they are going to have as an average only a half of the income. Great for those you qualify, but not so great for those, especially those who are just above the WTC threshold. IMO the WTC and CTC system needs scrapping, the child benefit system needs an overhaul too, ie significant increases for all working parents!! In Belgium child care is tax deductible and child benefit is significantly more generous for working parents, once you have 2 or more children. It means that because you effectively pay less tax, that there is more formal care, mainly in the form of nurseries for under 3s and before and after school care once children start school at around 3 years old. It's fairer on everyone, whether on a small income or a larger income. Those on smaller incomes get priority for public nurseries where fees are means tested, those on larger incomes the private nurseries are about the same price as public creches. Whilst salaries are on average much lower in Belgium, so are the child care costs. It's a much simpler system than WTC/CTC.

surely you could employ before and after school person for cheaper?
or get an au pair?

Thats interesting natation. I certainly agree the Uk could learn a lot from how things are done elsewhere.

The other thing that the govt gets utterly wrong here is that it regards a parent who walks out of a relationship almost as though they are divorcing their children too, and the state takes on the role of second parent. When a couple split up, they are still two adults capable of working. Childcare costs can and should continue to be a dual responsibility. Govt policies have left many couples who stay together worse off than if they were to spit- madness!

Moonshine I agree with what you say, there is a massive political issue about the cost of childcare in the UK, and the fact that it is still and always pitched as a 'women's issue' thereby making sure women feel guilty and do lots of calculations and most men just carry on working (most husband's I know didn't sit there and calculate if they could afford as a household for them to go to work, they take it as a given).

There are also structural issues in the UK about availability of schools/no school buses, so all parents of eights and unders have to be at the school gates by a certain time every day or pay expensive childcare- again this is not something a lot of other countries struggle with, their childcare is cheaper or they have buses/early morning school as something standard so everyone leaves home at 8am.

And, perversely, I think the current system of expensive childcare and lots of benefits to subsidise that is the worst of all possible worlds as it disincentivises working, I know so many parents who deliberately keep their hours low to gain CTC which defeats the whole point of subsidising childcare to get people back into work.

But, whilst bemoaning the current system (and I do), you can also choose to work within it, as you have done and I do- I think just throwing your hands up and saying 'it's too expensive to work' is a cop-out as plenty of people do work around child-age children in school in the ways people have detailed on this thread.

Callmemrs, there is no CSA equivalent. Care of over 5s, unless a specific exception such as a parent who is violent with their child(ren), is split 50/50. It's simple, care costs and other costs are split equally, responsibilities are 50/50, usual pattern is week 1 with parent 1, week 2 with parent 2. It works so long as the parents don't live too far. My friend's ex partner lives too far for this to happen with her son, so he spends a substantial part of the holidays with his dad and many weekend, so it still ends up almost 50/50. If one parent earns more than the other, there's no paying money to the other parent, unless they are generous enough to do this. It's SO SIMPLE. It keeps the responsibility to provide for your children in the parents hands, in BOTH parents hands, and NOT THE STATE like happens too often in the UK, and also the man is just as responsible for providing child care as the woman. Of course the Belgian system is not perfect, but it's damned better than the UK one.

natation thanks for your posts, which are interesting and add to the discussion.

I have to say that the idea of NRPs contributing half of childcare costs is laughable, given that more than half of them in the UK don't pay maintenance at all. And of those who do, that includes all those on benefits paying £5 a week.

One of the reasons the state removed the link between maintenance and benefit entitlement is because it had to bow to overwhelming evidence that this was resulting in massive hardship for many one parent families as so many NRPs weren't paying on time if at all.

If we can't get maintenance sorted, what hope is there of childcare contributions? I agree that the current system does foster a reliance on the state, but to remove that help would result in huge numbers of children living in poverty.

What is needed is a massive cultural shift where non-payment of maintenance is treated with the severity it deserves. As it stands in the UK, you are treated more harshly if you don't pay a parking fine than if you neglect to pay for your child's material needs.

All you can do is look at both of your jobs.

Can your dh change his hours to do the school drop off twice a week.

Would a childminder or after school nanny be more cost effective, or is an au pair an option for term time?

Also using the childcare tax deductable vouchers makes a difference.

I do think the breakfast club prices are extortionate, ours don't get fed but it's £2.50 to £3 per day in this area and we're in the south east, also afterschool is £15 per session but they go give sibling discount.

For less than 2 hours care per day you don't have to use registered childcare which is always another option.

Yes it's a nightmare isn't it. We're lucky and have a playscheme at work which is only £17 per day each, but still £1,000 for 19 days - absolutely bargainous but most of my take home salary for the month

Yes maintenance does not exist like it does in the UK, precisely because parents are given joint custody which means living 50/50. For it to work in the UK would require a huge shift in responsibilities to BOTH PARENTS contributing to the emotional and physical upbringing of their children. Don't ask me what happens in Belgium where there is no father at the beginning, I don't know anyone in that position at all, all the single parents I know bar one has 50/50 custody and practical arrangements. With a shift in responsibilities, there would need to be an infrastructure to support 2 working parents, whether they be separated or living together, by offering tax breaks for child care, by opening up every single school from 8am to 6pm, by opening up of enough child care for pre-schoolers to cope. The UK system, even when there is joint custody, it is rare for a childr to see their parents 50/50, it just encourages the non resident or less reisdent parent to contribute less or nothing at all. If custody was in 90% + of cases joint and it meant in reality joint and not like now AND you had the infrastructure in place for child care, then there is no reason why there would be huge numbers of children living in poverty, there might even be less than now. The current UK system encourages parents on low incomes to stay on low incomes, in order to get max WTC/CTC. The current system encourages the absent parent to become the completely absent parent. The current system appears to 2 parent families to favour single parents. Ok I am going to stop there, it makes me too urghhh thinking of how bad the UK system is.

You have absolutely summed up how crap it is natation.

While you have a system where a couple with children are both working full time, paying all their childcare, rent, council tax, bills and they realise they would actually have MORE money left over each month if they were to split up- what hope is there?

And the ludicrous DISincentives to work, eg people restricting their hours to just two days a week, so they can claim maximum benefits 'for minimum input- you are right, it's a joke