Is net £10-12p/h really the going rate for a nanny in London? How do most people afford it?

[Lalababy]

I am on maternity leave and heading back to work when my DS2 turns 6months - and have now started to advertise for a nanny. When I went back to work with my first DS I sent him to daycare. However, this time I though a nanny might make more sense as I have 2 children - one of whom is only 6 months and the older one goes to nursery anyway. However, it seems that all the replies have said they want between £10-£12net. I get paid £60k a year - if I pay a nanny net £10ph from my take-home pay - I barely would have £50 in my pocket. Yet I see lots of people who live around me who have a nanny. Am i missing something or am I the most underpaid person in London!!!

Also take into account commuting, student loans, etc. making 60k does not mean you get 60k

The net take home pay on 60k a year is £3510.

If the nannies want £12 an hour net and the OP needs them for 50 hours a week to take account of commuting time then the cost to the OP will be £3826.

So no on that basis she can't afford to work.

With the arrangement above £32592 of tax will be collected as opposed to £0 if the OP decides to become a SAHM.

If childcare was fully tax deductible from the OPS salary then OP would make £1270 net from working and the taxman £13554.

This is why tax deductible childcare helps everyone not just those with children.

Returning to the real world the OP must find a cheaper nanny or a childminder to look after her children.

The salary / nanny cost figures above are per month and the tax figures per year.

This sort of thread makes me weep!

You should be no more shocked by 'the state paying for childcare' than by 'the state paying for state education', or 'the state paying for healthcare'.

As JellyBeans says, it's massively better for everyone if, after a good period of well-paid maternity/paternity leave, men and women BOTH go back to work.

I'd be a much better tax-payer if it had been possible for me to do that.

"£60k is not a huge income in London tbh."

Well, no, its not huge and a lot of Londoners earn more than that, some of them hundreds of thousands of pounds more than that - and they are the ones who can comfortably afford a Nanny.

However, it is a very good income, yes even in London and it would be nice if the very rich and priviliged could not lose sight of that.

Having a Nanny is an enormous luxury, sadly.

What about a Nanny share op?

I also don't agree with the sweeping statement that its better for everyone if both parents work full time. Just saying.

I agree mintyy. And I really am surprised that people want to cut corners on childcare costs. My dog walker earns £10 hour in Cornwall! I think caring for children is a really important job and hate how poorly it pays and then people moaning about it too is really harsh.

I was going to say, I have a friend who works as a cleaner who earns that, and that is not even in London. OK it is sussex, but still....

This is why we have a live in nanny. Much cheaper

Ok - I was being mildly facetious when I said that we should get childcare vouchers for the entire amount. However ginmakesall - suggesting childcare vouchers didn't mean I want the state to pay for my children - rather to get a tax break (i.e. pay for a nanny via my pre-tax salary rather than from my net take-home pay). In my view - by going back to work - I am contributing to the economy via taxes - further I am contributing by creating additional employment for a nanny. Is it really that ridiculous to expect government policy to make it easier for women to afford to go back to work?

Tea-cup - my take-home pay ends up being £3,400 - and per the nanny tax calculator - total cost to employ a nanny at £10 per hour full-time is £3,100 per month. So it does mean that I end up in a situation where I don't see my kids all day - and end up getting paid £300 per month for the privilege of working mother's guilt!

I'm pretty sure we paid our nanny a net £10/h 15 years ago (it might have been £10/net £8).

I wasn't on anything like £60k at the time but we afforded it by a) the fact that DH and I didn't see paying for childcare as my responsibility, b) both working part-time (4 days each) so we only needed 3 days of childcare, and c) having some savings to start with (I suppose you could say we were lucky on that front).

rastamam I don't think the issue is about cutting corners with childcare costs - it is being able to afford it. After all you dont need to pay your dog walker 50-60 hours a week - right?

For those who asked I do have a DH - and naturally childcare costs will come from the joint pool of income. It was more that I was surprised that hiring a nanny was going to wipe out my salary.

That seems cheap to me, a cleaner on the south coast costs £10 an hour, I would expect to pay more for someone looking after dc

Jellybeans love your assessment.

No but if you cant afford it you just do it yourself surely? Like with dog walking, if your working you get one, its just a necessity or you dont have a dog? I just dont think nursery school staff, and nannys too then it seems, get enough pay or credit for the work they do.

"With the arrangement above £32592 of tax will be collected as opposed to £0 if the OP decides to become a SAHM."

JellyBeans I think i love you. I have tried voicing this point before but your maths makes it super-clear.

No chance you can you go and work for George Osbourne is there?

OP, even the very high earning families I know in London with nannies try and use tricks to keep the hours down - so with slightly older children when they get the free hours doing a preschool drop off once or twice a week and going into work a bit later, then the nanny starting later that day to do the pick-up, or one parent doing compressed hours to have a day at home or short day, or using annual leave to take alternate Fridays off, or basically anything they can to pull the costs down. The problem then is you have less slack in the system for illness/holidays/tube strikes etc

Why does everyone keep comparing nanny costs to cleaning? How about comparing them to nursery workers... they get paid about £7-8 per hour gross.

exactly!for looking after children, its mad!

No but if you cant afford it you just do it yourself surely?

Precisely, and it is one of the main obstacles for working parents. I know parents who would like to work but childcare would be more than their take home pay. So instead of having a 2 working parents and a nanny or key worker (3 employed ppl contributing to the economy), one parent works and the other becomes a sahp who may or may not return to the workforce later. Obviously sah is more than an economic decision but it is a factor.
Some parents thrive sah, others dont but have no choice.

Yes that is indeed what it costs, we do absolutely every above board, no cash, all taxes paid although I seem to be very much in the minority amongst my friends.
Once you have paid the tax, soon the pension and then all the other activities that the nanny does with the children and all food its about £45k net a year.

you must think of it as BOTH your expense though as it enables you both to work. It is also a complete luxury, no worries if the kids are sick, someone at home to take deliveries/deal with builders and if you find the right nanny you should come home to a reasonable ordered house with laundry and shopping done. No panic if you need to stay late at work (again without taking the piss and always paying overtime). Our nanny drives the kids to grandparents and enables them to spend time with them, not a possibility with nursery etc.

A nanny share is a great option too although you do lose some flexibility.

Nolim I couldn't agree with you more!

Also - if the view is that early years are the most important, lay the foundation for the rest of your life etc - should there be more government funding at this stage rather than towards further education?

Lalababy go and employ yourself a lovely highly qualified au pair. Pay them well and treat them well and you will have what you are looking for. AuPairworld is a good place to start. Many are highly qualified and you can send them on the same first aid course all nannies do for £130. Dont listen to all the rubbish on here, a Nanny can be many things, i could not afford to pay £12 an hour but I have had the most amazing au pairs. Good luck!

Lalababy go and employ yourself a lovely highly qualified au pair. Pay them well and treat them well and you will have what you are looking for. AuPairworld is a good place to start. Many are highly qualified and you can send them on the same first aid course all nannies do for £130. Dont listen to all the rubbish on here, a Nanny can be many things, i could not afford to pay £12 an hour but I have had the most amazing au pairs. Good luck!

The other thing is that if there was more financial incentive - perhaps less people would be inclined to pay cash-in-hand.