How much do I need to earn to "take home" the same as my 19 year old nanny??

[knakered]

I pay my nanny £10/hr gross - 50hrs/week ...costs me grand total of £28,500 with employers nics - as she has been chatting about her upcoming holiday to Jamaica - it just occured to me how much disposable income she has (ignoring the fact that she lives at home rent free etc and I have a massive mortgage and 4 kids to feed and cloth) -- how much do I have to earn to at least take home the same as her ..ie what do I have to earn to pay her from my net salary and have the same net income as her???

If I had to pay a nanny that much it wouldnt be worth my while working.

Save us one step of the calcuation and we might do it for you - what is her net pay?

So, do I understand correctly that you want to pay your nanny and have that much again left over? If so, I think you would have to earn £87,200 gross, give or take £50. Please check for yourself though, (depends if you are married or not and under 65!!!! The web-site I used is,

Hope this works

Where did my link go??? The name of it anyway is www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk. Click on take home pay, then put in figures until you get to the right figure. Hope this helps

I make it £71,704. Your nanny's take home is £19,340 so you need a take home of £47,840 (her net of £19,340 plus gross cost to you of £28,500).

I think knackered wants to have the ssame amount of disposable income after she pays her mortgage and other essential bills (groceries, gas, electrix, telephone, car insurance, petrol, etc.)

I too have been pondering that my nanny has way more disposable income than I have -- but I think I'dprefer not to think about it because if I see the numbers I just might cry.

electrix? Did I say that? electric

That is harder, but then what about her dh? Presumably his salry shoudl be factored in too if you're looking at disposable income?

Personanly I think that it is fairly depressing to think that you could be earning £70k and still have less take home after childcare than your nanny.

Yeah, fair enough to include both incoes (if there is another income).

Depressing is right. I prefer not to run the number any further. I just set my sights on free school and find some kind of reassurance in fantasizing about one day when I get to spend my money. (you know, when the kids are 45)

What does the number of children have to do with it?

I think the money issue is very like the time issue-you don't get any for yourself now. If you were lucky, you did when you were 19, It may have seemed little, but you could do what YOU wanted with it, and didn't appreciate it. That makes it seem even worse now because you think your are SUPPOSED to have time and money for yourself by this stage. WRONG! That is the downside of being responsible for a family, I guess.

Knakered, you are so much better off than your 19-year-old nanny.

You have four wonderful children of your own.

You don't have to sleep in your office.

You have larger income than your nanny to start with, you have simply chosen to spend it in a way that will ensure that your children are properly looked after.

You are so much further ahead then her iin your life....

Appreciate this

agree, justaphase, you have put it much more positively. Companies know full well that younger people have more disposable income (and are more easily parted from same), that's why they are targeted more by ads.

It reminds me of a gravestone my dad used to quote

"I was once as you are now,
as I am now, you too shall be
Prepare yourself to follow me!"

Oh dear, that's not very cheerful either!

I think it's different for a nanny because she is an employee. She does a reasonable amount of work for x number of contracted hours. If you have 4 kids, she probably won't do much washing, organising the kids toys, etc. If you have 1 kid, she'll have time to do more cooking, cleaning, pick up some shopping, etc. So, I don't think the salary is tied to the number of kids, but your house might not be clean when you return.

For a childminder, she has all these things to do no matter how many kids, so she gets paid more when she has more kids.

I really wonder about pay. I have paid, and considered paying, over the odds to get someone a) good b) to stay. But it doesn't see to be that simple. You get flooded with applicants who don't really offer what you require, or worse say they offer but don't intend to actually do what you ask, and it takes ages to sort them out. If you do get someone good, they soon decide to leave for a multitude of reasons, and in my experience these have been non-negotiable and nothing to do with pay.

I want to say to mildmannered that some people want or need to work to retirement age, and in some jobs (like mine)leaving work even temporarily will mean that they will no longer be employable when the kids all too soon grow up. So in the short term it is of course silly to pay someone all your salary to do what you could do yourself. But over your lifetime and sometimes for society, it is silly to throw away your education experience and training.

Maybe that's not an issue for you.

oh-ho is this mutating into a SAHM vs. working debate? In the short term, I think it's important to use everything at your disposal to give your kids a great start. For some, that means direct interaction around the clock. At the other extreme, some parents choose or in some cases have to work (like, their business would fold), and they use their earnings pay other professionals to care for their kids. Lots of people end up somewhere in between, like myself, part-time working for example.

Maybe people SHOULD be able to take a proper break of several years, and go back to the same level that they left, in every job. Sounds a bit Scandinavian, doesn't it?

In the meantime, what about the kids' longer term future? Their parents might need to keep their business running, or might suddenly suffer ill health, and with no savings or insurance cover, become a burden on the same kids.

it wasn't snide.