You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
better off each month if I quit my public sector job and we both worked in Starbucks.
dat pumpkin spice latte doe
weeksy - so what most of my friends and colleagues did is stop full time work and do a little part time work at times the main wage earner wasn't working to make up the shortfall. win / win. better off overall and the child is being raised by its parents
So, maybe a bit of part time work for the lady, give up her career, pay less tax and little prospect of something better once the kids go to school.
I guess we have different definitions of "win/ win".
simply wrong. I earn £30 000 a year and take home £1600 ish
Then you either don’t earn as much as you think, or take home more than you think. Or have lots of extra deductions.
£30k should net about £1900 a month.
https://m.thesalarycalculator.co.uk
extra tax for public sector workers of 11% ( pension contributions) My take home varies depending on weekends and stuff so maybe my average is nearer 1700.
simply wrong. I earn £30 000 a year and take home £1600 ish
So, one of the "rich folk", then.
^ yup
or the man. I know two couples where it was the man who gave up full time work.So, maybe a bit of part time work for the lady, give up her career,
tjagain - Member
weeksy - so what most of my friends and colleagues did is stop full time work and do a little part time work at times the main wage earner wasn't working to make up the shortfall. win / win. better off overall and the child is being raised by its parents
Yes possibly, i can see that... Not always quite that simple though given the numbers as any part time work seemed to be minimum wage, which would have meant Mrs Weeksy would have had to do 30 hours a week anyway to make it up to the same figures, so i'd have been at work 9-5 and she'd have then gone out from 6-10 each evening and all day on one of the weekends, so we'd have only seen eachother for 1 day a week. She'd have also missed out on bed-time etc with our boy every day and not seen him for 1 day during the week.
Once you then add into the equation that in nursery they learn, both socially with other kids and actually with learning to read/write/draw etc, we felt he would have been missing out also.
She'd love a 2nd child, but the numbers don't add up currently and there's no way we could afford her to have time off to actually give birth, let alone the time off afterwards
Oh I fully acknowledge I am in the richest part of the population. ( top 20%???)
extra tax for public sector workers of 11% ( pension contributions) My take home varies depending on weekends and stuff so maybe my average is nearer 1700.
how much of that is spent on child care?
extra tax for public sector workers of 11% ( pension contributions) My take home varies depending on weekends and stuff so maybe my average is nearer 1700.
1753. So nearly 1600...
Weeksy - thats how most of my friends and colleagues do it. I know one couple that never have a day off together
or the man. I know two couples where it was the man who gave up full time work.
Nearly always the woman. And as this isn't the 1950s, I suggest that it's better if the mother is able to return to her career, if that's what she wants.
Been there - on both sides of the page.
£60+ for an 8-6 day does not seem excessive (taking into account the costs of actually providing care), its the cost of having a child as a parent these days and a fair reflection of the costs not profit margin.
What tax credits do you get?
Do you use voucher scheme?
Do you pay for snacks/lunches etc?
Can you choose another cheaper nursery?
TJ is making a valid point IMO. We *chose* to have kid, and then *chose* to have two more. One of the things we thought about was cost of keeping them. mrs_oab would have happily had another, but a combination of health issues and cost made us stop...
The cost of £1250 per month is the average wage in UK. For folk on less than that (that is over half the country folks...), despite all the government benefits, it is often *not* worth working with costs like that. Been there twice as family_OAB - and mrs_oab is a teacher....
It is now down to practical, hard headed decisions.
You could seek out a cheaper nursery, albeit one without the 'Excellent' rating. My sister did this, moved from private to a state nursery with lower rating - both she and two kids were happier in fact.
My sister in-law moved her kids nursery so they were close to her point of work - it lopped a couple of hours care cost off here and there - rather than nursery closest to home.
Mrs_OAB and i chose to not take better jobs at one point - the cost of extra childcare vs income and stress just did not work out for us. My sister (nurse) and husband (policeman) also were fortunate enough to negotiate condensed hours and reduced hours - so lopping £500 off income, but saving £500 off childcare and having a couple of extra days a week with the kids and less stress.
Mrs_OAB and I also chose to move house to a cheaper area/place at one point as well. Having been drawn back into expensive Dunblane (and it isn't exactly posh, but it is *nice*) we now realise how much we saved in cheaper places, less commute etc.
It is amazing how much children all costs. At the end of the day it is personal finances and choice time - even if we do not like or want to make that choice, or want to understand that many others have it as tough or do not have the choice that you are not wanting to face.
household income is a more accurate number to use to evaluate how affordable childcare is for the average household.
The MEDIAN UK household disposable income is £26,300 ([url= https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2016 ]according to ONS 2015/2016 figures[/url])
I make that ~£2191 a month.
You are correct though, we need to take into account the age of the earners as we're mostly interested in folk of child-bearing age and that figure could be skewed by older high-earners.
extra tax for public sector workers of 11% ( pension contributions) My take home varies depending on weekends and stuff so maybe my average is nearer 1700.
Ah OK, but as I say, I think you've got a point about the cost of childcare.
It's not really the child care cost that's the issue though. It's the cost of housing that really screws you and the fact that both parents these days feel they need to work even if they don't.
If every household with at least one child had one parent stop working
and just focus on child rearing....the Daily Mail would be very happy.
tjagain - Member
Weeksy - thats how most of my friends and colleagues do it. I know one couple that never have a day off together
That sounds a bit crap to me. That sounds like both the parents and the children are missing out massively and for me, it would put a massive downer on my whole life/marriage.
and for me, it would put a massive downer on my whole life/marriage.
Well it's not like he divorce rate in this country isn't pretty high.
Oh I think its completely crap - but for them its the only way they can manage financially. They couldn't afford nursery fees as their combined net income for full time work is under £2000 a month.
When my wife returned to work, part time, her income only just covered the nursery fees. We lived as, essentially, a single income household.
If you look at what a nursery has to provide, it isn't cheap.
I wouldn't be surprise if the "paid for" hours are being hiked to make up for the free hours being paid at less than cost. Our nursery just returned the council funding to us to make it all transparent, the daily rate wasn't affected.
extra tax for public sector workers of 11% ( pension contributions)
That's tax avoidance, not tax (and you will get a rather nice benefit from it in retirement).
Outsourcing the constant monitoring required for a small child for a proportion of the time does wonders for my sanity
Someone who can’t have kids would find that a very very bizarre and selfish attitude. 🙁
grumpy - no - I pay an extra 11% of my salary straight to the government.
Someone who can’t have kids would find that a very very bizarre and selfish attitude.
not being able to have children is a tragedy for anyone to bear but, the language used there- however stark- is a true representation of the 'logistics' of day to day running of a family. I think its how many of us look at it, as this thread illustrates, there are cold hard facts to address about child care. I don't think its a reflection of the guy's feelings towards his children.
double post
Someone who can’t have kids would find that a very very bizarre and selfish attitude
Having them 24/7 can be quite tough, they're demanding little things that's for sure... Sometimes you just need a bit of 'me' time.
grumpy - no - I pay an extra 11% of my salary straight to the government.
Your pension contributions are tax free and you get them back, together with a larger contribution from your employer. It's not a tax, it's guaranteed deferred wages, and most workers would give their eye teeth for it.
.
Interesting thread in danger of getting derailed ^
ransos - its not guaranteed and its 11% out of my pay packet every month - up from 6% for what is now a smaller benefit that can be changed at any time. It does not go into a pension pot. that 11% goes straight into government spending. Yes I will get a pension from the government that is a good deal - but the debate was about take home pay.
apolgies for the derail - its was just correcting someone about take home pay using me as an example.
Interesting thread in danger of getting derailed ^
Are the nursery owners getting a new car lease?
Sometimes you just need a bit of 'me' time.
Isn't that what the bikes for?
Isn't that what the bikes for?
Of course.... and that's my/the other guys point i guess.
Having them 24/7 can be quite tough, they're demanding little things that's for sure... Sometimes you just need a bit of 'me' time.
And if you have severe PND that me time can be (quite literally) what keeps you alive.
ransos - its not guaranteed and its 11% out of my pay packet every month - up from 6% for what is now a smaller benefit that can be changed at any time. It does not go into a pension pot. that 11% goes straight into government spending. Yes I will get a pension from the government that is a good deal - but the debate was about take home pay.apolgies for the derail - its was just correcting someone about take home pay using me as an example.
That's cobblers for several reasons, but I'm not going to derail the thread any further.
Perhaps when laying into "rich folk" in the future you might consider the mote and the beam.
🙂
funny - thats exactly how it works. 11% out of my paypacket that goes stright to government revenue. It used to be 6%. The benefits have been reduced
Its only when rich folk claim to be poor I point out their hypocrisy. I have no issue at all with my finances being public and yes I earn more than the average
But you are right - we have derailed this enough
funny - thats exactly how it works. 11% out of my paypacket that goes stright to government revenue. It used to be 6%. The benefits have been reduced
You're arguing that it's a tax when in fact it's the exact opposite - a benefit.
Its only when rich folk claim to be poor I point out their hypocrisy.
You'll have to quote the relevant posts. All I'm seeing is a discussion of child care costs, and the fact that people on some quite decent wages can struggle to afford it.
Someone who can’t have kids would find that a very very bizarre and selfish attitude.
There you go again with your ignorant presumptions of someone's situation. We actually struggled a lot to have children. Now, thanks to IVF, we have an amazing little boy. How hard it is for someone to have children (and we thought it may well be an impossibility for a long time) has no bearing on whether or not they want to spend every waking hour with them. At what point do you draw the limit? Does everything have to be about spending time with your child once you have one? Do you stop socialising without children, do you stop any hobbies that can't include them, do you never leave them with a babysitter or relations? I know that if I did those things then I would not be in a mentally good place and would be a terrible father. You seem to want to brand that as selfish, but you don't know anything about me other than what I've written here.
It's about quality of time spent with your children, not quantity.
Both my wife and I were adamant we wanted our boys to go to nursery, I think it is really important for them to learn from a young age how to be independent from their parents and to interact with a diverse bunch of kids of a similar age.
It is a lot of money, and we will struggle for the next 4-5 years or so. Most likely both my wifes and my earning potential has been scuppered and we won't be chasing promotion or moving companies any time soon. I would dearly love a third, but I want to be able to sleep at night knowing I'll be able to keep a roof over my families head.
Anyways in an hour I will go pick up no1 boy from nursery where he has been dressed as a witches bat all day, and likely loved every minute of it and tell me all about it on the way home. Worth the £50.
And TJ - you really are blinkered, if you think you don't earn enough or a really good pension is a 'tax', get off your arse, go an get another job to earn more. That is what the rests of us do if we don't like our pay or conditions, rather than keep whinging on about them to people on a discussion about childcare costs
Really? Where did I say I don't earn enough? where have I whinged? I merely pointed out that to be able to pay over £1000 a month in childcare fees means you are amongst the most well off in our society. As I am.
I just get really sick of the well off middle classes complaining of being poor.
TJ, I recall when you came back you said something along the lines of not getting into stupid arguments like last time.
You're fighting on a few fronts today, chill.
Ta nobeer. *Tugs forelock*
No worries, sometimes we all, me included, need to step back a wee bit. 8)
Most likely both my wifes and my earning potential
Both wives ? That’s just showing off now.
I just get really sick of the well off middle classes complaining of being poor.
You'll have to quote the relevant posts. All I'm seeing is a discussion of child care costs, and the fact that people on some quite decent wages can struggle to afford it.
Honestly speaking paying for childcare is sometimes not a choice. As a single parent without the help of a relative to assist with this it's inevitable you'll have to dish out some sort of childcare costs.
Whether that be with a private babysitter, which is usually at a lesser rate or nursery fees. I would say I earn an average amount, here in the UK that's about £18,000 a year before taxes, that leaves me with about £1290 a month
I don't mean to complain but if I manage to cover my chilcare fees, granted I work less than average- around 28 hours a week, then I think those on higher salaries need to evaluate what they're actually complaining about.
I live comfortably, I'm not living a life of luxury, childcare fees definitely need to be reduced here in the U.K and the U.S I'm sure but hey we've got to live with it for now.
😉
Why not just boil this down to the essentials. In the UK we have a majorly screwed up situation.
1). Property has been profiteered from so people/families with the equivalent of one income find it hard to buy
2). The majority of private rents are now also less affordable as the cost of property is higher
3). Many salaries are actually artificially low as employers have put the burden on the state to subsidise poor wages
4). Fundamental public services are minimised by lack of investment due to lack of taxation revenue - largely as high-earners and corporations avoid tax
As a result, increasingly we find families needing two incomes to get by and relying on childcare - formal and informal. Society needs to change.
What this helps to highlight is the ridiculous mess we've got into whereby folk could be forced into making a decision not to have children based solely on the costs incurred as both parents need to work full time to keep up mortgage/rent payments, especially in areas like the SE.
Oh you mean living beyond your means?
Jamj1974 amen
What this helps to highlight is the ridiculous mess we've got into whereby folk could be forced into making a decision not to have children based solely on the costs incurred as both parents need to work full time to keep up mortgage/rent payments, especially in areas like the SE.
Surely when considering whether to have kids one of the major things to consider is whether you can, you know, actually afford it? Or do you just pump them out and hope that the rest of society foots the bill? As someone who has consciously chosen not to have kids, it amazes me that people who cannot afford to even pay for their own existence decide to have kids. Poor kids! It's a choice, not a given right. My sister in law is a prime example.
Wiganer - this is exactly the reason we will have only the one child, we could afford to have another but why put ourselves in that level of financial stress
Living within your means is one thing. Being prevented from having the option of parenthood because despite working you cannot afford it - that sounds very much like a form of enslavement.
Being prevented from having the option of parenthood because despite working you cannot afford it - that sounds very much like a form of enslavement.
Except no one is prevented at all though, are they? The morality of the question is of doing so an expecting other peoples taxes to pay your bills. If you can’t afford kids, don’t have them.
This thread is about nurseries though, and some people here would do well not to forget - as others have previously mentioned - the compromise to send a child to nursery is not only based on the financials but also the social growth of the child.
Except no one is prevented at all though, are they? The morality of the question is of doing so an expecting other peoples taxes to pay your bills. If you can’t afford kids, don’t have them.
If you are a working adult - there is no moral justification for having an economic and social system where wages are low enough that having a child is not affordable.
Lifestyle choice yes, but a selfless one in many ways. If we accept that sustainable communities need kids in them ( future doctors, arse wipers etc) we should also accept that provision needs to be made for them. Fine if wealthy folk have offspring but fairer if poorer folk are supported to have them too.
csb+1
Our 3 year old is at a top local nursery at around £4.15/hr. £6 is very expensive.
But at 18 months old they would be just as happy with a childminder instead. Wouldn't you consider a childminder until 3? Getting a good reliable childminder will always be a huge asset in life with kids.
I work 3 days a week march-nov now and wife works 4, so the kids only need looked after 2 days a week. For 2 days childminder for the baby and 2 days nursery for the wee boy we pay £450/month plus I get to spend lots of time with the kids as they grow up.
Some truly selfish idiots replying on this thread by the way. It's reasonable for someone to have a moan about the cost of something going up 20%.
+1 nobeer and TJ. That was almost adult behaviour there :).
the compromise to send a child to nursery is not only based on the financials but also the social growth of the child.
What does 'social growth' mean please?
Heavily subsidised. And capped.Free or heavily subsidised childcare is the norm in Scandinavia, and its my understanding that its normal for women to return to work after maternity. Then the returnees start paying tax again.
I paid ~£300 (3300SEK, 2200 for the first child, 1100 for second) when both of our kids were in nursery. That's the monthly rate.
It's gone down since then as well. About 1400 for first and 900 for second i think.
That included food and ~40 hours a week. It was a good nursery as well. The rules about qualifications and adult/child rates are far stricter too.
And you pay tax on the money you get for parental leave (you get a load of paid days parental leave, ~450 at the equivalent of something like £20k a year) so being out of work doesn't mean you pay no tax. But it's a bit of a bodge.
Funnily enough, my total salary deductions/payments to government/services are less than they were in the UK as well. I had a step change (down) in cost of living as well........
TBH, i doubt kids would have even been on the radar if we'd remained in the UK. As it is, either of us could have walked out of work at any point in the last ~10 years and life would have pretty much carried on as normal.
. Socialisation of child, learning to interact with peers etc...What does 'social growth' mean please?
Socialisation of child, learning to interact with peers etc...
Thank you jamj1974 but isn't this done on a daily basis anyway? Or am I just behind the times cos mine have been adults for over a decade?
possibly if you take them out to places to interact with other kids on a daily basis.
There is a noticeable difference between kids who have been to nursery and those who haven't. Most starky on the first day of school.
To add some more fuel to the fire.... the type of people now choosing to not have kids, due to financial pressure, aren't the thick low income / low contributor type parent they are the type of parents that would likely have a kid that grows up to be some sort of useful role in society - you know like a doctor / engineer / IT bod.
To add some more fuel to the fire.... the type of people now choosing to not have kids, due to financial pressure, aren't the thick low income / low contributor type parent they are the type of parents that would likely have a kid that grows up to be some sort of useful role in society - you know like a doctor / engineer / IT bod
Just to piss on your fire, society needs more low income workers than it does doctors, engineers and IT bods.
It does now. What about in 25 years?
To add some more fuel to the fire.... the type of people now choosing to not have kids, due to financial pressure, aren't the thick low income / low contributor type parent....
[img] 
[/img]
😉
I think nursury is a good thing, we pay approx £40 a day... we also recently got a message that fees would be going up in Jan but it wasnt the same magnitude of increase. Ours is only in 1 day a week at the mo as we wanted her to get used to it gradually but she seems to love it (can't speak yet so who really knows!)
It's possible for kids to meet other kids without going to nursery.
It's possible for kids to meet other kids without going to nursery.
scotroutes - I get the impression from the way some users are responding that their offspring are prisoners in their own home. 😉
Of course scotroutes, but my own anecdotal experience of our two kids (who both went to nursery from 12 months old and then did a nursery year at school) was that they started their Reception years at school with a large cohort of friends and a confident understanding of school life.
In retrospect I think nursery was very good for them.
(That doesn't mean other approaches aren't just as valid)
Well - imagine having to chat with your neighbours!
I wonder if there's a Zwift add-on for those with child carriers on their bikes so they can all "interact" with one another without having to go outside?
😆
confident understanding of school life.
At 4 or 5 years old they're still children!
🙄
Chatting with your neighbours doesn't prepare your kids for school does it?
Nurseries are monitored by OFSTED and have early year curriculums to follow.
..so they can all "interact" with one another without having to go outside?
I'm confused. Are you're saying that parents sending their kids to a nursery full of other kids, for 40+ hours a week from the age of 1 (as we did) are [i]not[/i] letting their kids interact with others kids enough, but the parents that keep their kids at home with them [i]are[/i]?
How does that follow?
At 4 or 5 years old they're still children!
At 17 they are still children too.
Graham - I think what I'm confused about is this 'preparing' them for school when they're barely out of nappies!
😀
Structured play, learning to socialise with other kids, learning daily routines and acceptable behaviour, learning to sit and listen when required, confidence, basic numeracy, letters and mark making.
All good stuff.
As I said, there are others ways to teach this, but I agree with the previous posters that nursery gives kids a good start.
Ah - outsourced parenting?
🙄 Yeah if you like.
Obviously for the other 128 hours a week we just kept the kids in a box in the shed.
Structured play, learning to socialise with other kids, learning daily routines and acceptable behaviour, learning to sit and listen when required, confidence, basic numeracy, letters and mark making.
You forgot immune system development...
You forgot immune system development...
LOL yeah that too - though a few trips to some manky softplays usually have that covered too. 😆 Ahh the musty smell of a fetid ball pit.