Middle Class Crisis as Middle Classes Forced into Crisis By Nannies

RichardD1970

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

So it's a lifestyle choice, putting money before bringing up your kids yourself.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

RichardD1970 wrote: »

So it's a lifestyle choice, putting money before bringing up your kids yourself.

Or choosing not to sacrifice a career just because you have kids.

It can be done.

michaels

Generali wrote: »

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.

That was scarily close to Mr G having a CarolT moment....

dryhat wrote: »

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

Or could it be the other way around, housing costs became too high when the majority of families decided that with two incomes they could enjoy a higher material standard of living.

RichardD1970

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Or choosing not to sacrifice a career just because you have kids.

It can be done.

Then don't have kids then, if you aren't willing to make sacrifices for them. They are much more important than possible future earnings.

dryhat

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Then don't have kids then, if you aren't willing to make sacrifices for them. They are much more important than possible future earnings.

This is what happens when every area of our lives becomes financialised.

chewmylegoff

Is it possible to make the pension contributions in bitcoin?

dryhat

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Is it possible to make the pension contributions in bitcoin?

Of course.
But the tax relief part would be difficult at the moment.

But that will obviously change over the coming years as Bitcoin (or something like it) replaces traditional currencies as the preferred method of payment for everything.

The US government currently owns a substantial amount of bitcoins from its raid earlier this week

shop-to-drop

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Then don't have kids then, if you aren't willing to make sacrifices for them. They are much more important than possible future earnings.

So your saying women should chose between a career and having children. How sexist is that?

Your attitude to women needs updating.

BTW. I am a women who made the choice to sacrifice my own carreer for my husbands and for the kids.

Jennifer_Jane

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?

Hello !!!!!! - welcome to the Board.

There are a great many reasons why people don't have one parent staying home to look after the children. Hamish has mentioned the main one; the others are that the staying-home parent can lose control of any financial argument in the house because the other says that it's his/her money and therefore they have the main say in decisions - so there is a control situation in what should be an equal partnership. Don't think that this doesn't happen even these days, or even sub-consciously.

Others are boredom - some people like to be out in the employment arena, because it's more stimulating than just being on Mumsnet all day.

Also, there are usually increasing rewards with working and other perks (perhaps these are working towards your own Company pension; receiving salary increases as time goes on; receiving salary incentives such as Company shares; etc.

There will doubtless be many, many more reasons, but those plus Hamish's should do for now.

In addition, your taxes are actually contributing to society and to what you take out of society (but I understand there are conflicting reasons that people will have for staying home with young children).

RichardD1970

No, I never mention women at all, no reason a man can't look after the kids.

If you (as a couple) aren't willing to make a sacrifice for YOUR kids then what is the point of having them?

They should be YOUR (as a couple) primary concern not POSSIBLE future earnings.

BYW I am a man who has worked all my life whilst my wife stayed at home to look after our kids. I would have loved to be a stay at home dad and looked after my kids but my earning potential is higher than my wife's so she gave up work to look after them instead of me. If she could have earned more then it would have been the other way round.