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

Sympathies OP. The cost of childcare is the reason why DS1 is 23 years old and DS2 is only 13. We could only afford childcare for one child at a time basically. Most people who meet the family for the first time assume that the two boys have different fathers....

We must have done every version of childcare going - childminder, nursery, nanny, au pair etc. In my opinion, nursery was the best value for peace of mind. I hated employing someone because of all the paperwork. Childminders and nannies also had issues if they got sick. So nursery was work it just for continuity.

Hang in there. It gets better and you get promoted and more money. This is the worse bit.

I wonder what's meant by pretty much always able to downsize, though? I mean, there are a few houses in the UK that cost 40k and most of us aren't living in those, so in theory yes 99% of the homeowning population could move to one of those. In reality, there are jobs and support networks that would have to be considered.

My house is pretty cheap, worth about 115k I reckon. There are houses in the conurbation I live in that are 75k. In theory I could move to one of them to free up equity if I had to. In practice, that would involve moving away from the support system that would become even more necessary were I a widowed single parent. Plus new school places, plus I might need to run a car whereas I don't now. Obviously most homeowners have more valuable houses than me, but on the other hand a lot of them would have to move away from their area entirely to get a significantly cheaper home whereas I wouldn't.

i think my point is more general - it might motivate Op to say that she has to work in case her DH dies, it wouldn't work as motivation to me - i've thought this through and we could find a cheaper prop (even perhaps renting) in the same neighbourhood.

So some people in my shoes might choose to SAHP and not be worried about sickness/death and having to downsize.

And some people might say, I'd rather have X years at home with my DC, and take the risk that I'll face hard choices if something bad happens.

Childcare and mortgage/bill costs are very area dependant in my experience. I live in a cheap seaside town in the North West - mortgage is £350 a month. Bills including council tax probably tot in at around £400 which comes to just over 1/3 of mine and DP's total income. We earn about 24k a year between us., which is a tiny amount elsewhere, but we manage two cars, a two bed terrace, bills and several holidays a year on that income because we live somewhere dirt cheap.

The flip side of that is that there aren't many high-paying jobs unless you want a long commute, there aren't many amenities and you need a car to get anywhere like soft-play, McDonald's, swimming pool, the cinema etc.

I love where we live. Yes, neither of us earn much but we have a great quality of life. No long commutes, no leaving for work at 6am or getting home at 8pm. No unpaid overtime, plenty of holidays and annual leave. But we do live in a small house (though we plan to upsize) in an area with little to do.

You make your choices based on what lifestyle you want, what career you want and what you're willing to sacrifice to achieve that. If you want a career, you need to accept high childcare costs are a part of that. But not everyone wants a high-flying career and lots of people are happy living in small towns, working for low wages with minimal outgoings - second-hand cars, no SKY, no private school or expensive activities.

Swings and roundabouts. The world would be a very boring place if we all wanted the same things!

you have to think through and test your motivations - otherwise you can make your life miserable because of the being enslaved to the fear of an unlikely worst case scenario.

The trick is to mooch about the charity shops in affluent areas/neighbouring towns or cities

The charity shops in my home town are rather dire, but i've found a few in the city that are great.
I'm cheeky enough to ask the staff about new delivery's so i go in early on the day
Sometimes when i'm chatting with them about what i'm looking for etc, they'll pop into the back where they're still sorting through things to show me what they'e got.

Discount outlets hidden away near industrial/business parks or the quiet shite end of town.

I only discovered them all because i enjoy - and have the time - to stroll about town taking in the sights.
I doubt i would have looked further than my local town otherwise.

Rant away OP - I sympathise. That's why there is a 4 year gap between DS1 and DS2, and even then I'm counting down to Easter 2019 when DS2 gets some funded hours. With F/T nursery and before and after school club, it's crippling.

And as for pp saying tax credit thresholds are high - that's bollocks. We don't get a penny and no help with childcare costs, we don't have a particularly big mortgage and we're struggling to make ends meet.

It's a general point but I'm not sure it really holds redemption. There definitely are people who could downsize in the event of one partner's death without significant impact, and there definitely are people who couldn't. The reality is that not everyone could find a cheaper home locally, and this is true even if you're already living pretty cheaply. Actually DH and I take a fairly similar attitude to the one ronswanson describes, in lifestyle terms, and future proofing is part of the reason why.

Childcare tax credit thresholds are often higher than people think when you have three or more children, not so much with one or two.

In terms of charity shops, I'm a fan, but I must say I've seldom found them to be much good for things like jeans where you need a particularly good fit. There's usually a bit more wiggle room with tops and dresses. I'm petite range so that probably makes it a bit harder.

well, we all have different motivations depending on our circumstances, don't we? My point is, I don't think you can assume all SAHP are in a uniquely vulnerable financial position if they have downsizing options and are happy to take that risk.

You often hear it said that both parents should keep working because of the risk of sickness/death of the other parent - that's a risk that can be mitigated or accepted for some people.

The key word in that sentence was 'if' redemptionsongs. I don't personally think all SAHP are in a vulnerable financial position, but the idea that everyone (or even nearly everyone) has realistic downsizing options in the event of partner death isn't particularly plausible. Especially not when you factor in things like moving costs and stamp duty.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree banana - all motivations for working/not working are in the eye of the beholder. Yes, moving areas can damage your network, you may feel these are choices you wouldn't make, that's fine. Stamp duty doesn't have to be paid if you don't buy again. If you buy a cheaper property, you pay less stamp duty...

You often hear it said that both parents should keep working because of the risk of sickness/death of the other parent - that's a risk that can be mitigated or accepted for some people.

And I think it depends on lifestyle costs and how much you pay out each month. If you have low monthly costs, a job you can return to easily, are married and have sorted out things like pensions, life-insurance etc, then being a SAHP is less of a risk than if you have a high-flying career that you need to maintain in order to pay all the bills.

DP and I have deliberately chosen a low-cost lifestyle. We deliberately picked an area with low mortgage costs, and we can survive off one salary if necessary, with money left over. But that's our choice. Neither of us are interested in working long hours, working in "career-type" jobs or endless promotions. We have enough money to sustain our lifestyle, a decent rainy-day fund and we can still go on holidays. But that's only because we chose a dirt cheap area. If you want the lifestyle/access of a city, you won't be able to have those low living costs.

Blackcatonthesofa

Regarding tax, I can't speak for other countries but I can say something about my experience in Norway - and you'd be surprised! The tax system is geared towards keeping people in work, making 'working pay'. As an example, my income tax level is 41% on main salary, 47% on any additional income. That makes me a higher rate tax payer. BUT the tax system has deductions on things like expense for work travel (the cost of my monthly travel pass!) and child care costs. Interest paid on debt is also tax deductible! The deductions mean that my tax level is brought down to 35%.

As a result those that are starting out in life with mortgage and families pay less (and get more) than those without children or with houses paid off.

It's very interesting seeing how different countries attempts to solve the same challenges - and I'm pretty sure the U.K. could steal some pointers!

Norway also spent their North Sea Oil windfall on investing in their people. The UK spent theirs on cutting taxes for the better off in a naive belief that it would trickle down:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/north-sea-oil-money-uk-norwegians-fund

Here in the US childcare is available that is subsidized. I use it. It's 7:30am - 5:30pm. The monthly cost, including food/formula is $1500 a month. The other place is $975 a month.

This is in a town just outside of NYC. It's a brilliant scheme that has been run for decades. The employees get a government pension and healthcare. They also do full tuition reimbursement after 10 years of public service (i.e. Working for them for a decade). Subsequent children are discounted. 2nd child gets a 25% discount and 3rd child goes free. There is a lady with quads in our childcare. The 3rd and 4th children are free! They pay $2625 a month. Not bad value at all.

Crikey I just did the calculation on how much we have paid out so far on nursery care for my nearly 3 year old : £35,100. Faints.

Ronswansons- you sound like you've got your head screwed on. It's all about the choices you make in life.

Only read page 1. A nanny would be cheaper wouldnt it?

Ronswansons- you sound like you've got your head screwed on. It's all about the choices you make in life.

Ha, thank you

I just never saw the appeal of high-flying careers, working 60 hour weeks, unpaid overtime and as a result, having to live in an expensive area with a huge mortgage or massive commuting costs.

However, my life wouldn't appeal to everyone. But I don't really understand the point of working for 60+ hours a week to finance an expensive house that you barely see, because you're always at work or rushing around.

*Today 10:52 NataliaOsipova

Life is full of choices but society should encourage the right kind of choices. Women taking higher education (accruing the same amount of debt as men for same degrees) and paying taxes whilst also having children is a good thing for society, not just the individual. Women not taking higher education or leaving work after higher education due to cost of childcare or unfriendly working hours is very bad for society.

I think you conflate several points here....and need to replace "society" with "the economy". Women leaving work after higher education due to cost of childcare or unfriendly working hours is unarguably bad for the economy. It was better for me and for my family, so I clearly prioritised that over economic considerations. Is it good or bad for "society"? I think you can argue it both ways.

But as to the main point - you can loosely divide women with children into three groups: 1) those who can't afford to work, 2) those who can't not afford to work and 3) those who can afford not to work. (If that makes sense!). You need very different strategies and incentives to get 1s back into work from the ones you need to get the 3s.*

No I mean society because it encompasses also the economy and I think the issues are cultural, or societal. The U.K. is an unequal society.

I agree with your breakdown of the three different women but still think it is a cultural and therefore a societal issue. The solutions would have to meet different types motivations for the three types of women but the solutions need to be societal not purely economical. It's about culture change.

....but Snuppeline, then I disagree. Because you're then implicitly making the assertion that working is good and looking after your own children is bad. And, while I'll accept that if we're talking purely in economic terms, I don't think you can make such a unilateral statement in any other terms. There are pros and cons for society - in my opinion at least - from what you describe.

i totally agree Natalia. I don't accept that childcare by others is as good as childcare by parents either - it's not necessarily a win-win for society to encourage everyone to work as much as they can and use childcare.

I agree with natalia that it's not necessarily to society's benefit that all mothers work. But I do think it's to society's benefit that those who want to be supported.

Different families have different priorities, different set ups and make different choices. We need to get comfortable with that to move forward.