I need to have a rant about the cost of my childcare

[MGFM]

£2200 a freaking month!

This isn't a stealth boast about having enough money to pay out this much in childcare and I also want to say I feel lucky that I used to have plenty of disposable income and I feel lucky to have two wonderful children and I don't think the state should help me pay for their care (although I most certainly have signed up to the tax free child care) but oh my fucking god , I want to cry every time I think about it!

We will have enough left over for food and fuel and clothes when desperately needed and the odd treat but it is going to be freaking miserable.

I was in an outlet store yesterday and tried on a beautiful pair of skinny grey jeans. They were soft and luxurious. I thought they were only £29 but then I saw they were £50. Hung them back up and left the shop. I have just lost all my baby weight ( I put on 3 stone - it is now all gone and I am back to my not al size so I am desperate to buy some new clothes and now can't afford any) I need a tiny violin to play for me somewhere as I feel so pathetic.


I just need to rant about this really and I have moaned to real life friends but they might get sick of me droaning on about how broke we are

[Want2bSupermum]

Not necessarily higher because of wages. Wages tend to stay the same in a lot of lower paid roles. It's rents that go up and services go up because of higher land costs that services have to pay for.

[Doglikeafox]

I didn't necessarily mean that they're reasonable, but they have to be higher if you live someone where the overall cost of living is higher. The nurseries will need to pay their staff higher wages, and the childminders will need to earn higher wages in order to be able to survive.

[Want2bSupermum]

It's the childcare hours vs working hours that kills it and drives up the cost. I work 55 hours a week. My working day is 10 hours plus a 1 hour commute each way so I need 60 hours of childcare a week. In the NW, where I am from, none of my working friends work more than 40 hours a week and their commute is 30min. Their childcare needs are 45 hours a week. That 15 hour difference over the week is a killer.

[SpiritedLondon]

doglikeafox I live in London Surrey borders and paid £6 per hour to my childminder. ( who took care of 2 other children) The nursery near my work in Earls Court was £80 per day. As a commuter my child was with my CM for 10 hour a day so therefore a £60 per day. I'm paid a £6k allowance for London Weighting in my public sector job and from that I need to pay mortgage costs that would make most people in the midlands and north blanch. I think it's unfair to say that London wages are higher and therefore these costs are reasonable.

[redemptionsongs]

Yes in the city centre of a northern city and all the nurseries start at £1100 for a ft place. 15 free hours kick in the term after the 3rd birthday so that's nearly 3 months after dd's birthday.

[AccrualIntentions]

I'm in the supposedly cheap north east (but in a city centre, which probably makes a difference) and full time nursery will be £1200+ per month for one child. There are no nurseries near me that are less than £50 a day. I can completely see how in London or affleuent areas of the south east it could be £1500 for one child.

[Doglikeafox]

I really can't understand how some people are saying they are spending. £3000+ on childcare a month for 2 children. I'm a childminder in the northwest. Most childminders charge exactly the same as nurseries around here and a child with me full time would struggle to pay more than £800 a month. Throw in the 2 year funding, 3 and 4 year old funding and tax credits it usually only a small proportion of people who would be better off not working. Usually those just over the tax credit threshold or will lots of commuting needing extra long days.
I'm in the northwest so yes childcare is cheaper, but so is the amount we get paid. In London wages are generally a lot higher, so yes childcare is too.

[NataliaOsipova]

I think it'd end up being sold as "helping the rich". And people can't stomach that, even if it's to their own advantage.

Look at the furore over MPs and their pay. Ultimately, it's in everyone's interest to have the best, most highly educated people want to put themselves forward for us to choose as our representatives. But there aren't many of those who will do that for £65k if they aren't a) extremists and die hard politicos or b) come from family money. People can't see past the "more than twice the National average" to think "What would a partner in an accounting firm/a top level civil servant/a consultant oncologist etc etc earn?". Yes, you don't want people going into it for the money, but you don't want to put them off either.

Sorry - I digress slightly. But I still think that'd be the sticking point when it comes to tax deductible childcare.

[Want2bSupermum]

Well that's because it's sold as 'helping women' when it should be sold as 'helping children'. Most men won't vote for this because my experience has been they quite like the current set up.

[NataliaOsipova]

Childcare should be fully deductible and benefits should be calculated based on income net of childcare expense. Only when we structure the system this way will we start to see the sheer volume of families currently in poverty decrease.

I agree with you and, referring back to my earlier post, I think changing the tax system in this way is the one way that you can encourage back to work both those who can't afford to work (because of childcare) and those who can afford not to (who tend to be very highly educated). So what's the problem with that? It involves giving a huge tax break to the people who can afford not to, which I suspect wouldn't be politically acceptable. It's shortsighted, because getting those women back into high paying jobs would have a huge economic benefit, both in straight tax terms and from the multiplier effect of the nannies, cleaners etc who would be employed as a result. But I don't think it'd be politically digestible.

[Want2bSupermum]

The U.K. It is the one statistic that shocks me. Household income is so closely linked to educational performance and health of the parents relationship.

[cheminotte]

That's shocking Supermum . Is that US or UK?

[oldlaundbooth]

I go to work.

I pay around $160 a month for subsidised daycare.

This creates a job for the people who work at the day care and in turn allows me to work. Pay taxes, spend money on stuff etc etc.

No brainer really.

The system in the UK penalises women because it's usually women (usually the lower earner) who stay home to look after the kids because childcare is so expensive, thus becoming de-skilled, losing seniority, chance of promotion etc etc.

Very depressing.

[Want2bSupermum]

My issue with childcare is that every parent should have the choice to work if they want to. 70% of families are in poverty. I find this horrifying and more horrifying that nothing is being done to actually help parents keep more of what they earn. Childcare should be fully deductible and benefits should be calculated based on income net of childcare expense. Only when we structure the system this way will we start to see the sheer volume of families currently in poverty decrease.

[RosemaryHoight]

Seriously op and her dh would be silly to give up their military pensions. It is a hard short term for a long time benefit. But it is expensive. Ouch. Rant away.

[IClavdivs]

Downbutnotyetout If it makes you feel better I pay £1600 per month for my 3.5 year old for 4 days per week in Australia. I don't think I could afford another one in childcare at the same time. No free hours after 3 here either, and they don't start school until 5.5/6. We won't be able to get a mortgage until we are done with childcare

If, in Australia, a child starts school at 51/2, that is generally a decision made by their parents.

I worked in NSW schools and I think you will find that the starting age you quoted is wrong. Children have to have started school by the time they turn six, but can actually start school the year they turn 5 if their birthday is before the 31st July, which means that the child will be 41/2 at the start of the school year. Many parents choose to keep their child at home until the next year, though, rather than send them at 41/2. I think that most states have similar requirements, but obviously, you will want to check them for your state, but there should be no reason why your currently 3.5 year old wouldn't start school at the beginning of 2019, when it has just turned 5, rather than waiting until it turns 6 in 2020.

This is purely anecdotal, so I have no idea about the details, but I was talking to a tradesman the other day. He's earning a reasonable salary working part-time and is the family's main child carer, and his wife has a professional full-time job. He told me his youngest started preschool a couple of days a week and, with subsidies, they were paying only $40/day. Now, I don't know if they've worked the system to their advantage or the fact that they have four children gives them a tax advantage,
or for some reason he was lying to me - I am just repeating what he told me.

[user1497863568]

It comes to just under £7 per hour per child assuming they are in there for 40 hours each week. Hardly extortionate. Most nurseries operate on very tight margins.

[redemptionsongs]

I thought that was what I had said really - it seems like a lot of posts quibbling about howmany people can afford to downsize - anyway I've worked too many hours already this week (hard to tell from how much i mumsnet, I know) the toddler was done some nocturnal screeching and I'm hoping for an early night...

[Snuppeline]

I think that until it is equally expected that men share child care then it is a matter for society to ensure equality. This debate, as I have said previously, shows how far we have to go. A pp said her husband wasn't interested in her going back to work if he had to pay for it. As if the child is only the females concern and not a family matter. I bet he won't happily share his pension with her if they divorce! (Disclaimer not wanting to offend that poster who's dh may be lovely).

A pp pointed out that we should stop focusing on differences and pull together and I completely agree with that - lobbying MPs and make child care more affordable which will leave people with true choices.

[BananaShit]

It's not really about being cross redemption, it's about saying something that's obviously not true. If you just said you don't think that's a relevant consideration for the majority because of the low risk of it happening, that would be absolutely fair enough. Couldn't argue with that. I certainly don't think it's a reason why both parents should work. It's not particularly why I work.

[mamamalt]

Sympathy also. This is why I couldn't afford to go back to work. I would have nothing left. When I tell people I'm not going back they say ohh you're so lucky. Yes I am but I also really liked my job but it just didn't pay enough to do it!

[Backingvocals]

Sympathies OP. It's outrageous. I had a nanny so was paying slightly more than that but all out of taxed income at the time which was doubly grating. Mine are 10 and 8 now and I still pay over £1000 per month. I'm a single parent so need quite comprehensive cover after school and there are no childminders round here.

I'm just about to hire someone new and paying a pension out of taxes income is even more enraging that just the salary.

It's outrageous. Also it enrages me that women view this as their cost when most families (not mine) have two parents.

[purpleprincess24]

It's really hard when they full time care.

I have nothing useful to add, I just wanted to thank you and your DH for everything you do for our country xx

[RonSwansonsMoustache]

Both choices need to be supported - both are equally valid.

SAHP's need to be supported, just as working parents' should be. All this bickering and fighting about who is better, or morally superior, or whatever, doesn't help anyone and just sets EVERYONE back.

Not everyone wants to work, not everyone wants to stay at home. It shouldn't matter what you do, so long as you're happy and able to afford your choice either way.

[redemptionsongs]

it's not a choice you feel you can make banana, clearly you're one of the few for whom downsizing isn't something you feel would help. I wouldn't know, I don't have any free childcare, and wouldn't have wherever I lived. You do seem unduly cross about my statement about downsizing being an option for the vast majority...as I hope is clear, I was mainly trying to counter the view that SAHP should work because of illhealth/death of working partner with a fairly anodyne comment.

yes, I agree, it would be nice if people that wanted to work were better supported.