To work for £150pcm?

[iamdivergent]

Basically I'm pg with dc3. When I go back to work next year our childcare costs will be for a baby term time plus 6wks holidays and a 9yr old in holiday club for 6wks. After paying for childcare I'd effectively be working for £150pcm, DH works f/t so our normal costs are covered, the £150 would be part of any 'disposable' income each month.

DH thinks it isn't worth it but I think it is, we would have approx 3yrs of both DC being in nursery before dd2 was at secondary and too old to attend and by then dc3 would get funded sessions so the cost would drop dramatically.

So AIBU to accept that I'd be working for £150pcm for 3yrs?

I was a SAHM for 5yrs previously, been back in work for 6yrs. I do enjoy my job, sadly no career progression at my current base but I could progress if I was wiling to move offices, but p/t posts are hard to come by so I'd be unlikely to as we could not afford for me to work full time.

I think hanging on to a p/time job that you enjoy is worth much more than £150 per month.It is of course easier to have 1 parent at home and makes life much less stressful for the full time working parent.NI & pension is very important however and I am so glad I worked as now approaching retirement I have some income.Retirement creeps up very quickly and might be worth factoring what that would cost the family if you stay home.Also check the government quote for retirement.If you have already had time out if work you may NEED the pension & NI contributions.

I would calculate it like you do too, op.
However I made the mistake of beiong out of the work enviroment for too long (14 years) and now work in a part time nmw job which is ok but a complete waste of my qualifications.
Look to the future rather than now. Is it still worth it or not?

All these people saying to factor childcare across two salaries, or not to include it at all - if you're working out the net benefit to working vs not working, you take the additional salary, pension etc and any other savings (eg heating, trips etc) and take off costs that would not otherwise be incurred inc childcare, travel, team lunches. The remaining is the ££ benefit to a second salary.

It's not an indictment against women, it's maths!

I think looking to the future, then it makes sense for me to stay in work. Unfortunately at the top of my pay scale so no pay rise in the future unless I do move upwards but I'm happy to wait it out until dc3 starts school as I like my job and my colleagues.

I always imagined I'd be a SAHM again if we had other children but it doesn't seem to make much sense.

Why aren't childcare costs counted as family costs, not just yours? Why aren't they thought of as your husband's working costs?

Setting aside your self-esteem & well-being, there are huge financial advantages to keeping on working. You keep career skills & progression ticking over; you contribute fully to a pension; you contribute as a taxpayer to all the things that keep your family safe, well, and educated.

Of course, if you're not happy working, then that's another discussion. But financially long term it will always be better to keep working.

They are counted as family costs but it just works better in my head to just deduct from my wages - that £150 will be a part of our joint/family disposable income as everything is joint - I just find it easier to see it this way.

I'm a bit confused by the ages of your children and whether you'll have one or two in nursery.

Either way, I do follow the logic of calculating it this way, but the time gap between you returning from mat leave and funded hours starting is not a huge one. You are right to take the long term view.

The tricky bit of this equation is what value do you put on the baby being at home with a parent vs FT in nursery, and the older children having someone around in the 3-6pm slot. Both parents working FT vs one parent SAHing is a very difficult and stark choice - if you even have the choice at all - which is why so many families seek PT or evening/weekend work for at least one of the partners.

If p/t jobs in your area are hard to come by then imagine how much harder it will be if you take a few years out!

when your youngest goes to primary school you won't want to go straight to f/t working judging by what you're saying here. so if i were you i'd hold on to that p/t job.

I will have 2 in nursery during holidays (9yr old and a baby around 1yr) and just baby during term time as I am able to do school pick and and drop off.

Luckily I am p/t and will collect baby once I finish work then onto school to collect the 9yr old.

I also have an 11yr old who won't be in childcare (too old!) though she will be a month off of 13 when I return to work.

I work for the local council museumum and don't want to leave due to now having an extra weeks leave plus fab pension. I'm sure I could find a p/t job elsewhere but I'm limited due to wanting to stay within the council.

Sounds like it's financially finely balanced- (unless the £150 a month makes the difference between surviving financially and not, bearing in mind all the costs of working, travel, work clothes etc,) so you should decide together what will make you happier or what you think is best for the kids or what you think will be best long term.
Could your DH change his hours to reduce your childcare costs? Compressed hours? reduced hours? Or take a year at home while you keep up with your career?

Unfortunately not, he is already attending uni 1 day a week through his work so he can't work any less, plus I earn about 1/3 of what he does so it doesn't make sense in our case.

Isn't childcare a joint/family cost?

I never understand these threads.

Boogie it is, I've stated that below - this just works better for me to work it out.

I went back to work for a net cash benefit to our family pot of aroun £90/month. But we got to keep the second car, my pension and health benefits as well.

It really came into its own now my youngest is 3.5yo, as I negotiated a new job that means I can pick the kids up every day after school and the net cash benefit is aroun £1200. It gets easier - hold on...

Sorry, I have three kids as well - so that was going back after no3

Ah I see, sorry I misread. I think it's worth hanging on to that long term job then. It won't be just £150 for many months in the grand scheme of things.

Yes that's my thinking - I'm the only p/t role in my department as well so I am very lucky.

The issue of stating it as you have always seems to come up on these threads and I never really understand why. To my mind, if the question is what impact you returning/not returning will have on the family finances, the answer being £150, in your case, as that's what is left after the costs of neither parent being available for childcare. That's not the same as saying the childcare costs come out of your wages only, you're looking at the cost to the family not the individual. In the same way if a couple were looking at a SAHD returning next to work surely?
Anyway, to the question, YANBU, it's much wider than the take home money once you factor in things like pension, NI, longer term earning potential, future career progression etc

We are less than 150 better off with me working. Probably less than 100. I didn't work it out as it's too depressing.

However I would never give up work so it's not a question. I worked really hard for this job and I love it. I work part time but if it was full time or nothing, I'd choose full time.

Tiredofsleep - thank you! It drives me mad when people go on about family money. It is totally irrelevant in this situation - the difference in family money for 2nd working parent is wage if second parent minus childcare costs.

Twooter YES!

Bloody hell I'd be biting your hand off to work 24 hours for £150 disposable income

When I say disposable income it's probably not in the sense that it's for luxuries (haha what's that?). It will be part of the joint disposable income of which we have to pay travel/food/clothing etc for a family of 5 - it's not to spend on what I/we want iykwim.

I prefer to see it as bringing in £150 once childcare is paid rather than a drop of £600 a month - it's shit seeing it written like that!