How much do you earn??

[Limpetsmum]

I know this sounds very rude but I just dont get how people afford private education.
My husband and I have good jobs and probably earn a take home wage of £6000/month between us ie after tax, student loans, pension etc. And that's with doing extra Hours to top up income. We both work full time and are exhausted!
Childcare comes to £2000/month. Mortgage current £1000 (but likly to go up when we move soon). Bills guessing around £600. We have no savings but have investments in property.
I would love to privately educate our kids and our combined wage will probably go up by about £1000/month in a years time - but I struggle to see how we would afford private education. I don't think we can for 3 kids.
But having said that, on paper we earn good money and I just don't get how others afford private education.
Those who privately educate - do you earn a lot more than us - or have you come into money/inheritance to fund education?
Sorry to sound so rude by asking the question but I presume as it's anonymous I might get some replies! Maybe we're just really bad at managing finances....

In most of theses breads you see people talking about inheritances and grandparents. If you don't have the entirety of the fees put aside already before your child starts, you're taking a gigantic risk. I know people do that - but it's foolhardy

Bloody iPad. These threads

Great thread.

Jilly - I'm very inspired by your posts and motivated to up my income on return to work post maternity leave (Dc of 3 and DC of 3 months). So thank you. But I want to know - how old were your kids when you went back to work (presumably) full time?

To me there seem 2 options for the OP (apart from reworking financials) and I think they are purely value based: do as Jilly advises and pay by increasing her own income or go state route and supplement by paying for extra tuition and getting involved directly. But I don't see that it would be possible to do both - so in that respect I worry that I try option 1 - could push at my career, go full time, therefore not be around to do as much homework help as I would like - and STILL not be able to afford private (I.e if I don't get that job as a Judge) but by that time option 2 would not be possible as too late.

OP - I hope you are still checking in and I thank you for your honesty. It's really helped me address an issue I have frankly stuck head in sand about until now. My own mum keeps saying ('private education, cough cough') each time I tell her something my (obviously ;)) genius dc has done, and says that he will be bored at state school and I owe it to him to send him to private. Both me and DH are state educated, went to uni and have professional jobs but DH is probably against private as we did ok on state.

I suspect OP that the guilt if you don't send them to private may be too much so if I were you I would today start working out how you can get them to private school. Otherwise I think that personally your guilt will be too much to deal with later on - something which may come up again and again. I'm simply saying this because I am probably projecting how I feel about my own situation - but there you go.

Gently I completely disagree and can assure you that I am financially savvy and not "foolhardy". The vast majority of parents at our school pay fees out of income. Most are doctors or business owners. Some seem to have assistance from grandparents, I bet there aren't many who had a few hundred thousand pounds tucked way before their DCs started reception. There's a massive difference between finding £2-3k a month (for 2 DCs) and finding hundreds of thousands of pounds before your children even start school.

I now earn circa £225k working part time (equivalent to 3.5-4 days a week). I am incredibly lucky that this is the case. But DS1 is now in year 5. When he was in reception I didn't earn anywhere near the same amount. I was 34. I would have had to have been amazingly successful in my career to have managed to put away a few hundred thousand pounds for his education at that age. I don't even have a few hundred thousand put away now!!!

Newquay whilst I agree with much of what Jilly says (throughout all of her various incarnations over the years on MN ) for me I've found that the FT sacrifice impacts on our family too much. That's partly because like Jilly I work in law where you never switch off and the out of hours demands on your time are great. I found that I was snappy with the DCs and couldn't give them enough of my time. I always had one eye on the emails. As a family it wasn't working for us, particularly since DH is also an equity partner in a law firm and has the same pressures. We needed a bit more balance.

I now work fewer hours each day so that when the DCs come home from school I am there everyday and can spend some real time with them. Being at a highly academic, fairly pressurised school they really need it. I'd factor this into your thinking.

I don't think there's anything wrong with paying out of income. Lots of people do it. I'm just very risk averse about certain things (and extremely high risk about others). When I was working, we were both working for a company with regular redundancy programmes so I wouldn't have wanted to pay the fees out of income alone. We were both officially "at risk" on several occasions. We had a choice of going private all the way theough school and paying out of income, or going state for primary school and saving like mad so we would have a decent cushion by the time high school came around. Had our financial position not changed, I think we would have been fine with the fees. I wouldn't have wanted to pay out of income alone- certainly not while we were with the same employer- but I understand why others do and it's not necessarily high risk.

It clearly depends on other financial circumstances. We have a good amount of equity in a high value house (outside of London so money goes much further) and so if everything went horribly wrong then we'd downsize and keep the DSs in school. If we were mortgaged to the hilt then we might view things differently.

" how old were your kids when you went back to work (presumably) full time?"
I worked until I went into labour and went back when they were about 2 weeks old, full time. It is often the best way. I probably the only woman on the thread who did that and surprise surprise I afforded 5 sets of day school fees (although only have the last two - teenagers - still at school). We reap what we sow in life.

I don't agree it's foolish pay school fees out of income as someone is suggesting above. It's no different from paying a mortgage based on your current income or any other longer term costs, particularly if you are wise enough to have two full time careers in the family.

I've always emphasised spreading risk however - two full time careers is good; we also bought 2 buy to lets at one point; then both had work out side of our jobs when I was employed (in fact I matched my in work earnings outside just before I went off to work for myself)/ So although I take more risks than most women I try to spread that risk for the sake of the children. perhaps the biggest risk women can take is giving up full time work. Many regret it later.

MaCosta how on earth did you manage to almost treble your income in two years? Wow.

"how old were your kids when you went back to work (presumably) full time?" I worked until I went into labour and went back when they were about 2 weeks old, full time

how old are your kids now? SMP of 90% of earnings for first six weeks with no cap was introduced in 1987 so since then there has been no financial need to go back to work earlier.

You have an expensive lifestyle.

My patents afforded private school but
-only had one child
-throughout high school we had one euro holiday (1 week, last min budget deal) and one Orlando trip. Only a few days in (cheap) UK in other years.
-second hand school books
-old cars (rural so necessary)

• few meals out/no takeaways

-no gym -lived in cheap rented flat for 3 years -no big birthday/Xmas presents

You can afford private ed you are just choosing to spend your money elsewhere.

[how old were your kids when you went back to work (presumably) full time?" I worked until I went into labour and went back when they were about 2 weeks old, full time
how old are your kids now? SMP of 90% of earnings for first six weeks with no cap was introduced in 1987 so since then there has been no financial need to go back to work earlier]
Two were born before then and even with the third after that you still had to have 2 years of continuous service before yo/u got the 6 weeks at 90% pay and with each of the 3 children I was climbing a corporate ladder and at a different law firm with each one. Also with the first I was arguably not an employee (trainee solicitor). It was also a matter of principle for me only to want to take off 2 weeks of my annual leave. It has paid huge dividends for everyone in the family but certainly it would not be for most people. With the twins born later I was self employed and earning in half an hour want a week's maternity allowance is just about and with the expenses that go with higher earning so I was not likely to want to stop work, destroy my business just to live on £135 a week and pull us all down into poverty.

Also do not assume that going with the option which gives you the most immediate money is always the right choice. You can argue enhanced maternity rights for women (and not men) and women marrying richer men are actually a poisoned chalice for women like an apple being held out in the garden of Eden - take this lovely thing now but the price is often that your career if second fiddle to the higher earner or by going part time for life you destroy your career. Don't just look at what I have offered to me for the next 12 months if I take a year off work when a baby comes. Think about if that would be the right choice for you and your family longer term too. It may be and if your customer/clients/ reputation can survive long gaps then go for it but don't assume all women have to take a year off when they have a baby and that is best for babies. My youngest children are teenagers. It's dead easy now. Whether work or not life with small children is always quite hard work. it's just a lot easier if you work as you get the variety and balance of life rather than 24/7 caring for 3 small children.

abby I worked for a law firm. I now do the same thing but working for myself.

Not all lawyers make a lot of money Jilly. I am sure you are very good at what you do. What sort of law do you practise?

I know they don't. I did at university choose commercial law options and made sure I applied to jobs in big firms in London. We tend to be in charge of our own fate in life. Most lawyers know which areas of law pay badly. You make your choice and many are happy with that. I am happy because I am just about never ill and I am mentally happy. That is not because of money. It is because of other things like going to bed early, eating well etc. I would always put those things high on any list (although any one whether they work or not with children under 3 does not get much sleep and can find it hard to eat well and plenty of those in the highest paid City jobs work hard - my daughter worked 3 of the last 4 weeks and worked 43 hours without a break over one Christmas - we all make choices and compromises).