Middle Class Crisis as Middle Classes Forced into Crisis By Nannies

ruggedtoast

And their absurd demands for pensions:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2444618/Parents-face-600-year-nannies-new-pension-rules.html

Middle-class parents are to be forced to pay hundreds of pounds a year into pensions for their nannies.
Tens of thousands of families will see the cost of their childcare rise by as much as £600 a year from 2015, it has emerged.
Under the Government scheme, they will also have to fund pension contributions for cleaners, gardeners and home helps whose pay exceeds £9,440 a year.

It's dreadful Rupert, I just can't finish this last Sudoku puzzle. It's too hard. And did you hear we have to pay the bl0ody gardener and Tabitha's nanny 600 quid a year on top of the minimum wage we are already giving them?


It is confidently predicted that children all over the Home Counties will simply cease to exist the moment that people who buy a new Land Rover every 18 months are forced to pay £2 a day extra to pay other people to look after their children for them

Tory MP Mark Field said: ‘£600 may not seem like a lot of money to some people but in hard-pressed families it could well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. They may be forced to take on full-time childcare themselves.’

Hard pressed and horrified at the thought of having to take on childcare himself


P45 on the way


Real world


World that Tory MPs inhabit

ging84

"For someone who employs a full-time nanny earning £25,000 a year, this would push up their childcare bill by £48 a month."

what part of the squeezed middle are the daily mail trying to claim have £25k a year to pay a nanny.
The average person doesn't earn £25k themselves let alone have enough to pay that to someone else

vivatifosi

If you are going to employ someone to look after the most precious of commodities - your own children - then it is only right that that person has the same rights as anyone else in employment.

Having said that, most families have au pairs rather than nannies and I don't suppose that their contracts will change as their rights are different to start with.

Jennifer_Jane

It's a very good thing. Everyone should have a pension and started at a good early age. It's another good policy from the Conservatives.

lostinrates

ging84 wrote: »

"For someone who employs a full-time nanny earning £25,000 a year, this would push up their childcare bill by £48 a month."

what part of the squeezed middle are the daily mail trying to claim have £25k a year to pay a nanny.
The average person doesn't earn £25k themselves let alone have enough to pay that to someone else

The middle is wider than 'average ' though, surely?

Not that unusual for one wage earner (typically the woman) to sacrifice whole or majority salary for child care for some years. In London, parts of the south east I'd say that would be a realistic portion of wage for someone who is a successful. In fact, thinking of what close friends earn 'out here' in the sticks in professions it would also be a portion of professional income after tax, though a really big portion.

I suppose it comes back to that question of who the 'middle' are.



All that said, its absolutely right that people's pensions should be contributed to by their employers.

geri1965_2

People might be forced to look after their own children - shock, horror!

ukcarper

lostinrates wrote: »

The middle is wider than 'average ' though, surely?

Not that unusual for one wage earner (typically the woman) to sacrifice whole or majority salary for child care for some years. In London, parts of the south east I'd say that would be a realistic portion of wage for someone who is a successful. In fact, thinking of what close friends earn 'out here' in the sticks in professions it would also be a portion of professional income after tax, though a really big portion.

I suppose it comes back to that question of who the 'middle' are.



All that said, its absolutely right that people's pensions should be contributed to by their employers.

As you say who are the middle class.

Generali

The original argument against the National Insurance Act was basically, Why should I pay stamp for my servant girls?

There are 2 problems being addressed here really: the cost of childcare is incredible and many women work for nothing or even pay to work ex-childcare costs (Mrs Generali pays about $10,000 a year to go to work) and also pension provision for many women is pitiful.

It's hard to square this circle. Certainly someone shouldn't be expected to forego a pension just because she's a nanny. Affordable childcare inevitably means low wages for childcarers.

Lower taxes would help. If you earn £40,000 you'll just about be able to afford £25,000 a year in childcare bills.

RichardD1970

Generali wrote: »

(Mrs Generali pays about $10,000 a year to go to work)

Why?

Why not stay at home with the kids and save $10,000 a year, win win situation, more money, more time with kids.

Or am I missing something?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Why?

Why not stay at home with the kids and save $10,000 a year, win win situation, more money, more time with kids.

Or am I missing something?

For many people it will be short term financial sacrifice for long term financial gain.

Once the kids are in school child care costs drop rapidly, but taking 5 years off to get that far would cripple many women's careers resulting in them being permanently 5 years behind their childless peers in career progression, and consequently permanently depress earnings potential.

dryhat

geri1965 wrote: »

People might be forced to look after their own children - shock, horror!

That's what used to happen before housing costs became too high.