Child Care is costing us the equivelent of a mortgage!

Dynamax

Tropez wrote: »

You wouldn't need £20k in place although obviously the more the merrier.

For the sake of argument, lets say your child care costs for Year One amount to £7,500 and you already have that in savings so a reasonable sum would be in the region of £9,000 which allows a little leeway and gives you a headstart on Year 2. With the remaining £1,500 and supplementary income from salary during Year One you can fill up an ISA, invest in a one year, fixed rate bond, pop some money in a monthly saver perhaps (First Direct have one paying 8%) and by the end of Year One you'll be well on your way to having the savings in place for Year Two, plus a bit extra because of the money you have earned in interest which too can be reinvested.

As for means-testing parents, I never said anything of the sort. What I did say though is that if you choose to bring a child into the world then you are responsible for ensuring that the child can be looked after. Moaning about what other people are doing doesn't help your situation any, does it?

Thanks for the financial advice, i'd better start saving before the next one comes along!

And actually moaning/venting my anger/opinion has actually helped me today, it's made me realise that there are others in our situation that have the same circumstances as us, and valuable advice has been sought.

Thanks to everyone for your contributions!

euronorris

onlyroz wrote: »

I agree, but I also think that the government should be doing more to help "middle income" families stay in work. It does make me sad when I hear about women who *want* to return to work but decide that it makes better financial sense to stay at home and live off benefits.

As an example, a typical new graduate, aged say 22-25, might be earning £20-25k a year - this is exactly the sort of person that we want in work, paying income tax and contributing towards the economy. However, it is people on exactly these sorts of salaries who are finding that they won't be able to afford the child-care bill if they choose to return to work after maternity leave. We should be doing everything humanly possible to encourage such people to stay in work.

The Dutch government introduced, in 2005, legislation that meant both employers and the government contribute to the cost of childcare. The employers do this by paying a health insurance premium each month, a portion of which is attributed to childcare (if needed).

I just had a look at a site and found out a little more detail. You have to pay the full cost to the nursery/childminder etc, but can then claim 33,3% of the tax back from the government each and every month. Then, depending on your circumstances and income level, you can claim more assistance from the government.

In the example they gave, for my area, they had a 2 parent working family with 2 children. Mum worked 2 days a week, and the total income was 30k per annum.

The usual rate for childcare is €6,29 per hour for the first child, and a reduced rate for any subsequent child. There were no other special circumstances.

The children were both in childcare for full days, when Mum works. Childcare costs per month, once discounts and tax refunds applied? €109,66!!!

The legislation is all about quality and affordability to ensure that as many parents continue to work as possible.

The UK could implement something similar, but right now is prob not the best time, unfortunately.

rollwithit

Why is it that every thread on here lately turns into petty tit for tat arguments? there is nothing wrong with different opinions as life would be boring if we were all the same , however there is opinions and then there is pettyness.

To the OP, me and OH agreed on middle ground, I went back to work part time so I can spend afternoons with my little boy and for ME that was the best desision, yes the childcare is expensive but my childminder is worth her weight in Gold she is fantastic with him and he has made lots of new friends.
I fully appreciate SAHMS and happen to think it's one of the hardest yet least respected jobs but so rewarding. I work to pay childcare plus a few bills and enjoy it!

I understand your vent however you just have to strap on a pair and get on with it , you made the decision that was best for you both so go with it.

Dynamax

j.e.j. wrote: »

Dynamax you need to get to the root cause of all this. FORGET the "spongers" and all the other terrible,lazy etc etc people who are making life terribly unfair on the 'good' folk such as yourself:rotfl:

Are you both happy to go out to work? If so you need to pay childcare. Childcare is expensive.

I can't do better than to quote Alvin Hall: The responsibilities of parenthood are very serious and a baby is something that must be planned and saved for.

Your posts suggest you are a very resentful person, who feels hard done-by because others (in your mind) have it easy.
Your problems are NOT the fault of other people.

The ROOT of the problem...cost of childcare, it's expensive, but it's worth it. Every child should get a nursery place regardless of how much money the parents earn. But the government only fund those on low incomes. In our situation we fall into the category of 'earn too much, you get no help'. Previously someone in this thread stated that parents should be entitled to some form of Tax Relief to cover the costs. Therefore the parents who choose to return to work can do so without loosing a significant chunk of their income to fund childcare.

fannyanna

It does make me sad when people criticise others when it comes to being a stay at home parent or a full time working parent. If you can stay at home and look after your children that’s absolutely brilliant. If you can’t and either needs to work part time of full time don’t worry – it doesn’t make you a bad parent.

Whilst childcare can be amazingly expensive in some areas (where I live I think you’re looking at an average of £1,200 for a months full-time childcare) for some people it still makes financial sense for them to work.

As for the benefits argument – there are of course those on benefits who receive help from the government. That’s a good thing. There are those who earn a good salary and are able to pay for things themselves. That’s also a good thing. I do have to agree though that it’s probably the people in the middle who get let down. The ones who earn just over the cut off point for benefits but who don’t earn enough to get by comfortably. It’s a big problem but unfortunately it’s one that is not easy to fix.

Violetta_2

My daughter is worth more to me than the roof over my head so I was happy to pay for good childcare when I had to return to work.
Op has your joint earnings been over the £45000 this past year wasn't it lower with her being on maternity leave, you don't include the 1st £100 mat pay as income when on mat leave so her income may be lower.

efrieze

fannyanna wrote: »

It does make me sad when people criticise others when it comes to being a stay at home parent or a full time working parent. If you can stay at home and look after your children that’s absolutely brilliant. If you can’t and either needs to work part time of full time don’t worry – it doesn’t make you a bad parent.

Without wanting to get too involved in the 'discussion', the above was written as if you feel sorry for those who 'have to' go back to work because it would be better to be at home with the children.

I love my children dearly. I work full-time and my little ones have always gone to nursery where they gain so much. and I don't feel like a 'bad parent' because of it. The more you earn, the more you are turning down by giving up work and staying at home. For some people, it is not about not about being able to afford to stay at home, it is about not wanting to give up so much financially by giving up work whilst believing that children gain a great deal from nursery and having a secure financial home life.

Just another view.

fannyanna

efrieze wrote: »

Without wanting to get too involved in the 'discussion', the above was written as if you feel sorry for those who 'have to' go back to work because it would be better to be at home with the children.

You're right it does come across that way but that was not my intention

erdd2

Children are expensive and it never ceases to amaze me how people expect financial assistance to raise/care for them. I hear the arguments loud and clear as to who gets what, but those who choose to have children should perhaps consider the varying costs if it is such an important issue for them. The who gets what can be argued until we are blue in the face but until change arrives, we are stuck with the system we are in and change takes more than moaning.

This is not directed at any individual or group and is written without prejudice before the snipers come out!

To OP.....good luck and best wishes as it is tough in many ways juggling career, finances and family life.

puddy

i suppose its all about choices isnt it. you either choose to go back to work for personal or financial reasons, or you choose to stay at home until pre school for personal or financial reasons. each family has to decide for itself which they prefer to do.

its not feasible for the country to provide free child care for parents whatever they earn, the cut off has to be somewhere and a joint income of 44k is a very good joint income.

we make choices which later may undo us. on 44k joint income, your mortgage (assuming fairly low interest rates of under 5%) is extremely high. it may suggest that you borrowed above your means, or pushed it to the limit anyway. so that was the choice you made then. if it wasnt so high you would have more for child care