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

He has never viewed childcare as my responsibility

Ready to be flamed but I think you can't have it both ways.

I gave up my career to stay at home and look after my children. We could afford it although we had to tighten our belts - no holidays, 1 old car etc but it was my personal choice.

Now my children are older I have gone back to work but am only earning minimum wage for part time as I gave up my career. We can afford more stuff but still not wealthy.

However, I am now comparing us to other families where the mum didn't give up her career and put her young children in childcare. Those families now have a much higher income than us as both parents have good careers and they are the ones who are going on holiday abroad at least once a year and have new cars etc. etc.

Those people who are complaining about their childcare bills now will likely in a few years have that money available as disposable income and they will still have the potential to earn even more as they didn't give up their career.

Swing and roundabouts. I am envious of what good careers I know some other mums have who didn't give up their job to look after their children (along with the pensions they will have), but for me I know it was the right choice and I wouldn't swap anything for that time I had with my children when they were young.

I am probably reluctant to consider quiting work because I grew up in a pretty poor household. It was embarrassing at school that I was dressed in cheap clothes and couldn't keep up with my peers. I had paper rounds and worked from age 16 so I could go out with friends etc. I always swore I would never put my children in the same position.

When I was 13 my main present at xmas was a cheap electric razor. Some chocolate and that was pretty much it. My parents have more money now and my mum is generous but I don't want that life for my kids. The whole only letting me shave from age 13 is a whole other thread!

You don't need to justify yourself op. It's absolutely fine to want to work instead of being a SAHM, despite the whole #makingmemories crowd.

Not much to add but sympathies OP. When I go back to work next year and have two in nursery four days a week the nursery bill will look like £1850. I earn exactly £2000 per month for a four day week so we'll rely on my husband's salary for absolutely everything else, mortgage, groceries, utilities, clothes/shoes/toys, line rental etc. Everything seems to go up apart from our salaries!

The comments about how OP has enough money, more money than x poster etc are rather missing the point. Your household income is twice mine OP and I get it, not least because we have much more disposable income than you. Our minimal childcare costs are a large part of that!

OP has made it clear she is not on the bones of her arse. She is also likely to be much better off in the not especially distant future. However, the reality is that childcare costs of this magnitude put lots of parents of young children, disproportionately mothers, off returning to the workplace. This has a number of negative consequences. We as a society need a sensible discussion about whether it would be better to provide more subsidy to make it easier for parents to remain in the workplace in such situations, both to stimulate consumer spending and to prevent loss of their skills.

Now, when we've properly analysed this question, the answer might still end up being no. But if it's a no, it won't be a no because OP doesn't really need a pair of £50 jeans and because other people are poorer than her.

As for those of you who would be opposed to extra subsidy on principle because you don't like nurseries or whatever, the best way to reduce the time children have to spend in such care is to do everything you can to promote part time working and lower living costs. This is how my DH and I have half the household income OP does, minimal childcare costs and quite a bit more spare cash than her, which we partially spend on things that help other people to get paid. Good for everyone.

Childcare costs are a bitch - but just focus on the 'jam tomorrow' when you will have lower childcare costs, higher income, good pension etc.

The angry ladies who post 'I chose to stay home with my precious babies' sound both bitter and holier-than-thou. 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.

^THIS

I've been working in childcare for many years now, and this discussion has always been there.

I completely agree with the poster earlier who said that it's actually due to wages being too low and cost of living too high.

Countries that subsidise their childcare have higher taxation. Higher taxation is something that the British people have voted against time and again. You can't have one without the other and the disastrous 30 hours offer is testament to what happens when you try.

http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/nursery-world/news/1162238/exclusive-30-hours-saves-poorest-parents-least

How much do the women looking after your children earn OP?

As an aside, a woman educated to a high level who takes 3 years out of a working life of 50 years to look after her kids wholst tiny is not a huge economic problem. Wealthy men and women who want other people to earn the minimum wage whilst providing childcare for them, or who want the state to subsidise childcare whilst voting to keep taxes low are.

You'd be amazed how few wealthy people vote to increase their tax over a lifetime.

It's really very difficult & the attitudes of "don't have kids if you can't afford them" or "don't have them if you don't want to raise them" does not help.

I was born in the 80s & truly grew up believing that as a woman I could do whatever I wanted as a career & have it all. The industry I ended up working in was 85% female so I never experienced any sexism. Then I had a baby & suddenly I realised how sexist society still is & how everyone loves to judge mothers. On the bright side I did find MN!

It's ok if a woman still wants to work & its ok if they want stay at home. I wanted to do a bit both. I am very apprehensive about giving up work for a few yrs as I don't want to be left behind in terms of technology.

I did have to leave my chosen career as part/flexi time was not an option & I just couldn't juggle both. I'm lucky that I found a fairly well paid job for 20 hrs a week but it doesn't really have much career progression so I have also set up a small business. Women need more choices.

For people saying that other countries subsidize child care I would like to point out that income tax is much higher there. That is over the course of ypur working life, not just the few years that you need it. Look up income taxes is NorwY, Sweden and the Netherlands

As an aside, a woman educated to a high level who takes 3 years out of a working life of 50 years to look after her kids wholst tiny is not a huge economic problem.

It might not be a huge economic problem on a macro level but individually, taking that 3 years out can really set a woman's career back. I couldn't step back into mine on the same level after that period of time out of the industry.

Are SAHP bad for society or the economy?

How about people who downshift and work fewer hours?

If you want to buy in a service expect to pay an honest price for it. And if you can't afford it and choose to do it yourself that hardly constitutes a blight on society.

Definatly have my sympathies. At moment trying to negotiate with a potential employer who has made a job offer (been out of work 2 1/2 years through redundancy). Initial job offer wouldn't have covered childcare which is about same as yours. It was about half my previous pay but industry isnt great right now and im worried may be only opportunity I get to get back to a career I love. DH has been really supportive but understandably wont support me taking a job where he would effectively be subsiding my working when we feel it is better for kids I look after them if not getting any financial gain. Am quite depressed about it but it is what it is. Fingers crossed they come back with what we asked for but is unlikely .
Think it would help if government looked at helping nurseries reduce running costs. Business rates in our area are huge for instance and know the nursery my son used to go to have had to yet again put up fees due to rate rises, this in an area where people are still being made redundant and businesses are failing. The nursery has had about a 50% reduction in children as parents who loose there jobs cant afford the care anymore.

As an aside, a woman educated to a high level who takes 3 years out of a working life of 50 years to look after her kids wholst tiny is not a huge economic problem.

That's nonsense, because it might well be. If, for example, the woman finds it difficult to get back into the workforce again, which is likely. Or alternatively, she is unable to get back at the grade level she left. Coming back to a new job may inhibit the flexibility she needs to drop/pick up kids from school nursery. There are a whole host of things that could go 'wrong' that will have lasting impact on her financial security and pension provision.

When this stuff gets debated, it seems near impossible for people to put aside their own personal issues (I work in childcare and am badly paid, I'm a SAHM and don't want my choices undermined) to look at this objectively.

But we won't achieve real change until people get over themselves and we work together. The fact is, it makes no sense whatsoever, either economically or socially to have such large financial impediment to mothers going back to work. It hampers our economy and it forces women into vulnerable situations. We should be up in arms lobbying the government for change.

And you couldn't make up the lost ground over the next 30+ years of your working life? That is harsh but I think its quite unusual.

Maybe its that that needs to change?

Laurie Completely agree with you.

Childcare shouldn't be cheap as they are doing an important job but the cost of living is very high & I do think we need to subsidise childcare.

DC1 has just started doing the preschool 30 hours free. Still costing £70 a week though as I need 2 afternoons wrap around care for when I return to work (currently on mat leave).

Are SAHP bad for society or the economy? How about people who downshift and work fewer hours?

No and I don't think anyone's saying that. These choices are valid and should be supported too. The point here is that choosing to go back to work shouldn't have the high financial cost it does currently.

And you couldn't make up the lost ground over the next 30+ years of your working life? That is harsh but I think its quite unusual.

When you take into account impact on pensions etc, no I couldn't make up the lost ground. It's really not unusual and I don't work in a particularly harsh industry - just look at the number of posts you see on MN from women who've taken years out to be SAHP and find it really difficult to get back on track.

"The economy relies on people working. We train for jobs and it makes no sense on the wider scale for (mainly ) women to be economically forced out of the workforce especially those who have had a lot of training. Imagine if all the trained GPs packed it in once they had kids."

Childcare is part of the economy though. Keeps more women in employment. We pay the trained, skilled childcare provider and then they in turn pay other service providers (maybe even in your sector) with that money... etc etc.

I know op just needed a rant and I respect that.

Then maybe we need pension schemes that can survive a 3 year leave of absence? I mean, if people can retire early, or take sabbaticals what is it about the way some industries structure their workforce that a period of absence that affects mostly women can't ever be recovered from?

My final nursery statement showed I had paid £47k in fees. I only paid £90k for my house!

i don't believe everyone can lean in - I tried, we both work full time, we have 2 DC in ft childcare, I got offered a fantastic promotion where they wanted me to be away Tues-Thurs for 2 weeks a month - not at all feasible for a 3 year old to understand that, and my 7 year old wouldn't like it. In reality, you can only both have excellent careers if you're already in the position where you either have a broad family network, or you've been able to afford a Rees-Mogg style nanny that you keep for years.

Actually hard to work your way up as a parent to small kids without them losing out. My DD was delighted when I turned the job down as I said mummy would be away more but we could go on more holidays - she preferred me not to travel. I didn't let her make the decision of course, but I weighed it up and decided the price of my ambitions would be paid by my kids.

I can't believe the amount of people on here judging others for their choices on both sides. I was a working mum with my first and I'm going to be a SAHM for my second because the childcare would come in around £100 more a month than my salary. I'm not a highly educated person with not really much career prospects, however I can see why some who does have all those would want to stay in work. Everyone is different. Why should anyone have to give up their career for children be it mum or dad? You can have a loving family and a work life too. OP it sounds like you're working very hard for you family and it's commendable.
I'm using my break to learn a new skill and I'm booked in on a night course next summer in advanced photography, in the hopes I will be able to progress this further.