Minimum £72k salary required to allow me to take home same as my 19 year old nanny

[knakered]

Nanny nick has done the "big sums"...so we need to earn £72k to to take home the same as my nanny - lets not get into disposable income...4 kids/mortgage etc...vs living at homewith parents ..ho ..hum..

depends on the size of your mortgage though doesn't it

if you've only recently (last couple of years) bought a house in the SE having not owned one previously, you're easily looking at a mortgage of £200k+

mortgage of 200k does not require an income of 100k

Yes, but you need that extra for holidays!

What about holidays?

Those are a pretty basic cost.

so brummie is a spendaholic?

I hate Fio's flawless figure and spendthrift lifestyle.

And the fact that she's only 12 and has youth on her side, too.

£200k plus naily

so if you had a repayment mortgage of say £300K and a full time nanny, you'd certainly need a salary of near 100k to make it worthwhile

i bet she goes on holiday too

fox i dont agree sorry

how can you not agree? It's facts and figures innit.

how much is a 300k mortgage? £1700 per month?

on top of that you could survive on another £500-£1000 with non-basics

so to round things up you could earn £2500 per month and be comfortable

thousands do

You have 2 options -

1 - pay your nanny and appreciate that she's taking care of your most precious possessions.

OR

2 - Stop working and look after your own children.

Your choice.

4 kids = VERY HARD WORK.

I think you'll continue to pay your nanny and moan.

You could farm the children out to boarding schools, but I have a feeling they're going to charge you a far sight more than a nanny.

£300k mortgage is about £2k a month at 6%

full time nanny is easily £2k a month

bills another £500 - £700 a month
(that's being conservative)

so that's £5k a month which is near to£100k gross.

OMG!...Does that mean as a Nanny earning between £20-£25k a year I should be looking for a man who earns in the excess of £75k so I can afford basic costs!?!...I may as well jump off a bridge now then!

changes can be made there fox

its not exactly living on the breadline

well, I think the point Brummie was trying to make is that childcare costs affect everyone. Of course, it's MUCH more of an issue if you are near the breadline and struggling to make ends meet but it is an issue for middle/high earners too. In London, it's certainly not unusual for couples to have a combined income of say £70k (and have a reasonable mortgage) and still have to worry about money.

It really doesn't matter whether you judge our household income is outrageous or unjustified, or whether you judge we're utter spendthrifts because we live in a 3 bed house in an ok area.

I just wanted to support a very reasonable suggestion that much higher priority should be given to making childcare affordable for all working families.

Nanny/child carer salaries aren't the problem, they're only just getting to a fair level themselves, it's the fact they come out of heavily taxed income.

i never said your income was outrageous or unjustified

i am not judging your income

but you cant say that you 'just cover' 'basics' on a salary of 100k

"and thats not including holidays" if that quote wasnt so sad i would laugh

how do you think people of less than half your salary survive?

ok, the 'holiday' comment was insensitive. i apologise if people were offended.

I have no idea how families on much lower incomes cope. Which is WHY it's important that one of the major costs borne by families - and particularly by women - is given much more political credibility and priority.

Forget salary levels and means-testing. It hasn't worked and can't account for massive regional differences in costs.

I've said it 1,000 times (apologies in advance) but if a huge proportion of working men were priced out of the job market by a cost of getting to/doing that work, this would be dealt with as a major political issue.

I just cannot understand why you have all jumped on Brummie like that, unless there is something overhanging from another board?

Dh and I earn significantly less than 100k and I have no problem with Brummie demanding tax free childcare. Just because someone is wealthier than me doesn't mean I can't see things from their point of view.

Anyway, income is a very poor indication of poverty these days. Take 2 different families:

Family 1: Living in Preston. Earn 30k between them. Family live nearby and thus reduce childcare costs, and the mother works part time. They bought a detached 4 bed house 8 years ago for 90k (would now cost 250k). Their mortage costs 600 per month, childcare of 200pm. After tax they take home about 1900pcm, topped up by tax credits. Of which they have 1100pcm left to cover other expenses.

Family 2: Living in Manchester. Earn 55k per year. No family nearby so paying full childcare costs. Bought a house recently - a 3 bed ex-council semi for 250k with a 100% mortgage. Take home pay after tax 3055pcm. Their childcare costs are 1200pcm and their mortgage is 1700pcm. This would leave them with 155pcm to cover all their other expenses.

The first couple are receiving tax credits, the second not. Is this fair? Probably not, but that isn't because tax credits are a bad idea in principle. Nor is tax deductible childcare a bad idea just because some people will do better out of it than others.

cloudhopper everyone jumped on Brummie because she claimed that an income of £100k only covered 'basic costs'

just a mite up itself dontcha think? the question posed was, what on earth does she mean by 'basic costs'?

Alright then.

Take a couple in Greater London on 100k. They take home 5100 per month. Of this in order to work full time, they pay 2000pcm in childcare costs (with even two children that is good going). They bought a modest 3 bed property in an unfashionable suburb for 300k a year ago, which now costs them 2000pcm in mortgage.

This leaves them with 1100pcm to pay for everything else. The same as couple 1.

No-one would argue with couple 1 on 30k saying that their income just covers "basic costs", and the figures I have quoted for london are for a very average family.

you know I'm nearer to couple 1 than any of the others you mention

and I would never presume to say that my income covers only basic costs

I'm going out for a meal tonight. That's not a basic cost. Nor is my lovefilm subscription, nor is the wine in my basement and nor is my lipstick

to say that these costs are basic is insulting to people who really are covering basic costs

you're not telling me that poor Brummie never eats out