This can't be right? Need to earn £45k to cover cost of FT nanny?

[BrummieOnTheRun]

Someone please tell me I've cocked up my calculations because I'm desperate to go back to work!!
I've tried 2 online 'nanny tax' calculators which tell me I need to add about 49% to the nanny's ?8/hr to cover the nanny's tax, nanny's NICS and employer's NICs.
And I've assumed about 33% of my income will go on tax and NICs.
Nurseries aren't working out any cheaper as it's for 2 children under 2 and they have added hassle-factor.
Am I massively miscalculating? I bloody hope so!

[Bluebear]

Yes Hunker - it takes all sorts dunnit.

[Bluebear]

Or maybe it's just me and all the others make their own money too.

Thinking about it, it's a bit like the cheap version of being a SAHM with a nanny in that I pay someone to look after my children so I get a break from them (and them from me )

[Skribble]

I can see that some parents might have to keep working to keep up with their careers or they become un-employable, but surely for most it can't be worth it?

Why are nannies getting paid so much? Is there a lack of good ones that you have to pay loads and headhunt them to get a good one? Are the conditions so bad that they need danger money?

I am off to buy a copy of the Lady, anyone looking for a experinced qualified nanny who doesn't mind 2 school age kids appearing at 3pm .

[nearlyfourbob]

Would it be helpful not to think of what you need to earn - but what both of you need to earn?

The Government seems to do best by getting 2 lots of tax!

[nearlyfourbob]

I saw an advert in our local (NZ) paper wanting a qualified nanny for 2 under 3 for $12 per hour providing their own car. The advert talked about how lovely their house was (in best suburb) and yet they only wanted to pay about 4 quid per hour to someone to look after their children.

[nannynick]

It is not just nannies, but all childcare for 3 children under 5. A childminder in my area will set parents with 3 under 5's back up to £15 per hour. Nurseries charge £220+ per week, per child.

In the South (where I am located), the cost of housing is so high, that childcare prices reflect that cost. Childcarers themselves often struggle to pay their bills, we often have high mortgages and thus need a high income just to keep a roof over our heads.

[BrummieOnTheRun]

Bluebear, Nannynick et all, thanks so much for all that information. Bluebear, in answer to your question on Brighton pay levels, that info came from a nanny agency site. I'm new to the area and don't know any mothers here yet so haven't checked yet.

I don't think I can stick an advert on gumtree yet to ask local nannies as I don't have a job yet (and am seriously considering whether I can afford to work - it would be an indulgence!!). What I found in london was that experienced, but totally unqualified, women were only earning marginally less than qualified women and there was a scarcity of qualified women.

nearlyfourbob - yep, ideally you'd think about the cost in terms of both salaries, but DH's salary literally covers our living expenses (not incl. pension...have had to put that on hold). So it's all down to my salary really.

Am going MAD at home with the kids. Am totally useless at this SAHM role and need to be locked up in an office for the sake of the kids

[nearlyfourbob]

Okay so you haven't a job at the moment and you have 2 under 2. You don't sound like you enjoy being a SAHM, but giving your entire income away to someone else could be worse!

You are in markeing and live in Brighton - well people still presumably need marketers in Brighton and don't want to pay fancy London prices and maybe don't want someone all the time and would rather you came in sorted things out and then went away again.

Commuting costs money, a full time wardrobe of clothes costs money, a nanny costs money. If you can cut these costs and start your own business/be a sole trader then you can earn less but keep more.

I know you say you want to work full time, but plus commute and children - you'll be worn out woman.

[BrummieOnTheRun]

I know, I know, I know, nearlyfourbob

My original plan was to start up my own business, but found it was impossible to put the required effort into it with 2 small, very demanding kids in the house. I couldn't concentrate on the work AND was ignoring the kids. Went mad. I ended up paying £500/month for ad-hoc childcare so I could try and set it up. The cost wasn't sustainable unfortunately.

If I was in recruitment I'd be setting up an agency specialising in all this highly experienced talent that wants to work part time or on a contract basis in the way you suggest. I think the fact that employers have to offer the same T&Cs to part time employees (and have the same amount of admin) puts them off recruiting people for a couple of days/week.

[hatwoman]

nearlyfourbob - much as I dislike it the reality is that the relevant calculation is nearly always how much the mum has to earn - because your starting point, if you like, is mum on mat leave. Or, to put it another way, it's how much the second salary has to be. cos if you only have one salary - without wanting to state the obvious - you don;t need a nanny - it's only when two of you are earning/going out to work that you need to work out childcare costs.

skribble - nannies don;t really get paid that much - £22k in London is by no means a lot - the thing is you pay their gross wage out of your net salary.

and finally, hunker, - yep, some of us work for k'all.

I'm panicking now about this thread - I had thought I might up my hours but if I'm breaking even on 3 days a week sounds like it's going to cost me a packet to do more hours. And much as I love work I do have to draw the line somewhere!

[BrummieOnTheRun]

Well quite frankly I'm a bit p*ssed off! If any other cost of working (for the sake of argument, let's say transport to work) was so high that a not-insignificant proportion of the population were disincentivised to work, the govt and media would be up in arms.
I'm dying to know now where to get the figures on the number of women with kids for whom work is not a viable option because they'd literally have to borrow money to pay for childcare. It rules out anyone on an average salary with 2 children under school age, surely? (although at 3 they do qualify for the 2.5 days)

[foxinsocks]

oh I tell you what Brummie, it doesn't get easier once they start school. No sireee. If you're lucky, your school MIGHT have an after school club - even if it does have one, you may find it has a waiting list so long, there's no hope you'll get on it in your working career. Then you have to think about the school holidays.

So you look for a childminder - but you've got to find one that picks up from your school and if you're in an area with high demand for one, that can be much harder than it sounds.

So you're left with the nanny option.

Best of all, if you're really well off or are lucky enough to have a big enough house, you can get a live-in au pair - which doesn't cost much (compared to a nanny) but is hugely convenient (although I wouldn't like to have someone else living in the house).

[BrummieOnTheRun]

...and with house prices as they are these days, who has a house with a spare room knocking around? [grumble, grumble]

Oh well, this isn't going to change any time soon so we all just get on with it...

[uwila]

Oh, a thread after my own heart...

'tis outrageous that childcare is not a tax deductable business expense.

I have decided to have two instead of three children because of it. And they wonder why the population is dwindling... Go figure!

[BrummieOnTheRun]

is there a lobby organisation working on this?

[uwila]

I would have typed on it ages ago, but the silly buggers have actually had me earning my living today (so I can give it to the nanny).

[uwila]

Right, now let's dicuss the cost to value ratio of agencies.

[uwila]

Brummie, that start your own business idea is a good one. Why don't you start your business, and pay the "secretary" from the business. And no one will ever notice that your "secretary" is actually looking after the kids...

I say this in jest of course, but I know more than one nanny who techincally works for her boss' employer. Gee, I wonder why they do this??? The only thing Gordon Brow is promoting here is tax evasion. Oops... did I say that???

[Bozza]

brummie I think while you are calculating how many women can not viably work due to childcare costs, you should also count the women who are limiting the number of children they have, like Uwila, and the women who time their children so they don't have to pay full childcare for two at once like me.

DD was born when DS was 3.3 So he started on the nursery grant as I went on maternity leave. And TBH I don't DS vastly cheaper now he is in full time school than when he was on the grant.

[bundle]

we were £3k in debt when we had 2 children in nursery for 3 days a week, I only started to "earn" again when dd1 went to school

[BrummieOnTheRun]

Aren't workplace creches tax deductable to the employer, or did I misread that somewhere? If I DID start my own business, a not-for-profit creche for employees would be high on my agenda, out of principle. Astonished at the amount of experienced talent that must be missing from the labour market due to these issues.

[frogs]

Uwila, that is a genius idea. As it happens I don't need a full-time nanny even though I'm self-employed and dd2 has just turned 3 and starting school nursery in Sept. So not really worth the candle for me now. But if I were running a proper full-time business and had a newborn, that is exactly what I'd do.

[uwila]

Frogs... now don't you go crediting me with your tax evasion plans. I don't condone them!

But, with an au pair, you don't need to scam good old Gordon. Not that he doesn't deserve it, but an au pair only makes about £70 per week and that is below the tax threshold anyway.

[frogs]

Sure. But still £70 a week of what would under any sane system be a legitimate business expense. Just how much filing could I get her to do, I wonder...