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.

Please give it a rest with this argument. How anyone can argue that the tax system is anything but broken when someone going to work (and paying taxes) is actually WORSE off (as a family) is beyond me.
There is no justification. No ‘see it as a joint expense’ changes the fact the someone is being asked to PAY to go to work and that most just won’t do it.

@Kitte321 so you basically expect that everyone should be able to go to work and not have to pay for childcare.....who pays the people providing the childcare??
I didn't mention tax, it's national insurance, you might want to check the difference.

Op has your husband actually submitted a flexible working request and gone through the formal process? My DH works in a very male dominated sector, they said no and looked at him like he had 2 heads when asked, the concept of the husband taking on extra family time and the wife having a job was lost of them, put in through the formal route and they didn't have anything valid to reject on, he was the first and they have tried to keep it under wraps as don't want loads of other people dropping to part time - someone has to be first

Er thanks. But pretty sure I know the difference between tax and NI.
What OP is talking about is a situation where a person (not household) earning over £100k loses the right to free hours for their household. I am querying the sense and equity of that.

As for the rest of your post it doesn’t make a great deal of sense but I would guess it could come out of the tax receipts of all the people(probably women..) suddenly able to work. Plus the 100k earner already paying huge amounts of tax 🤷‍♀️

@onwards2025 in many sectors part-time just wouldn't be considered an option.
They don't need much of a reason to reject, 'sorry it doesn't fit our business model'
'Sorry your direct reports need someone to be there to answer questions'

I'm part-time in a male industry and getting it was hard, and promotion is non-existent.

Define 'well'?
We both work, children in state primary. After wrap around care costs, mortgage, bills, crazy council tax of 4k on a pretty standard 3 bed house, we have very little left over. We drive 2 fairly old cars, we haven't had a foreign holiday for 7 years, don't buy clothes for us, only for oldest DD and then youngest gets her hand me downs. Our TV is 15 years old and has crazy lines on it but we can't afford a new one. Both of us have disabilities but don't reach PIP threshold, but do incur extra costs associated with having a disability.

I just feel like we’re arguing over semantics. We could call it a “3rd of each income” or we could call it “no better off in total”. It amounts to the same.

What you are missing here is that if both parents work, the household is £300pcm worse off than if just one parent works.

And - it means both parents have to spend 30-40 hours a week working (and the stress and inconvenience which comes with that while having small kids), vs just one parent doing.

Well it makes more sense for the lower earner to step back rather than both parents being stressed, kids being in wrap around care and less quality time together.

Only on MN would people consider working when they'd be better off not working. A few years as SAHP isn't going to hurt anyone.

I see you have said take home pay not gross.

Even then - £1,000 a year better off (£19 a week) - probably wouldn’t even cover your travel to work, let alone all the other costs associated with working.

And again - the fact you need to be out the house most of the week juggling childcare to achieve it.

It’s not ‘considering childcare a female issue only’, it’s a ‘considering if there is a benefit to both parents working or not’ issue - and removing childcare support makes it less worthwhile to do so.

@CantHoldMeDownits not £10k a month. If we have another that’s another four years of nursery, two plus years of double nursery fees, plus before and afterschool club for eldest. That plus the train fare takes the majority.

We are spread so very thin already and work a lot of hours - after the children go to bed etc. It just doesn’t feel worth it for the pressure and the stress

I disagree. I think “a few years as a sahp” does harm, both on an individual and societal level.

to start the woman, and it’s always the woman, takes a big career hit. It knocks on to pensions, long term earning potential, getting back into the workplace after a few years out is not always easy.

1 in two marriages fail. The husband is usually ok, has his full time job and the kids around that. Mum is left trying to get back in the workplace and pay mortgage and bills on CMS and her earnings, which have taken a big hit during those few years out. Fast forward to pension age, and her pension has also taken a significant hit, both because of those years out and because overall she’s earned less because of the impact on her career.

then as a society we wonder why it’s always the woman who earns less. Why is that? Because women take time out for kids. Consciously or subconsciously people don’t think women with kids or of childbearing age are as serious about their careers. Their careers are usually secondary to their husbands so again it’s them taking the time off for school runs and chicken pox and not able to meet the demands of promotions.

lastly the kids. While it might be nice to have a parent at home, splitting it into such defined roles means they lose out on time with dad, because he’s always at work, because he’s the sole earner. It also models the gender roles and daughters see their role as kids and house, perpetuating the gender pay gap. Sons grow up seeing housework and kids as women’s work, and the cycle continues.

my kids have benefited from dh and I splitting work and home. He has a better relationship with them as he is around much more. They see me working and earning more than him, and know traditional roles aren’t the only way.

i heard a woman on the radio the other day saying how her son had changed after her divorce. Treating her so badly, telling her it’s her job to clean up and cook, and all the money was his dads and she should be grateful for cms because she didn’t have a job. She honestly didn’t know where he’d got these thoughts from, yet she’d been a sahm for 15 years doing all the cooking and cleaning while dad earned the money….he’s grown up literally watching it work that way. Men earn, women look after men.

I think you’ve got this arse ways.

If your husband earns over 100k it just means he’s taken to be able to afford nursery, not that you as the other partner shouldn’t work.

🤦‍♀️

You could seek employment for hours when you're DH is at home.

*your

Paying for childcare now gives you ongoing career progression / professional development/ CV power, so higher future salary.
It gives you your employers pension contribution plus the 20% tax contribution and years of compound growth on that

Is your baby still under 1? The costs go down as the ratios go up.

I agree no help went back at 3 months paid until the term after turning 5 mortgage took most of husbands and childcare most of mine started doing Avon and boot sales to boost things.

This.

Get him to drop a day instead. Employers have to give consideration to a flexible working request.

My situation was similar when married and the kids were young so we agreed I’d give up work and look after them (as the lower earner). I gave up work, thinking it would be OK as we had his good income and were married (so, shared money). Very much a joint decision.

Then we divorced and I had to start my career from scratch after a long gap and the good income was no longer shared. Minimum CMS, additional housing costs etc isn’t the same as ‘married people’s shared income’.

Worst decision ever was for me to stop working to be ‘better off’. He continued to climb the career ladder and is incredibly well off now, whilst I’m barely above entry level work.

Exactly!!! So (back to the ops original Q) we should all agree that all those accessing childcare should be entitled to free hours. Because that incentives work, keeps women in the workplace (contributing to tax revenues), promotes equality and is generally good for all.

Absolutely, it's in societies interests to support skilled intelligent women to remain in the workplace if that's what they wish (some make the active choice to be SAHM's and that choice should be respected but not be the default option). We spend many years learning and training and developing our skills, and it's sad if childcare is the barrier to this continuing.