45k salary entirely eaten by childcare

[Sofiewoo]

Granted salaries aren’t what they were only a handful of years ago but aibu to be shocked that my 45k salary is now entirely eaten by childcare and getting to work??
I figured if you are earning in the 20s you would assume that but not mid 40s!

I’m trying to weigh up whether to just take the next year and a half off instead of working for nothing. I know, pension, career blah blah but it’s mentally very difficult to juggle drop offs, work schedules and sickness but be no better off financially at the end of the month.

Did anyone else not realise it was a bad as this?

I don't understand why you see it as your salary being cancelled out. Why does your husband not see it as his salary being cancelled out?

It depends what industry you are in. A year and a half might not make that much difference to pension, career over a life time.

I had two babies really quickly and decided to go self employed 2 days a week (just to keep my skills up, it didn’t contribute much financially) so I could minimise nursery days and cut the travel out altogether.

It was exactly the same situation that if I had stayed in my job, I’d be just paying to go to work. It seemed stupid with the hassle it is actually getting out of the door and the organisation!

If you can afford it and you feel there will be jobs to go back to easily (as there were in my field), take the time off and try to keep your foot in your field somehow e.g courses etc. Nursery children get ill often and it’s stressful juggling it all. I don’t regret taking a step down then as was easily able to ramp things up again when they went to school.

I agree with this. Some horrific recent news stories show what happens when corners are cut.

This always comes up on MN and I do find it odd as the prevailing MN view is that all money in a marriage should be pooled, no mine and his.

So let’s say jointly you and your husband take home £4500. You earn £1500 and he earns£3000, to keep it simple. Childcare costs are £1500.

It doesn’t matter which way you split it, the family still have the same money.

The only way that the ‘well only half is YOUR responsibility’ view can make sense is if you have totally separate finances. DH and I actually do and I pay for all the childcare but he pays for all the mortgage so I’m not too fussed.

But equally a lot of women who want to spend time with their kids are shamed by other women for not wanting to pay someone else their household wage to do it.

it’s perfectly valid to have a good career but want to work part time or be a SAHM during the early years. I’m tired of the underhand snark other women give women who like me, may have had a great career but love spending time with their kids and have the financial opportunity to do so.

My point is that the automatic attitude of its being the woman's salary being cancelled out is part of the overall problem with systemic wage inequality in British society.

Of course overall it doesn't make a financial difference when it's coming out of the family pot. But the attitude so many women immediately seem to adopt of its being their salary that is the least important one and their career progression that seems the most disposable of the two seems somewhat unhealthy.

That's why some of us would reframe it rather than just saying it makes no difference. I think it makes a good deal of difference.

I don’t think it is, not here anyway, possibly some quarters. But however you look at it, it is a lot. Ours isn’t as extortionate as some but still nearly half my salary and that is for three days a week with thirty funded hours for DS and fifteen for DD.

I post that not because it’s not valid, but the tone of many of this thread is that “Stay home; why would you work when you could be home with your kids all the time?” As though it’s a bonkers decision of you break even. Working isn’t just about money.

OP is allowed to want to work AND moan about the expense of doing so.

Agreed. The childcare vouchers, back when they existed, where a good way of viewing the cost this way.

This is very easy, if he stopped working we would save on childcare but lose his wage and therefore be down at the end of the month. If I stopped working and lost my wage we would therefore save on childcare but be in exactly the same situation financially.

It’s nothing to do with it being automatically the woman. If my husband earned less it would be his salary cancelled out.

It's brutal OP, I was on 18k with my first. We bought a lot of second hand baby things and was very grateful that our parents helped us out with 1 day a week each so cut down our nursery costs to 3 days a week otherwise we'd have ended up in debt. Planned baby no 2 to coincide with no 1 starting school.

It depends how you look at it.

If you obtain empowerment from working or other emotions that’s fine. Kudos to you and I say fair play.

I work hard… for the money. If one of our wages (pick whoever’s wage, not getting into that debate) is being cancelled out to put a child in care where everyone’s stressed due to drop offs, constant sickness, general disruption etc it doesn’t feel worth it. If you’re not feeling a financial award, just being present in work and saying you have a career isn’t enough for some people. Not just women - I now know many stay at home dads in the area.

With the lack of good childcare provisions and the astronomical cost, it’s only becoming financially fortunate family’s who will shortly be able to afford childcare. I know many women leaving the workplace because of these challenges.

Lastly, some of us do feel real happiness from being with our kids. I’d give up my work tomorrow if it wasn’t adding to our household pot. But then I am privileged in a good job and working makes financial sense for us as a family. Some women aren’t getting that benefit now. They’re away from their kids and the household pot isn’t being filled whilst their own mental toll is taking a beating.

As for pension contributions - child benefit adds to your contributions. It may not be private, but it’s not 0 contributions anymore.

I don’t know why some posters are being so obtuse about this!
Why doesn’t your husband pay half the childcare costs?
In my case all our money gets pooled, there is no I pay for X, you pay for Y, this bill is 50/50. It’s just family money, and the family money is no better off after I’ve worked and commuted for the better part of 200 hours a month!
If I spent those 200 hours doing whatever I wanted I wouldn’t be financially any worse off than if I worked!

It seems both of us don’t care what other women want to do, we just don’t like any judgement coming from other women (or man!) on it. And let’s face it, SAHM, full time working mums and part time working mums all get plenty of it, sadly.

If I spent those 200 hours doing whatever I wanted I wouldn’t be financially any worse off than if I worked!

That’s the crux of it, OP. Whatever you want to do. Some women will want to work no matter what, some will do it but resent it, some will hate it.

It’s really up to you and your husband, laying out the balance of all the pros, cons and consequences.

Working in childcare does not get you free childcare. A lot of settings won't allow your child to be in your setting. As a nursery nurse I was offered 20% off my childcare fees, and with funding for my it would've still cost me massively in excess of what I earned. In the end I had no choice but to leave childcare all together.

Agree with previous posters that haven’t expected childcare to be dirt cheap to fund our career or children.

The government helps more in other countries but it’s ridiculous that childcare is being called extortionate when you look at the hourly rate and the hours. Not many parents seem to be thinking about that

i haven’t RTFT so apologies if it’s been said but it must, by law, be possible for you to access the funded provision without incurring additional costs. That’s laid out in the statutory guidance that accompanies the funding. It’s your nursery has hiked up prices to such a significant degree, I would be tempted to contact the funding team at your local authority and ask them to look into it to check it is in line with the requirements of the funding.

That’s not a commentary on the rights or wrongs of the nursery’s pricing, I know the funding they receive only scratches the surface plus wages and other costs have gone up. But the regs are the regs so worth checking they’re being applied correctly.

I agree! I was quoting the other poster who said women shouldn’t be reduced to only being mothers.

@FrothyCothy

Please do not advise the OP to do this!! It would ruin her relationship with the nursery if she gets them investigated for basically fraud.

The OP values the nursery regardless of finding the fees difficult so this is a terrible idea.

The extra cost will be for consumables. Or because the nursery can’t function on the miserly rate of the ‘free hours’.

What is the hourly fee OP? Please do answer this

I don’t agree at all.
I actually don’t understand how the going rate in my area is for me to pay around 28k a year for 2 children and the government are topping up a substantial number of those hours on top of that cost, when the ratios for my children are 1:8 and 1:3.

If the nursery is applying the regs correctly there is no reason for the relationship with the OP to be affected. She can simply provide an invoice to the LA and ask them to check it over.

@FrothyCothy

Okay well I’ll leave that up to OP if she thinks the nursery would be okay with that

We have always got an itemised consumables bill clearly explained, so hopefully OP is getting that.

@Sofiewoo

That amount seems very feasible to me and most others but it depends where you are.

What’s the hourly fee?

We don’t pay any itemised consumables, we just have a total price for the week, but it’s a full time place rather than just the term time hours.