Childcare costs break £6k barrier - a rise of 33% over the course of this parliament

[KateMumsnet]

Hello all

A report by the Family and Childcare Trust has found that the annual cost of a childcare place has, for the first time, broken the £6,000 barrier, averaging £115.45 per week across Britain. This means that childcare costs have risen by an inflation-busting 33% over the course of this parliament, and that, for families on the lowest incomes, it no longer pays to work.

We'd love to know what you think. Are your childcare costs comparable? Have you found that childcare costs outweigh the benefits of working? Do share your thoughts and experiences below.

Almost £30,000 for full time nanny for 2 children in SE (not London). We pay NI and tax etc all out of our taxed income. We both work full time and nursery does not work for us due to one child being at school and needing pick up and drop off plus one child being unwell and regularly needing care at home. We are fortunate can afford this, but few can. Should government assist more? Yes, I think so. It benefits all of us to have a strong, diverse workforce including working mothers and fathers. I don't want my daughter to grow up thinking she cannot have a career and a family. No idea how others cope who are not as fortunate as we are.

I live in the NE so not an expensive part of the country. We currently pay for 3 days of childcare, 1 child under 3, two school children who require wrap around care. We pay just over £12k per annum, half of that is for the wrap around care.

Not quite sure where those figures came from, I'm assuming it includes families that have free childcare from grandparents. Everyone I know spends more than £6K.

South Manchester averages about 1000 to 1200 for a FT nursery place per month. We had 2 in at one point and yes the equivalent of my whole salary went on it. I had to choose to keep my career and suck it up for a few months until DC1 got free hours then school

SE and I'm looking forward to dd starting school in sept. She's sept born which is good I guess (oldest, mature etc) but it has meant I had to pay £10k more for nursery. I have an older child and during the 15 months of both in nursery my dh's wages went on childcare and mine paid for mortgage, food, petrol etc.

When my son started nursery at 6months old in 2008 we paid £38/day 8-6. Now that it's 2015, my daughter's bill is £50/day and that's with the ratio of 1:8 in the pre-school room. So I imagine the baby room will be closer to £55/day. Which would be about right re the 33% price hike.

Dh and I can't wait for the pay rise we will get when she goes to school and this is even taking into consideration the cost of after school care for both!!!

I worked and my childcare was the same as my pay. It was my choice to work. Having a child isn't a right it is a choice.

Ha hahahaha at £6k, I wish!

Has anyone already said hang on, childcare costs should come out of joint income? I do hope so, I'll read the thread now!

I think work usually pays in the long run, unless one is in a job with no long-term career prospects whatsoever, or a job where it is very easy to take long breaks and then go back in later.

Oh, blimey, nobody has really said that (that it's down to both partners to cover childcare costs)

So in answer to "why do women give up work?" - because it's a vicious circle: women give up work or stay on the mummy track or go part time so nothing ever changes.

And yes, sometimes you do have to take the hit and work for not much financial gain in order to stay in a job that'll carry on paying you once your children are in school or have left home.

It's not all about small children.

Wonder how this fits in with the current trials sanctioning those on universal credit for working less than 35 hours/week.
www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/ministers-are-reaching-beyond-scroungers-and-aiming-britain-s-working-poor

China Totally disagree with giving parents a loan for childcare costs. A loan does not address the fundamental issue of childcare being stupidly expensive and treated like it is the preserve of the aristocracy. A childminder, nanny or nursery is not an unreasonable expense IF both parents are working full time. It is unfathomable to me that policies in place promote the education of women but yet there are few policies to keep both parents in work, if they so wish to take that option, once children arrive.

Also, if you give a loan out how in hecks name are these families going to repay it? Charge them 9% interest? Hardly ethical when interest rates are 0% and childcare is a necessity. What next, a loan for people who are unemployed for them to pay back once they are working?

Everyone needs to wake up and smell the manure. This is about every working parent have a choice. A low income parent should have a choice about working and most often they do not, especially if their OH is a higher earner. This is a very important argument and some of the progress in the past 30 years is going to lost if the issue of childcare isn't addressed. Current policy does affect women far more than men as they are often the ones who stay home. That will change slightly but for as long as women are younger than their OH, it is highly likely the woman will be the one with a lower income.

honey really?!? you don't think that age is strongly correlated with wages?

Have a look at this graph....

right in the region when people are having kids there is a huge dependence of wage on age. IF you have kids with someone 5 years older than you there is little chance you are earning more then them. Its because people get promoted mostly on experience/age.

also a graph on marriage data - far more positive age gaps for men and women.

So put this together and you have the situation where around 75% of women will be earning less than their partners at the time they have kids before you even bring other forms of sexism (womens work less well paid etc) into it.

Either you cut back on work and look after your kids yourself (perhaps by splitting shifts with a partner, one person works from home etc) or you pay someone else to do it for you. If you're lucky, perhaps you can talk someone into doing it for free for you (eg grandma) although many grandparents are also working fulltime these days too. Where's the issue exactly?

Just because many parents think raising children is a low status task not worthy of their time doesn't mean there are hoards of minions out there willing to do it for them for peanuts. What many parents really want are the economic benefits of having two professional incomes without having to pay others for the work involved in the things they have to outsource. It used to work in our parents generation because there used to be a far greater proportion of neighbours and relatives (mostly women) at home that we could be palmed off to after school etc for next to nothing. Now that is not the case.

I do agree that childcare should be tax deductible as it is a genuine cost of working. I do not agree that it should be funded by the government.

many parents think raising children is a low status task not worthy of their time

Who?!

the problem is one of equating money and success (a completely false association in my book, but one that is culturally embedded).

I earn more money than my partner, therefore a) it makes sense for him/her to be SAHP and b) I am more successful.

Hence SAHP are less successful / less valued....

As I said, this is total shit...but it is one of the unconscious assumptions of our society and hard to acknowledge or dissipate.

larry I have come across many parents, mums and dads, who have openly said that they don't want to waste their educations, that society benefits more from them working than staying home with the kids, that they have certain goals they want to achieve and staying home would not let them do that. From some, not all, there is a bit of sniggering at those who don't make the same decisions (and of course there are some who are the same vice versa)

And all that is fine and completely understood. Perhaps it would be a waste of their educations and the rest of it. That doesn't mean that caring for their kids should come cheaply .... noone else really cares about their career/personal goals but they do care about being compensated adequately for the service they provide which allows them to do that.

I out earn DH by about £10k a year. When we have DC, I will take a years maternity leave, partly through choice but also helped by the fact that I have risen through the ranks and now have a rather nice maternity package. Taking my commute into account, I will not be that much worse off over that year.

When I go back to work, the curve £12k a year childcare fees will come out of our joint income, though this is around what we put into savings at the moment so it will be a switch from one to the other. We're not big earners (both basic rare tax payers) but consider ourselves lucky to be able to do this.

The killer will come when we add another DC (hopefully) into the mix as the balance sheet will not look quite so favourable. There's a high chance we will have to start pulling money put of our savings to fund the few early years before DC1 is in school and we can investigate other options.

My mum earns less than £18k a year. It would probably work out cheaper to pay her to look after dcs. (yes, I realise it's not as simple as that).

China's suggestion is not daft in my opinion. Yes most students don't pay theirs back but this is split between two people and would help defer payments, maybe paying 50% of the 'actual' cost each year with a no or low interest loan.

Another factor... I commute into London. this costs me over £5k a year. If I went part time, I would only reduce this cost if I went down to 1 or 2 days a week. If I went to, say,3 days a week I would have a 40% reduction in my income with no change in commuting cost. This system means that it is much more cost effective for one parent to stop working altogether than for two patents to go part time. The governments decision to shelve the proposed 'part time season ticket' trials will have an impact on the issue of keeping both patents in the work place.

Basically , if all mummy's are in full time employment, old people work until they are in their 70's there aren't enough jobs for young people and graduates . Instead of cheap childcare the government should encourage mums to stay at home and nurture their their children instead of institutionalising them in full time nurseries to be brought up by strangers. How many mums of under 5's feels like it's a juggle to spin so many plates . The children suffer too. If you have children you also have responsibility for them and their child care if that's what you choose . Childcare shouldn't be cheep . Or the expected norm

I actually think those are grossly misleading: ave ft cost here (mids) £1k month so tbh I'd love a £6k annual bill vs my £11k one
I use vouchers to chip into it but if the gov want my tax letting me keep working but allowing salary sacrifice whole alpine would help
I am a 40 percent tax payer and after £1k nursery £1100 mortgage (3bed house nothing flash!) bills there isn't a lot left
Or I could quit they wouldn't get the tax and not be constantly juggling work and childcare
It's not about paying less to the childcare providers but the tax breaks would help hugely
I object to being in sane tax bracket as so one on £140k without any of the higher salary associations!

Hi
The issue with childcare is that it will keep rising. If the government payed 80% of your wages,regardless of cost,no questions asked,then you would increase your fees! The government need to put a tighter cap on the limit for chi care tax credits. This is why the middle earners suffer as they probably don't get tax credits!! Also childminders are not poor! They can have up to 6 kids an hour. At £4 per hour that's £24 per hour. They are also self employed and often charge when child is not there as they "can't fill the space". The government should only pay for the hours the child is actually there. A government contract rather than a private agreement should be made between nursery/childminder and the government so proper checks can be done. Parents sign up to contracts, that they have to pay childminders holidays, when child is at school etc. Since when did self employed people get paid holidays? The costs are crippling the family.

Whether or not this is planned, or intentional (pictures shadowy cabal of politicians wearing stove-pipe hats planning on turning the equality clock back) is debatable .

But it seems to me the logical progression of this phenomenon - if unchecked - will lead to fewer women (as a rule - it's not right ) being able to work, and thus an increase in the jobs available in the economy - for men.

DD has just started nursery 4 days a week and it is nearly £680 a month which is not much less than our mortgage. We are in the Midlands so not London or the SE. If we have a second child there isn't much point in us both working as one salary would be spent entirely on childcare. I would actually love to give up work but we can't afford that at the moment. I would like to see the gov doing something to make it easier for one parent to stay at home, I have no idea what that would be though!

Shadowy international cabal ..... really? In collusion with all the nursery owners and childminders?

I didn't say international . I was making an observation that whether or not this state of affairs has been orchestrated (by engineering the tax and benefits system to drive people to require childcare) or "just happened", the effect will be the same - to slowly drain the workforce of (mainly) mothers who will have to give up their job as it earns less than the childcare needed to do it.

Given the fact that some of our politicians have made no secret of their disdain for working women, I think it's not unreasonable to question the current situation from that point of view.

kitchensink 'encourage the mummies to stay at home' I think you mean 'one of the parents, we're already asking why should the burden all fall on women. I am a sahm incidentally, like I said I don't object on principle, but no one is taking me up on why I should take the lifelong hit in the jobmarket and how to address that.

I really really hate the idea of loans for childcare fees. Are private debt levels not high enough? Is it really a good thing to suggest youngsters start off their working lives saddled with £40k+ debt from university, add another £200k debt for a house - if they can afford it, ha - and then add yet more, what, £30k per child for pre-school?? When exactly are they supposed to save for retirement? Or shall we start loans for retirement funds too to be passed down to kids? This debt economy is going to crash big style soon imo.