To think new childcare costs screw women?

[idontknow54789]

Before getting pregnant with DC2 day rates at nurseries around here were £70-80 a day. Now DC2 is here they’ve gone up to £120 a day! My DH earns over £100k so we don’t get free childcare. It’s now looking like it’s not worth me going back to work - it’s going to cost us for me to work. I know we’re fortunate that he has a decent salary (this is London though so doesn’t go far). All nurseries are saying it’s the lack of funding for the ‘free’ hours that are forcing them to put up costs so much in a year. So the lower earner (I know not always women but often are for many many reasons) gets screwed and it disincentives them to work. I feel so deflated over this. I’ve got my hard hat on here as I know a lot will say how privileged we are he earns that but this is more of a rant about my personal situation and career and others in my position.

I know we’re fortunate that he has a decent salary (this is London though so doesn’t go far).

You do realise that only a tiny minority of people in London earn what your husband earns, including dh and I. So I don't buy the "£100k doesn't go far in london" nonsense. If you're finding that £100k does not go far, then you're living a life of the 1%. Of course the taxpayer should not pay for your childcare.

When ppl in low paid jobs do similar to keep UC ppl on here are up in arms

I agree. So many people on this thread have encouraged the OP and her husband to cheat the system, as if that's a normal thing to do. To make it worse, her husband earns over £100,000! If you can't survive on that and pay for your own childcare then you have a problem in managing money, not a childcare problem, imo.

And over on the winter fuel thread they are saying that 35k is too much

Women or men the sentiment is the same..

£100k after tax and student loan is less than £5k a month.

Two nursery places in the South East can cost £4k+ a month.

Do you see the problem?

It’s not ‘cheating the system’ to use pension contributions or go part time to stay under the threshold. For workers on £100-140k they might find themselves with a negative net income over £100k (!) vs earning £99k without doing this.

No need to mock my use of an ! 100k is a lot of money to me, and to a lot of people.

Would you give the same response to someone working fewer hours so they can claim UC?

I don't know how you can say it's not cheating the system. If the rule is that if you earn over £100k you don't get free childcare, then you work a day less so you can get the free childcare, then you are purposely finding a way around the rules. Even though really you could afford to pay your way. It doesn't sit right with me.

If you earn £99k your take home pay is £58,660. Plus let’s say £15k in childcare subsidies. This means a total compensation of £73,660 after tax and benefits.

Earn £115k and your take home pay is £64,170. You are £9,000 worse off after tax than the person earning £16k less than you.

Why is this huge discrepancy ok, with the higher earner ending up significantly worse off than the lower earner?

It was ever thus tbh. I realise that doesn’t change your situation but perhaps it helps to know that this isnt a new thing. My children are grown up now, but they were in childcare before any free hours at all, so we paid the full whack. With our first ds (a September baby) it was from 3 months until the month he turned 5 and started school - so almost 5 full years. Once I had dc2, we were literally no better off day to day than if I’d stopped working because childcare was the same as my take home pay. Actually when you factor in commute, work clothes etc we were perhaps marginally worse off both working.

So why do it? Well, for me it was not wanting to step out of the workplace, have a gap in my pension contributions, miss out on career progression etc. as well as the social and useful aspects of working,

it comes down to whether you play the long game or whether you want to give up work just because of the immediate situation. The good thing about working when they’re pre school age is that once you get to just wraparound school hours and holiday care; you’ll feel like you’ve one the lottery. And of course before long they’re in high school, getting themselves there and back and not needing care.

I totally get it - it’s hard going to work and having no more money in your pocket each month than if you didn’t. I can only say that at the grand age of 58 and looking at retirement pretty soon, I’m so glad I hung on in there and took my career as seriously as dh’s

@Fetchthevet you are being ridiculous - the alternative js the op quits work all together then she’s paying zero tax or any contributions to society at all

if they both work 20% less and then qualify for the free hours then they both stay working and paying tax etc

and they are looking after their own child the 2 days they don’t work.

How is that cheating the system!

we have 2 in nursery and the bill is just under 3k for 3 days a week with no funded hours

our mortgage for a small 2 bed flat is 1900 a month (it was only 1200 when we took the mortgage out but interest rate went right up)

100k would leave us unable to pay bills or eat so I don’t know what you expect us to do

usually the suggestions are oh sell up and move to a cheaper place or downsize or whatever like it’s an easy solution.

@fupoffyagrasshole I'm not being ridiculous at all. Someone has to pay for childcare. If people on a good salary really can't pay for care for their own children, then what's the answer? Free childcare? Obviously 'free' childcare for all would mean tax rises for all of us. Is that fairer? You could argue that someone like me, on the minimum wage, shouldn't have to pay towards childcare for a couple earning £100k +

Slightly off topic but I sat down once and worked out that for both DC for 5 days per week for 4 years we spent £140k. I decided to carry on working at a loss to ensure job security. It was very tough but worth it longer term as my career sort of stayed on the rails. I say sort of because I definitely lost traction having to leave at 5pm on the dot daily. I'm not surprised the birth rate is going down, it's ridiculously expensive.

@Fetchthevet people on the minimum wage aren’t paying anything towards the £100k earner, they take out far more than they put in.

People earning £100k+ apparently pay 50% of income tax - so really they’d be funding childcare for themselves.

Childcare is subsidised for 95% of the population, excluding this group via a cliff edge removal of the benefit is a very extreme piece of policy. And it’s actually causing a lower tax take - because so many people are ensuring they are under it.

@Fetchthevet we work less so we can afford the childcare and look after them ourselves part of the time ! Which you are saying is playing the system. How?

But it doesn't. Even most 2 bed flats are more than 450k, there aren't many houses (even in sketchy bits) for less than 600k and public transport comes to £1-200 pcm depending on where you live. And that's if you are lucky enough to buy, rental is more outrageous.

Also earning over 100k becomes a cliff edge because various benefits and reliefs are removed.

I was talking more about the OP. I haven't explained myself very well, but I was talking about the OP's specific situation. Not yours.

OP if childminders are this much, it would probably be worth looking at a nanny share. Assuming you were paying 50% of a nanny, you'd be able to get someone experienced full time and for less, including tax and NI

Her situation is the same @Fetchthevet

When I had my dcs, more than 20 years ago, there was no free hours, childcare vouchers etc…
I was paying £900 a month for one child then. That’s £1500 in today’s money.
And yes the calculations on whether it’s worth working or not were already common place. I chose to stop working (because my wage then didn’t cover the cost of nursery).
It was a big mistake. It’s not paying into a pension, loosing years of experience (so wage increase) and more importantly me getting bored and the whole marriage dynamics changing forvtye worst.

I get that it’s frustrating. I personally think it shouldn’t be calculated on the highest earner etc… but have a limit on the total family income.
But it’s not new. And the answer is still the same. Best carrying in working

I really don’t think you are seeing the bigger picture. Subsidising childcare for all would have a net positive impact financially because of tax revenues and increased productivity. There are many studies on the topic produced by lobbying groups.

It also benefits society as a whole by keeping women in work, increasing representation and reducing inequality.

You're probably right to be fair. As are you @Fupoffyagrasshole . I just get frustrated when I read posts like the OP's, as I am a low earner and managed to scrape together money for childcare when my DC were young. I do see your points.

That’s because the system should be based on family income, not the individual income.
It would remove those situations where one oerson has a ‘too high’ salary pushing the other out of work.

It’s funny how the U.K. is always basing benefits on individual wages but not when it’s UC …. I think it should be extended to all benefits (with different upper limits of course)

Thanks everyone. The easiest answer would be for DH to go down to four days but his with has completely refused it. We’ve worked out it’s better off financially for me to work three days (we’d make a tiny amount of money rather than loose some). Now my work just has to agree. Still crappy but seems the best case scenario. Hopefully if they agree it doesn’t set me back for future promotions or opportunities being only three days.

And yes because of this the ‘bigger picture’ is meaning me paying less taxes, less productivity, loss of talent etc. And I’m not even a ‘low earner’, I’d say my salary is pretty ok.