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

[mummycanthavealife]

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.

well, me and my 3 best friends all lived in one town when we had our first babies 4 years ago. we all waited until those children were 3 before we had our 2nd babies so as to get the free nursery places. and we all moved out of that town to smaller towns near by to get more house for our money ready for those 2nd children arriving.

if you go out to work and your dh goes out to work at the same times then you both need childcare. not you over him or vice versa.

I think the idea of heavily subsidised child care (for everyone, not on a means-tested basis) is a good one, and would enable a lot of people otherwise dependent on benefits to return to work. It would also have the knock-on effect of helping out women who would like to work but for whom it's either not worth it or would cost them money.

But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't all live in the world as it really is, rather than how it should be. As things stand, childcare is not cheap and it can swallow a large proportion of a couple's income if both of them go out to work. I do think there is a sense of entitlement here.

And re: the earlier comments that it is 'insulting' to say 'I have a job that pays more than childcare costs' - errrrrrm, well I didn't just magically wake up one day with a well-paid job. I did work bloody hard to get there - why is that insulting to you??

OK, it's not quite so straightforward as I said but there are definitely huge discrepancies with the different scenarios. Here are the results.

1. DH and I both work 16 hours, splitting my current income equally between us:

CTC £54.67 a week
WTC - seems to be around 70% of childcare costs, however high those are - tried with £170 a week (5 days, as if that would be required ) and £70 a week (2 days)
Council Tax Benefit!!! - £469.49 a year, a fair old chunk of our council tax

2. I work 30 hours and DH works up to 15 hours, total income as per my current income

CTC £42.93 a week
No WTC
No Council Tax Benefit or anything else

These are the same as if DH doesn't work and I get my current salary.

3. I work 30 hours and DH works 16 hours +. My income as is, DH guessed at what he'd get for 3 days a week in the job he had before we decided it wasn't worth it. Total income before childcare more than we have currently.

CTC £54.67 a week
WTC £31.65 a week (just under 1 out of 3 days a week)
Council Tax Benefit!!! £139.63 a year

So actually, we would be be better off if DH could find a part time job that was more than 16 hours. As he can't it's rather a non-argument.

The bit I can't get my head around is 1) and 2). Same family income - net income under 1) is more actually. Boy does it make a difference whether one or both parents work, childcare or no childcare.

And why is DH invisible to the system if he happens to work less than 16 hours? Can someone explain the logic behind all this because I'm at a loss here!

YANBU - I haven't read the whole thread but my second pregnancy wasn't planned and my children are 17 months apart. Neither are eligible for even the 15 hours a week at pre school yet. I was only an administrator before children and my salary wouldn't cover the cost of childcare for both I wouldn't even break even, as I looked into it very thoroughly a while back at childminders, nurseries etc. Whilst still with my H.

Sadly neither my parents or my H's parents are able to care for them either. So the only work I have looked into is Saturday jobs or night shifts for now! My H (before separation) has never earned that much, so I've never had the luxury of even some of the things people are discussing on here. If he was loaded, I'd go back to work part time at the very least, if he could've helped towards the cost of childcare. My bank account is just plain scary right now!

So I completely feel for you and can sympathise. It's not ideal at all, wish the government could look into it a bit more and find a solution for people like me.

Why is looking after other people's children as a nursery worker, childminder or nanny a legitimate employment choice, but looking after your own mindlesss and boring and soemthing you need to escape from to 'get a life"?

Whoever invented this system is a sadistic moron.

It should be completely based on earnings.

ChippingIn - I said that childcare for two, not one, was more than I earned. When only DD1 was in nursery, I took home a pittance but did take home something.

*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.

I have also said time and time again, that when childcare cost hundreds of pounds a month more than one person in a partnership earns, you can pool childcare and JOINT earnings all you like, but the JOINT mortgage still won't get paid. With two children, we JOINTLY couldn't afford childcare. So, as the lower earner, muggins here had to take the bullet and stay home.

seeker - because people who work in childcare do so out of choice, and enjoy it. As do many happy and fulfilled SAHMs. But some of us aren't cut out to look after children all day, even our own, and are miserable when we do so. And then often made to feel shameful for not being all fulfilled and glowing by our children.

What world do I live in? One with no tax credits, no payments for child care, and a very high cost of living..yet can still get one child minded for half of the minimum wage....perhaps not in the fanciest most expensive nursery in town.
Maybe you should lower your standards, or move.

Is that after looking at my results TheCrackFox? It's crazy isn't it. It's blatantly obvious that the Government is providing disincentives for parents to look after their own children.

I think the bottom line for us is that the difference with DH working p/t, when you take into account extra fuel costs having to ferry each other around (only have one car and public transport is crap), would really be minimal. In fact we'd probably find we needed another car, or had to move nearer to town (= higher mortgage) so it really is a none starter whichever way you look at it.

Maybe I should look into job sharing with DH?!

Runnybottom - I covered this one to ruddynorah at 22.35. Every nursery here costs the same and unless we move hundreds of miles away from family and friends, housing and childcare will not cost any less by a move. My standards aren't high. We live in a minute back-to-back shoebox 2-bed house with one tiny downstairs reception room. We don't go on holidays, my car is 16 years old. I don't want to live a luxury lifestyle. I just want to work.

As gaelic has helpfully worked out, the WTC/CTC is completely arbitrary.

ChippingIn, glad to see you at least you have so much faith in its ability to divine whether or not childcare is affordable.

Being a SAHM is a job just like any other. Some bits are brilliant, some are awful, and some of the rest is low grade drudgery. So are most other jobs. You wouldn't expect to be "all fulfilled and glowing" all the time by most other jobs - why expect it of being a SAHM?

What bugs me is: my DH works and I dont, his salary is about double the national average. If we both worked and earned the national average, we would each pay basic rate income tax and we would be eligible for a bit of CTC. But because it's just him earning, he pays higher rate income tax and we get no CTC. We are lucky that we have savings, we made good (lucky!) choices about where to live, schools, etc and we dont struggle financially. But it is unfair. And our MP agrees with us!! But the current governement has not been interested in redressing these issues.

seeker, granted every job has its ups and downs, you like some jobs more than others. Some you will not touch with a bargepole.

Some people, me included, feel that way about SAHM-ing. I am fine to do it pt, but not ft, no way.

Equally, seeker, I wouldn't expect anyone to stay in a job they truly hated. Especially if it involved children and was impacting negative on them. Would you?

Sorry, I've really got a bee in my bonnet about this one now. Might write to my MP actually. Why cou|d we earn £5000+ a year more and yet sudden|y get Council Tax Benefit plus entit|ement ("e|" key stopped working!) to a who|e raft of others simp|y because DH works 16 hours a week? It's b|atant socia| engineering isn't it? I'm b|ardy furious!!

Childminders can't possibly cost that much? just checked netmums...cm's advertising for 4£ an hour.

Anyway, been a lovely debate, as usual - I do always enjoy this one, but am very tired and losing the ability to type, so am off to bed.

Sorry to have hijacked your thread, OP, hope you find a solution.

Good night

Gaelic, it is not only blatant social engineering it just isn't fair on your average tax payer.

The whole systems needs simplified.

runnybottom both of my kids would need a childminder = £8 ph in total.

That's why I wouldn't break even personally on an admin wage with childcare. I wish I could work, my finances are terrible. Hence looking at Sat jobs or night shifts (before hubby left me).

I love my second child (unplanned), but being only 17 months apart, it has placed a huge strain on finances for us and I wish there was an easier solution to return to work and help myself financially.

I think the OP said "kids" therefore it sounds that like me, with the cost of more than one child in care, it's a lot of money

If I only had to pay for one child in care, I'd be delighted. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you here. Possibly as I'm tired? Just needed to get my two pence worth in again before bed.

Night ladies.

I agree with you Annie. I'm looking at trying to get back to work. I have one child in reception year and a 2 year old. If I went back to work, after paying childcare costs, we will be worse off. It's a shame because I am desperate to get back to work but we cannot afford to earn less as we are only just getting by on hubby's wages. I also cannot work around my hubby's hours as he works 12 hour shifts, days and nights, with differing days off every week. I feel in a rut at the moment.

Not sure I agree with the only basing Working Tax Credits on the Mother's wages ... but it would be nice if child care costs were cut a bit. They are bleeding extortionate!

Or I would love it if we had a few more childminders around because they do seem a lot cheaper, but unfortunately none near me. I can't afford a car, to drop the kids off at a further away childminder, until I get a job ... and the cycle begins.

Sti|| here. The other thing that strikes me from this is that a|| those peop|e on here who have previous|y c|aimed that coup|es with one parent at home are sponging extra tax credits are ta|king out of their rear end!! We wou|d definite|y cost the Government more money if DH worked we we|| as me. I'|| shut up now.