Childcare costs: Parents now pay £67,000 per child in total

[KateMumsnet]

According to a report released today, the cost of raising a child and supporting them through university has risen to £227,226, with childcare costs showing the biggest annual rise at 3.7% - almost twice the rate of inflation.

In total, parents now pay an average of £67,586 per child for childcare - and, according to the report, mothers believe that they need to earn an average of £26,000 a year to make returning to work worthwhile.

Does this chime with your experience - and if so, how has it affected your family? Have you had to make difficult decisions because of the cost of childcare? We'd love to know what you think.

FT mum here too paying £1.1k per month in childcare. It's a killer but I've accepted that's just the way it is - it means a very stripped down lifestyle, little in the way of entertainment or treats. I feel my quality of life is far worse than I was in my 20s or 30s... And at least then I was having some fun!!

However I don't look to the govt for a solution. The govt is broke, spends billions more than it brings in and I would rather it focused on paying off its debt and coming up with permanent solutions for debt reduction than creating some childcare scheme which will likely benefit some but not all and probably not me and thus become more divisive. Sorry --- as I get older I just loathe govt more and more and want to live in a world if a very small state!!

I do like the idea of more social enterprise driven childcare establishments and I also think the lack of 'corporate childcare' (childcare offered at your place of employment) is really lacking here (vs North America where it's much more popular). It's a great benefit to attract and keep high quality female workers as well, something british companies don't seem to care too much about!

At least 16k per child full time (London). We both work part-time.

Not sure why those that have 1 child to cut their cloth should pay for those that have several and are clearly living beyond their means.Or why should those that gave provided their own care pay for others?

Caring for your child is a given,it costs either by providing a sahp or outsourcing the care.Surely people weigh all this up before they even have children.

What would irk me even more would be paying for childcare for those that don't even want it and would prefer to be doing it themselves in the early years.

Dc1 nursery for 4 years cost £19,200 a decade ago.

2 years of after school £2700. Holiday care an extra £500.

Dc2 cm for 2/3 days a week for 3 years c. £10k but that was paid on credit card so the interest could add another thousand on.

Atm food for 2dcs cost c. £70 pwk

School dinners £10 pwk

Clothes c. £300 pa (this is low because GPs buy a lot esp shoes and jackets)

But I'd say the biggest cost is housing. It's an extra £300pcm to have the extra bedrooms we need for them. Over the years that adds up. The wear and tear on the house has been huge too.

We haven't had a holiday in years but travel in th uk so that's a few hundred a year.

I spend c. £100 pm on petrol ferrying them about. Then there the 2 small but expensive bumps I've had in the car when they've distraceted me and I've lost years of no claims bonus. That will have cost thousands.

Christmas has become more expensive recently so it's in the hundreds now.

There was the baby equipment when they were younger, maybe £1000 each- I was frugal!

Entertainment is costing more as they get older- a day trip can easily be £100, so there's probably a few hundred a year on soft plays, birthday parties, cinema, bowling, skating.

Then there's bikes and sporting equipment including once worn tap shoes! Another few hundred.

I don't think I want to add all that up!

From the research I've been doing it looks like we'd pay around £9,000 a year for full time childcare (in a nursery). I'm hoping we'll only need 3 days so that will save us something there... but I don't know how on earth we'd afford it if we had another in the near future.

I'm incredibly grateful that my mum has said she'll help out a day a week, but it shouldn't have to be this way. But then childcare providers deserve a decent wage. It's so difficult.

That report says we spend 78,000 + per child, on education, and it notes thats not including school fees for those who go Private.
Well, that's just ludicrous.
My eldest is in his first yr of University, so we have gone through 15 and 1/2 yrs of education so far with him (+ have 2 other teens) and even if you count things like exotci trips abroad,(which not everyone will do) there's no way we have spent a teeny weeny fraction of that.

The problem is that as soon as childcare becomes more subsidised, the temptation to providers is just to put their prices up.

If its economical and beneficial for companies to do the providing in house child care which the Patagonia model seems to show then this isn't a problem...

Remembering that most businesses in the uk are small or medium sized - like Patagonia - so this isn't simply an economy of scales thing.

I used ft childcare from 6mth old, and baby room was expensive.very
I knew return to work quickly maintained career,i happily returned.didnt want mummy track
Over years yes weve paid a lot but it feels like investment in career,and oppurtunity

Yes, the colleagues I'm talking about are a mix of professionals but through their training. When things are much more flexible. It definitely does make a difference. One female doctor friend definitely put her training on hold and did most of her PT work on the weekend, only taking a consultant post whe the children were a little older. It definitely has a big impact on careers. I know when she was working PT it wasn't for any financial benefit, more for her sanity, and waiting for the time to be right to work FT again.

And meoryou, that's the sort of solution I'm talking about, a social enterprise crèche where the parents work together in the crèche to keep costs down.

I pay £42 a day for nursery in south Wales.

My salary here for the equivalent job I did in London up until a few years ago is over £10k less a year though. And is now pro-rata as I'm now PT.
Luckily DH earns what he did in London, just minus the London weighting of about £4k. So, we do ok, especially with childcare vouchers.

I agree that childcare should be publicly funded though and I think take-up should be linked to / conditional on working, training, education or participation in parenting classes.

Just worked out, that we'll end up paying the equivalent of £72,000 per child for childcare. No tax relief on childcare.

As a childminder with a degrees and an outstanding grade from OFSTeD I charge a grand total of £3 per child per hour. This includes food (2 home cooked fresh meals per day and snacks) and also trips to local soft play/toddler groups/ parks and zoos!

Bonkers, childcare should not be 'cheap' I want the person/people looking after my child to feel valued and rewarded well financially for looking after my child.

I suppose the main question has been whether the state should subsidise more or not.

It's clear that for many, especially those with 2 very small children, it can cost more in childcare than earnings. There is a loss. Perhaps it is easier to bear for those who know they being in work now will lead to promotions and pay rises...they can more easily see the long game. If you have a job which is never going to pay much more, then the loss seems less worth it as there is no real long term gain.
I would say, that particularly for those who know leaving their job will kill their career and that by staying working, they will get the big promotions, (and assuming they want to work) that it is well worth thinking ahead and saving towards childcare for a couple of years before having children. It sounds quite calculating and of course it is and is intended to be. But if you can save 5 or 6K, then that might give you £200 a month of leeway for 2.5 years, which might be the time spell that some people have 2 kids under 3 in childcare, so the malt expensive phase. We save for other things we want, such as cars, holidays and deposits on houses.....why not for childcare too - spread the cost a bit. For some, doing this will mean they CAN return to work, rather than they CANNOT. And this crippling phase is fairly short for most - most don't have several under 3s at once, all in the most expensive care at once - so often it is just about getting through that worst phase. Planning ahead seems sensible to me. We plan for our retirement and put money by, we have savings for emergencies, so why not towards this other life stage which we know will be costly?

Yes in an ideal world, the childcare would be free or much cheaper. But it is expensive at the moment, so saving ahead with the express intention of that money being for that expensive phase of childcare seems wise to me. This might be controversial, but we expect to provide for our own pensions these days and know the state will provide a pretty measly one if we depend on that alone. Is planning ahead for childcare so very different?

I wouldn't be happy to pay more in tax to fund other people's childcare. We chose to reduce to one salary to have a SAHP (even though childcare would have been less than DH's salary). I agree that people should plan for childcare in the same way they plan for pensions.

I was a London PA, senior role having been climbing the ladder for 7 years. That said unless I made a sector jump (difficult in itself) to a much harsh environment (think top law firm / finance) I was getting towards the top of what I could earn.

Work subsidised nursery was £55 per day and that would have meant commuting with DD; the alternative was a Nanny (12 hour days and no family to help nearby).

I worked it out that post deductions and tax I was going to be either losing money or just breaking even - both seemed rather pointless. Applied to work part time but boss wasn't interested.

So I now freelance from home earning basically pocket money. Thankfully we did the math before DD was convinced and as we knew i'd not bring home any money it hurt but we were expecting it.

Finance is a factor in why we probably won't have another.

Amummyatlast - but you have your whole working life to plan for a pension. Saving up for childcare isn't quite as easy when you tend to have them rather earlier in life than 67!

It's true that there's longer to plan for a pension, but then, much more money is required for that.
Children come sooner and we are talking about people working, so there is some money to pay towards childcare from wages. The savings are for topping -up - either to prevent childcare meaning that on a monthly basis working makes people out of pocket after childcare is covered, or simply that the monthly childcare is lessened slightly be dipping I to savings which were for that purpose. I think that saving even £3k could make a difference for many people.
The thing is, we don't really exist in a savings culture. Apparantly the majority of households have less than £2k in savings and could not afford to replace their boiler if it blew up. People like to have their consumer goods, holidays and other expensive things, often being in debt rather than saving. For many saving is impossible as wages are too low, but for others choices are made which mean there are no savings.
I think that for things like childcare, pensions etc we do need to think ahead. Most people will have children and we all hope to need a pension - these are not big surprises but fairly predictable costs we will incur. And saving in that period when there are likely to be 2 full time earners and no child are expenses in the years before children, is the time to think ahead and save.

The cost of subsidising childcare far more than it is now, is so prohibitive for government, that any improvements are likely to be small. That is the reality. Therefore we need to make provision for it. We need to base some of those earlier decisions about how big a house we buy, the size of mortgages, the lifestyle we live bearing in mind the later costs of things like childcare or working part time rather than full time. Boring when you are young and childless....but important I feel. And the people who do this, simply do have more choices when it comes to working and childcare issues later on.

Most people I know who don't have savings are not spending their money on holidays and clothes. They are spending it on rent and bills and food. They can't buy a house because they have no spare money for savings.

I have two DC. Both my husband and I work full time and my DC go to childminders. The eldest is at school and I pay for 2 1/2hours after school and the other does 32 hours a week. If I didn't have the help from my MIL( she has them a few days after school and half days) I don't know how we would cope. At present we pay about £6,500 a year for both but if we didn't have help we would pay £10,500 both these figures are term time only.i have to rely on different members of my family and our annual leave to cover school holidays. I had to go back to work as neither of us make enough and we would not get enough WTC to cover our outgoings,I love my job but sometimes it feels like you are working for nothing especially when you could be home with your DC.

If totally accept that it is hard for many people to save before having children.
I think that what I was suggesting about saving to cover what can be a shortfall in earnings, in Terms of child are costs being greater, is really something for the better off. For the low paid, it is always going to be hard to work and cover childcare costs even if there are more subsidies. WTC may just about make work pay.
Even for those on good salaries, for most, having 2 kids under 3 in childcare will be very expensive and result in there being little if anything go left over and as we have seen the costs can be higher than the pay. I think people have to remember this is a fairly short phase and so the time of being so hard up or even making losses can be borne for a short time (eased by savings if possible) and many people do that with the long game in mind - the higher salaries they will get a few years down the line, from remaining in the workforce. Easier of course to go for the long game with some savings.
And what about some lifestyle changes? Are we too keen to maintain our pre- children lifestyle? Perhaps, just for that short period of expensive childcare we need to accept there won't be any holidays and we might need to take a break on the mortgage, and most of our luxuries will go. So in short, there may be a need to work very hard and feel no real financial benefit for several years. I know it is t appealing in the slightest, but people do make these choices because they see the longer term benefits.
Again I totally understand that many people are already living the most frugal life and there are no more cost or lifestyle savings to be made.

Many people here mention spreading their children out more than they might have done, to avoid 2 in the costly phase of nursery care together. It is another option and would allow many more people to return to work both after a first and second child - many cannot afford work after 2 close together. I'm not actually convinced that it is our 'right' to have families exactly as we wish, regardless of financial cost. This might relate to the size of family or when we have them .......so I do think everyone should be able to have children .....and of course they can (ignoring all other things non financial which might prevent it) because actually the state will ensure that anyone with children has got accommodation and basic needs covered (I know the levels of government support are controversial and perhaps not always adequate) but to expect to be able to have as many children as you want, at exactly the times that you would like, and to do exactly what you feel like regarding working and maintain a certain standard of living, isn't a right, in my view. We all have to make decisions based on our circumstances as we find them, and things like how many children we have and when we have them, partly because of childcare costs is part of that restraint we live under. If we choose to have lots or to have them at times which makes childcare expensive, that is our right and no-one can or should stop us, but then we have to live with the consequences on our working options.
It's not fair, but neither is it fair that some people get more choices about where to live, or how many holidays they have, or if they get to go in the best nursing home, or to have a top notch funeral. Our choices are constrained by our finances and we often have to make choices. So it might be that we really want to or need to work and the result is fewer children or more spaced out children. Or we might decide we want lots of children close together, and the result is we simply cannot afford to work. It's all about trade-offs and most of us can't have it all. And personally I just see that as a reality of limited resources. We choose what we want most and then have to make sacrifices in other areas.

Chocolate Also are you aware of how high costs are? People are spending on fuel, food and rent. Our family is fine because I used to make mega bucks and DH does now. Without one of us being in that position we wouldn't be in the financial position that we are in today.

Problem is that if I was living in the UK right now it would cost us for me to go to work. That is what does not make sense. I think the government won't change things because if you looked at the gross income after childcare of most families they would start to qualify for benefits or much higher levels of assistance. This is exactly why I think it is important to bring about this change. If a family would qualify for assistance this way they should be helped. If that means a bit more redistribution is required then so be it. The balance right now isn't best for the long term prosperity of society.

Yes, I do know how high costs are. And I said that I totally realise that many people are already living as frugally as they can and cannot make any further savings by cutting back.
It may well be that there should be more help. But I am talking about the current situation,mor one where there might be slight but not substantial improvements in government help. Given that situation, choices do have to be made. Some people have a bit more cash and that gives them options to save towards childcare or afford it out of wages. Others have to make choices about children - numbers and when to have them in the context of their work, family financial commitments and lifestyle. Working full time might be necessary for the family finances, but also be costly in terms of childcare, so mean fewer children or spaced out children. It doesn't mean we can't have children, just that our families might be a bit different to our ideal. But then, most of us don't get our ideal in many areas of life.

Perhaps one day the government will make it significantly more affordable for all..but I can't see it coming anytime soon on any level to make a difference for the low earners faced with high costs of living. Sadly.