Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To want to work but cant because of crippling childcare cant I have a life?

331 replies

mummycanthavealife · 02/04/2010 20:21

Really want to work but kids under 5. my dp works long hours so never sure when he will be home, I was offered a job but had to turn it down because my hourly rate would of paid for my two children to be looked after so turned it down.
I really want to work give my kids a better quality of life but what is the point should I wait till my children are at school advice greatly appreciated,dont think im entitled to any help either,thanks mn.

OP posts:
EricNorthmansmistress · 02/04/2010 22:16

Yes - I'm working 5 days and DH will do fri-sun, meaning we never see each other, but that way DH can earn and childcare costs are minimised.

spotsandwrinkles · 02/04/2010 22:16

I'm not talking about slave labour, this is well educated (3 yrs at uni) people that earn decent wages, reason being it's state funded. And yes the nurseries are regulated. Surely that's a good thing?

ChippingIn · 02/04/2010 22:17

gaelicsheep - well, bloody hell, something useful may yet come out of one of these threads - wouldn't that make a nice change!!

AnnieLobeseder · 02/04/2010 22:18

ChippingIn and ericnorthman - guess I earn less than the average wage then, cos nursery childcare for one is just about equal to what I earn. So childcare for two meant our family would have ended up hundreds of pounds out of pocket each month. Not breaking even. Not taking a small loss. Hundreds of pounds. Mortgage and bills unpaid kind of out of pocket. For working in a skilled profession. How is that right?!

Saying that lower earning people (men or women) should be grateful to stay at home if they have a partner who can support them is like the 1950's mentality that women should give up work when they got married. It's insulting and totally degrading to self esteem.

Surely if lower earners were enabled to stay in work with childcare help, which would generally be for no more than a couple of years, their long-term earning potential, and therefore long-term income tax payments, would be vastly improved, thus covering benefit received.

How about we say that people on benefits with families who could afford to support them should be taken off benefits and their families made responsible for them? It's the same thing to my mind. I'm an individual, even though I'm part of a couple, and my ability to work should not be dictated by my husband's paycheque.

blueshoes · 02/04/2010 22:23

The WTC system IS a farce, confusing and produces some startling inequities. Plus the govt cannot even administer it correctly, resulting in clawing back overpayments.

I say abolish the whole circus and just have fully tax deductible childcare costs.

AnnieLobeseder · 02/04/2010 22:24

As for 'why should my tax money go on helping women to work?', I could equally say, why should my tax money go on NHS care for smokers and drinkers? At least tax money spent on childcare subsidy would have long-terms benefits for the economy, and not cost much. Heck, I bet that even making all money paid for childcare tax-free, instead of just £245 a month, would enable thousands of people to work who currently can't afford to.

AnnieLobeseder · 02/04/2010 22:25

x-posts with blueshoes!

EricNorthmansmistress · 02/04/2010 22:26

Surely if lower earners were enabled to stay in work with childcare help, which would generally be for no more than a couple of years, their long-term earning potential, and therefore long-term income tax payments, would be vastly improved, thus covering benefit received.

They are. If you don't qualify for childcare help through WTCs then you must be deemed to have a high enough family income to not need it.

I know it's harder with more than one of nursery age, but at 3 your older will get a free nursery place, and that's kind of a drawback of having DCs so close together. One of you might need to SAH for a while.

I'm not advocating a 50s housewife arrangement, I'm the main earner and DH SAHs p/t, he would like to work more as I said, but he fits in work around my work as mine pays more.

I'm sorry your situation is frustrating you so much but you have a bit of a sense of entitlement that I don't understand.

runnybottom · 02/04/2010 22:26

Childcare for one child being equal to your wages?
Then you need to find cheaper childcare or a better job. How is that even possible?

AnnieLobeseder · 02/04/2010 22:26

runneybottom - I live in Surrey. 'Nuff said!

spotsandwrinkles · 02/04/2010 22:27

Yes AnnieLobeseder!

seeker · 02/04/2010 22:27

Fathers are parents too, and should have to think about child care. That's why I never had the slightest problem taking money from dp when our children were little - if he wanted to carry on in his well paid job he would have had to psy someone to look after his children - I saw no reason why that someone shouldn't be me.

schroeder · 02/04/2010 22:28

runny bottom god what world do you live in ? This makes perfect sense to me. Get a better job ffs

AnnieLobeseder · 02/04/2010 22:28

Eric - my current situation is just fine, my eldest started school and I'm now in full-time work. But I was stuck at home for 18 months, going out of my mind and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. So I regularly rant on this very subject on MN, because it's something I feel very strongly about.

EricNorthmansmistress · 02/04/2010 22:28

£48 a day here for 8-6 in nursery. Minimum wage for 8 hours brings in more or less £50. Add travel costs on and you barely break even.

Which is why WTCs help out these lower earners.

Unless the lower earner has a DP who is a higher earner. In which case the family income has to cover the childcare costs.

{not that complicated}

whomovedmychocolate · 02/04/2010 22:29

If you have more than one child of younger than school age it is bloody hard to make enough money to make it worthwhile working. I am currently looking for a new job. I earn about 35K a year. My nanny costs me about £1500 a month - which is £18k. Now I may well earn £35K but when you take off tax it's about £2100 a month. So I work for £600 a month. Kids outings/classes cost about £200 a month. Plus running my car £100 a month. So essentially I work to be £300 a month better off.

And for that I feel miserable that I'm not home with my kids. And they feel miserable too.

Don't get me wrong, we are financially very comfortable, but were I in a situation where I had to work to survive, it would probably not be doable.

Yes I could put them in a nursery but with two that age, it's not that much different in costs.

The theory of course is that once they go to school my salary has risen and our childcare costs plummet. Except I've just been downsized. And I'm not alone. Now I can start all over again. Find another job, start again, but I'm finding it hard to justify it financially. If I was at home, we'd eat out less, there would be less treats to compensate for the 'missing mummy factor'.

And frankly, I'm not sure it's worth it. So Annie - I actually agree with you. I want to work, I'm good at what I do, but at this point in my life, I guess I have to look at what's important and there are two little folk who mean more than the money and perhaps I need to park my ambitions for a year or so more?

blueshoes · 02/04/2010 22:30

It is much better for a government to subsidise childcare for a parent to stay in work, than to pay benefits for a parent to stay at home.

This is for all the reasons Annie mentioned. To maintain that wage earner's skills and employability. The government also gets some of that subsidy back in the form of taxes that wage earner would pay.

A lot of people underestimate how difficult it is to get back into any form of skilled work once you have out of the workforce for 5 years or more.

AnnieLobeseder · 02/04/2010 22:31

I'd like to point out that I don't think childcare should be free or anything, just subsidised to the point of, say, the same as a woman would get on MA - £106 a week take-home pay (or whatever it is now).

ruddynorah · 02/04/2010 22:31

dd's nursery is £18 per half day or £32 per full day so £160 a week or £680 a month.

so your options are-

  1. move house
  2. get a higher paying job
  3. find cheaper child care
  4. change your hours so you don't need child care.

i did 1. and 4.

rainbowinthesky · 02/04/2010 22:31

£200 a month on kids outing and classes and a nanny on top? You're hardly poor..

spotsandwrinkles · 02/04/2010 22:34

But WHY do you all seem to buy this crap and just accept it? Maybe school should be paid for as well?

AnnieLobeseder · 02/04/2010 22:35

ruddynorah - wow, what can I say except... ruddy norah!!! DD2's nursery is £54 a day.

Luckily I found a new job with a hefty childcare subsidy, since the sister site has an onsite subsidised nursery which costs the same as you mention.

But come on, you can't tell people to move to make things better! What about family, friends, availability of work, DC's schools. Just not practical in every case. Nor should costs be so vastly different in different areas. We can't all live in 'affordable' areas. They'd get somewhat overcrowded.

AnnieLobeseder · 02/04/2010 22:37

spotsandwrinkles - thank you, by the way, I'm usually the lone voice in the wilderness on this one!

ChippingIn · 02/04/2010 22:38

By AnnieLobeseder Fri 02-Apr-10 22:18:57
...guess I earn less than the average wage then...working in a skilled profession...

  • Sorry Annie, but Surrey or not (where I too live), if you are paying more in childcare for one child than you are earning, either you are grossly overpaying in childcare or are not earning the minimum wage - which is it?

Saying that lower earning people (men or women) should be grateful to stay at home if they have a partner who can support them is like the 1950's mentality that women should give up work when they got married. It's insulting and totally degrading to self esteem.

You are twisting other peoples words. The partner is 'supporting' their children*, not the other parent. If you didn't have children then it would be financially worthwhile you working? Surely to god you can see the difference ???

Surely if lower earners were enabled to stay in work with childcare help, which would generally be for no more than a couple of years, their long-term earning potential, and therefore long-term income tax payments, would be vastly improved, thus covering benefit received.

*Yes, and this is how the system already works. If you are not entitled to 'benefits' then you are clearly not 'lower earners'.

How about we say that people on benefits with families who could afford to support them should be taken off benefits and their families made responsible for them? It's the same thing to my mind. I'm an individual, even though I'm part of a couple, and my ability to work should not be dictated by my husband's paycheque.

Oh FGS - It is not dictated by your husbands paycheck. It is dictated by your JOINT income - why the hell should other people pay for your childs care when you and your DH JOINTLY can afford to do so?? They are JOINTLY* your children.

TheCrackFox · 02/04/2010 22:39

"Do you think it's wrong that two p/t parents get help with childcare?"

Yes, I do.