Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think new childcare costs screw women?

200 replies

idontknow54789 · 10/06/2025 22:30

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.

OP posts:
LiquoriceAllsorts2 · 11/06/2025 22:37

Fetchthevet · 11/06/2025 19:02

@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 +

But higher earners pay large amounts of tax. Why shouldn’t they get something back to help them to go to work and earn those salaries to pay those taxes in the those few years when they have insane childcare costs.

mrlistersgelfbride · 11/06/2025 23:08

Sorry I don't have anything helpful to say but that is insane.

Makes you realise how much more expensive London is to some other parts of the country.
My DD was in nursery 2019-2022 and I paid £40 a day.
It's gone up so much in a few years.
I agree with others who said could DH drop a day?

knitnerd90 · 12/06/2025 05:08

Fetchthevet · 11/06/2025 19:41

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.

It's daft. If one person makes £100K and the other £30K they don't qualify but if they each make £90K it does. But politicians always say it would be "too complicated" to base it on family income. Mind you these are the same ones who won't fix the tax trap when you lose your personal allowance.

RareGoalsVerge · 12/06/2025 05:32

It's only for a few years until school starts and it's foolish to give up work just because your current take-home pay is lower than childcare costs. Your long term career potential is worth so much more than what you do with these few expensive years. Your problem is that you and your partner aren't facing this as a team. If your partner is earning £100,000 and you are earning £25,000-£30,000ish then between you you have 5 times the national median wage and are in the top 2% wealthiest households. After paying for nursery care in full you will still be exceptionally well off. The childcare costs are not screwing you. You are making a choice. The sensible choice for your children's best interests and your own is to keep your career going. The equitable attitude in your partnership is not to regard the child care costs as coming from "your" money but as a joint hoint expense for something you share joint responsibility for, and your other shared costs likewise being shared and whatever money is left over after all these shared costs is then shared equally without the higher earner having any greater rights over it. If you aren't having this attitude then your partnership has never been a sufficiently strong and stable basis for bringing children into the world. If you are, then it's totally irrelevant that the lower earner's take-home pay is lower than one specific shared cost. If you actually want to be a SAHP that's fine, your choice, but you aren't being forced into that by the system.

gattocattivo · 12/06/2025 07:09

I think another advantage of what @RareGoalsVergesuggests about continuing in work is that it makes it far easier to share other roles as well as earning. You both take your turn with doing the nursery pick up, cooking dinner etc
it provides a healthy balance rather than one person having total responsibly to earn, and the other doing everything else.

babyproblems · 12/06/2025 07:16

YANBU and the choice to not properly subsidize childcare by the government is a deliberate way to impact equality. Same as the way the CMS works. If you really care about equality and reproducing small people for society for the future; women need support with childcare and a steadfast CMS.

Other countries manage these things so imo it is very much a choice. Here in France, we pay 550€ a month childcare. The state pay the rest.

Kitte321 · 12/06/2025 07:51

RareGoalsVerge · 12/06/2025 05:32

It's only for a few years until school starts and it's foolish to give up work just because your current take-home pay is lower than childcare costs. Your long term career potential is worth so much more than what you do with these few expensive years. Your problem is that you and your partner aren't facing this as a team. If your partner is earning £100,000 and you are earning £25,000-£30,000ish then between you you have 5 times the national median wage and are in the top 2% wealthiest households. After paying for nursery care in full you will still be exceptionally well off. The childcare costs are not screwing you. You are making a choice. The sensible choice for your children's best interests and your own is to keep your career going. The equitable attitude in your partnership is not to regard the child care costs as coming from "your" money but as a joint hoint expense for something you share joint responsibility for, and your other shared costs likewise being shared and whatever money is left over after all these shared costs is then shared equally without the higher earner having any greater rights over it. If you aren't having this attitude then your partnership has never been a sufficiently strong and stable basis for bringing children into the world. If you are, then it's totally irrelevant that the lower earner's take-home pay is lower than one specific shared cost. If you actually want to be a SAHP that's fine, your choice, but you aren't being forced into that by the system.

Edited

Or create an equitable tax system that rewards work? It just cannot be right that people are expected to go to work to earn LESS because of a system that excludes them from childcare subsidies.
Posters keep prattling on about seeing the cost as ‘joint’. But it’s makes no difference - the family still takes home less.
Its as utterly bonkers situation for all of the reasons that have been highlighted over and over again.

Itsnotwhatitseemslike · 12/06/2025 09:38

It’s because of the existence of highly paid greedy jobs - there are no boundaries as to time/commitment in these jobs so there needs to be someone at home to pick up the slack for the kids ie tasks traditionally associated with the wife role. Thus support person cannot themselves get a better paying job as their availability is so limited. It doesn’t benefit the support person, obviously. It’s always been a problem and it has got even worse with tech and 24/7 access to email etc now.

gattocattivo · 12/06/2025 11:14

Itsnotwhatitseemslike · 12/06/2025 09:38

It’s because of the existence of highly paid greedy jobs - there are no boundaries as to time/commitment in these jobs so there needs to be someone at home to pick up the slack for the kids ie tasks traditionally associated with the wife role. Thus support person cannot themselves get a better paying job as their availability is so limited. It doesn’t benefit the support person, obviously. It’s always been a problem and it has got even worse with tech and 24/7 access to email etc now.

But there are two people in a couple and there’s also responsibility to not simply accept the ‘wife’ role if you don’t want to give up your own work and be at home doing all the domestic stuff to facilitate Mr high flyer.

Dh and discussed and decided early on in our relationship that we both took our careers equally seriously (after all, we both went to university, we were both equally qualified and capable) We talked about this issue and agreed that neither of us would aim for the kind of job where you earn mega bucks but which means crazy hours and barely being around at home. We wanted good, professional roles but not the sort of mega bucks role you describe where one partner puts their career head and shoulders above the other.

the reality (and this is borne out in other threads) is that some women want their husband earning big bucks. They welcome the chance to either stop work or just do a part time low pressure job. Which is all fine until they realise that actually, it would be good for the children to have both parents around rather than barely seeing one while the other does all the childcare. And then a few years down the line, the woman often becomes a bit bored and frustrated, particularly once the kids are in school, she realises she’s made it harder for herself to get back into work, certainly at a higher level, and anyway, if she does, her husband will still be far too busy and important to do stuff at home and with the kids.

This isn’t about blaming women as a group: I’m actually pointing out that women have agency. You don’t have to accept being the one to sacrifice your career. If you want a partnership which is more balanced, where you both work and both take a share in the children/ domestic tasks then discuss these things from the outset and if your partner isn’t on the same page, then think carefully before embarking on kids.

Itsnotwhatitseemslike · 12/06/2025 13:44

Ah, sorry, didn’t realise I personally could control societal trends. I will try harder next time.

CantHoldMeDown · 12/06/2025 14:08

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

MuskIsACnt · 12/06/2025 14:28

LiquoriceAllsorts2 · 11/06/2025 22:37

But higher earners pay large amounts of tax. Why shouldn’t they get something back to help them to go to work and earn those salaries to pay those taxes in the those few years when they have insane childcare costs.

Absolutely. Between my husband and I we pay more than £10k per month in tax. We pay many times more than we will ever take out of the system.

Progressive tax systems should work by everyone getting basics free and then the higher earners paying in more. But it feels like we get very little for our taxes (we pay for private healthcare and private education).

gattocattivo · 12/06/2025 15:20

Itsnotwhatitseemslike · 12/06/2025 13:44

Ah, sorry, didn’t realise I personally could control societal trends. I will try harder next time.

Neither can I but I controlled my choice of partner and the kind of family life we wanted

Itsnotwhatitseemslike · 12/06/2025 17:04

gattocattivo · 12/06/2025 15:20

Neither can I but I controlled my choice of partner and the kind of family life we wanted

Well done. Medal for you then.

gattocattivo · 12/06/2025 17:42

Jeez, what’s your problem that you can’t cope with women having a bit of control over their own decisions and not being ashamed of saying so. We’re all aware of societal trends; it doesn’t negate certain choices.

partner up with someone with a ‘greedy’ job and stay home if that floats your boat. Try not to be catty about those of us who choose to share earning, caring and household stuff more equitably with our partner.

Itsnotwhatitseemslike · 12/06/2025 17:55

I think you started it with the catty. Some women find themselves in this position having drifted into it, especially those who are a bit older and it’s quite hurtful to be pontificated at and essentially impliedly called a gold digger by those who consider themselves oh so clever to have predicted their own futures better.

gattocattivo · 12/06/2025 17:58

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Itsnotwhatitseemslike · 12/06/2025 17:59

How unpleasant are you?!

gattocattivo · 12/06/2025 18:03

And as I said upthread, I’m 58. I was aware before having kids 30 years ago that I wanted to take my career seriously but not go for the sort of ‘greedy’ job you describe which takes a parent away from home and children so much it needs the other partner to give up their career. I married someone who aligned with this. Some men actually enjoy spending time with their kids too, and aren’t afraid to cook dinner and run the hoover around. Clearly that’s a big threat to some.

gattocattivo · 12/06/2025 18:04

Great for the kids too to see that mum and dad do both roles. 😊

Itsnotwhatitseemslike · 12/06/2025 18:08

Of course it is difficult for those who are trapped. And it doesn’t really help to have women like you rub others‘ noses in it.

springruns · 12/06/2025 18:11

Can you husband make pension contributions to bring his salary under 100k?

laclochette · 12/06/2025 18:12

OP your husband can put up to £60k a year into his pension, so unless he is earning over £159k a year is that not the way round the loss of childcare? It would take his effective salary to under £100k

LiquoriceAllsorts2 · 12/06/2025 18:12

Itsnotwhatitseemslike · 12/06/2025 18:08

Of course it is difficult for those who are trapped. And it doesn’t really help to have women like you rub others‘ noses in it.

Who’s this addressed to?

littlemousebigcheese · 12/06/2025 18:15

Always drives me absolutely mad on these threads when people start saying it shouldn’t just be the woman’s salary that covers it or not t should be half the husbands.. it nearly always is but it’s easier to say that childcare costs equate to an entire salary as it’s demonstrating the cost and how absurd it is. Majority of people I know would obviously have it as a shared cost as all money is shared and bills paid out from the joint pot but saying ‘ my whole wage only just covers nursery fees’ makes sense in terms of the conversation around childcare costs and how untenable it all is. She could say my whole salary goes on half the mortgage and half the gas bill and half the childcare bill etc but it doesn’t demonstrate the point as well! The point is that one person is basically working just to cover nursery fees however the shared pot is divvied up!!