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?

People are more likely to post online when they're struggling, it'd be weird if people posted 'another lovely weekend doing nice things with the children'. I don't think DS having gone to nursery was solely for his benefit, but for the benefit of the family which is fine. Reality is i can have every school holiday off now and still earn a decent wage, having grown up with a SAHP which left the house financially fucked personally for us it was the right choice. There are lifelong implications for me having grown up in poverty- it's not binary aside from in a perfect world where the man earns tonnes, the mother has the resources and willing to do all sorts of enriching activities.

Yes unfortunately a lot of schools have been handed over to private Trusts - completely disagree with this. The heads and managers are usually on huge wages (again costing the state).

In my daughter’s case, the state school was said to be failing and the parents were informed that the school would be managed under a school Trust. Expensive uniform change and a few years later school is inadequate and requires improvement. The regime was overly strict too and kids were sent home for the tiniest of things.

The school was also falling apart and needed a lot of spending on infrastructure. It could have been done had there been a smaller wage bill.

I imagine this story has been repeated across the country.

I appreciate some don’t have the choice. But OP isn’t one of them, and neither are many of the people on this thread who say they choose to work.

@Wantitalltogoaway Face it: YOU don’t want to look after your babies. YOU want more money. YOU don’t want to be bored.
Don’t pretend it’s for the baby’s benefit.

Do babies not need money?
The don’t need a roof over their head? They don’t need a warm house? They don’t need food? They don’t need clothes? Prospects?

Children born to higher income families do significantly better than lower income households, it’s not really as black and white as money is for you not the baby.

The government need to invest by capital borrowing in new and improved nursery infrastructure either onsite or very near to local primary schools. This is not dead money as an asset has a value.

For the childcare, a government state nursery agency could be set up which would run all the funding, manage infrastructure etc. It would bypass the council who wouldn’t need to be involved in the funding any more.

Core school hours would be completely free and parents could choose to pay for wraparound care. Wages should be good enough to attract and keep staff. No under 19s. Any excess ‘profit’ goes back into education, wages etc.
There could still be a place for childminders who would need to be linked to the nurseries to provide alternative wraparound care (sometimes children need a quieter space). Funding should be good enough for them to make this a possibility.

No other outside funding to private nurseries. You are still free to choose that type of childcare if it suits you much like some people choose private schools.

It's just shocking 😲
You'd think the government and councils would learn.

Oh get over yourself. If women choose to stay in the workplace it’s a choice, yes, but in many cases it’s also completely necessary to avoid the family going into poverty, OR it’s also because women have seen their mothers/ grandmothers completely screwed over because they weren’t financially independent. Plus women have always worked, this idea of women in particular staying at home with the kids for 10 years is actually quite modern.

Or, to put it another way, I would want to provide a secure home and keep food on the table if my partner died, became ill, left me, became abusive, had an affair or gambled all our money away.

They can't even empty my green bin for free now, have to pay from April, so why would they do more?

I never said the mother had to be the one to stay at home.

Honestly. This is such rubbish. Amongst all of my friends, the majority work. We are now part of a generation where it is virtually impossible to live a good standard of living with one working parent.
So both parents work hard to provide for their children without the need for state help. We all work hard to ensure stability of housing, education and to provide access to all the things that children need to thrive.

My husband and I spend our evenings and weekends cooking, homework, extra curricular activities and maintaining the home etc.
To suggest that hard working parents are selfish and doing it entirely for themselves is bloody offensive and simply untrue.
The system is stacked against us and for many there is little choice.

OP working isn’t currently contributing to the family’s income though, because most of what she earns goes on childcare which they wouldn’t spend if one of them was looking after the children.

So poverty/not poverty is not really relevant here.

Again, read the OP. Whatever she earns is going on childcare.

That’s the point of the thread!

I’m responding directly to your (offensive) post.

Hang on so your generalised comment about working not being for the benefit of the baby and actually selfish was actually directed at me specifically then?

Bizzare.

I’m really interested to know how you think it would be in the interest of the baby right now?

This is short term-ism at its finest. Why are we making this about “right now.” Many people uptheead have agreed that the early years are brutal, and may even not leave much money left over, but in the LONG TERM her staying in work absolutely will benefit the child immesurably. Better income, ability to choose private education if necessary, better quality housing, funding university, perhaps a contribution to a house deposit, or if things go wrong ability to pack the kids up and leave an abusive household without going into sheltered accommodation. You only need to read the relationship board to realise how valuable that can be.

Yes in an ideal world she could pack it in for 5 years and walk back into work on a decent salary but we all know that this is not the case for so many women who take a lengthy career break- it’s easier and better by far to keep a foot in the door even if you’re not taking home much extra fir a few years.

The green bin thing is just another way of raising the council tax.

So has the thread helped at all, has anyone come up with a solution that might change things for you? If there's no family around to help then you don't really have a choice - it's either cut down your working hours or continue paying nursery fees. It won't be forever - once they're in mainstream school you'll see a difference, then you'll just be paying during school holidays and a couple of hours after school. However the next thing will be how family holidays are dearer because prices double & treble during school holidays - it's penalty after penalty when you have children.

Yes, because evidence shows that enormous, state-run institutions function really well and provide good value for money while paying decent wages 🙄 Just look at the NHS, road and rail infrastructure, schools… always complaining that wages are too low, there’s no money for infrastructure and consumables, and the only winners are the chief execs and other senior pen-pushers.

OP is contributing to the family finances, because not ALL of her wages are going on childcare, it just feels like very little money for a lot of work. As it’s a short-term issue, it feels hard because it’s in the now, but soon the financial pressure will reduce and OP will once again feel better about earning an above-average salary and having disposable income.

I think every family’s situation is nuanced and there is no one size fits all right choice of whether to stay at home or use childcare.

You borrow to invest.
The NHS was running fine until the Tories started to deliberately dismantle and underfund it. I remember in the late 1990s having a Dr visit me at home a couple of times. You could also get an appointment pretty much straightaway!

It’s the private rail companies that have been the problem- charging people huge sums to travel. Most A roads are managed by Local Authorities who have also been underfunded since the Tories got in. Highways manage the motorways which in my experience are fine (apart from the Tory Smart motorways).

Parents are definitely not winners when it comes to private nurseries as the money is siphoned off into paying for high rents and big mortgages for fancy premises. With a state ran system, there is no profit so it’s all put back in the system.

Other countries manage a state system, we need to invest in this too as at the moment running an essential service using for profit companies isn’t working.

Forgot to attach the NHS graph

It is absolutely true that little kids need a stable attachment figure.What doesn't matter is if it is mum or dad, or gran, or a nanny. Secure attachment cannot happen happen if they are passed around nursery staff like they are dollies

They do have a choice. A choice not to have children.