Middle Class Crisis as Middle Classes Forced into Crisis By Nannies

RichardD1970

ash28 wrote: »

Not necessarily, sometimes it's necessity.....

I'm not disputing that, I am on about someone who goes to work and pays for childcare which costs £10,000 MORE a year than they earn. So giving up work would SAVE £10,000 from the overall household expenditure.

CLAPTON

RichardD1970 wrote: »

I'm not disputing that, I am on about someone who goes to work and pays for childcare which costs £10,000 MORE a year than they earn. So giving up work would SAVE £10,000 from the overall household expenditure.

They may consider this to be in their best long term interests

ash28

RichardD1970 wrote: »

I'm not disputing that, I am on about someone who goes to work and pays for childcare which costs £10,000 MORE a year than they earn. So giving up work would SAVE £10,000 from the overall household expenditure.

I guess it depends on what your long term goals are.....I have a friends whose daughter is 12 now and I know it took the majority of her salary to pay the nursery fees and if you include travelling and work related expenses it probably cost more than her salary to keep their daughter in nursery.

Their aim was, like Generali, to give their daughter a private education and when she was 5 the school fees were considerably less than the nursery fees.

Each to their own....IMHO, there is no right or wrong.....I'm sure her daughter, along with Generali's children will turn out to be well educated, well mannered, well adjusted members of society.

I would rather a household of 2 working parents, who are seen by the children to be actively participating in the workforce and society than one none working parent.

It's not black and white.

michaels

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

.... 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 .....

I'm doing something wrong, I do all the earning and have no say in any of the spending, I thought that was what married means?

Loughton_Monkey

michaels wrote: »

I'm doing something wrong, I do all the earning and have no say in any of the spending, I thought that was what married means?

Well over 40 years ago, I promised ".. and with all my worldly goods I thee endow."

Mrs LM promised "... to love, honour and obey, till death us do part..."

Now at the time of making these promises, all my worldly goods amounted to about £40. She had all that. So that's my promise kept.

Now it's not my fault that her small print was 'ongoing'. So if I don't agree with what she wants, she can't have it. Actually, I have 'endowed' Mrs LM with huge swathes of money, mainly for tax reasons. But don't worry, I have not endowed her with any of the details or passwords of the accounts in question, so my money is safe.

Marriage is a fine institution. We should get tax relief for it!

Generali

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Well over 40 years ago, I promised ".. and with all my worldly goods I thee endow."

Mrs LM promised "... to love, honour and obey, till death us do part..."

Now at the time of making these promises, all my worldly goods amounted to about £40. She had all that. So that's my promise kept.

Now it's not my fault that her small print was 'ongoing'. So if I don't agree with what she wants, she can't have it. Actually, I have 'endowed' Mrs LM with huge swathes of money, mainly for tax reasons. But don't worry, I have not endowed her with any of the details or passwords of the accounts in question, so my money is safe.

Marriage is a fine institution. We should get tax relief for it!

In The Hobbit book and films there is a golden ring. The longer a person has that gold ring the more tired and worn down they get.

I'm thinking of changing my name to Golum.

onlyroz

I would have thought that a family abl to pay a nanny £25k a year would also be able to pay the pension contributions as well. If not then there are cheaper forms of childcare. Round our way a full time nursery place is £12k a year and childminders are about £4-4.50 an hour.

As for whether a woman should dare to aspire to a career - my view is that working parents are far better role models to their children than non-working ones and as far as the economy goes the more tax payers the better.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's not, really.

If you don't have kids it's difficult to understand. I don't mean this in a derogatory way, I was the same.

Once you have children, for most, their whole attitude changes. What once seemed important now seems less so. You now have something far more important than you can ever have imagined it to be.

And that is why kids come before max earnings, as I say, for most.

Kids will come before max earnings for most but it looks like a backhanded way of saying you can either earn decent money or be a good parent. If anyone thinks they're having to sacrifice a decent income to be a good parent they're wrong. If there's a link between being a good parent and earnings how come most parents done for child neglect live on benefits?

When my kids were your son's age I worked all hours (being skint meant we didn't have the luxury of choice). Thinking back I could have turned down overtime but eventually the offers of extra hours would have disappeared, the bonuses would have fallen and the rate of career progression would have slowed - and with those things goes the money - things were tight anyway so there would have been more stress and all the negatives that go with being less well off. Right or wrong a career isn't like a light-switch that you can just turn off and on.

The kids have turned out more than just fine and I'm in a position where I should be able to help them out in ways that I would never dreamt of.

I missed out on time with my kids because of work. That's the 'sacrifice' I made because I thought it was the best thing for the family - not because I wanted to 'max out' my income. To be honest sacrifice isn't the right word anyway - if you think you're doing the right thing it's not a sacrifice at all.

chucknorris

wotsthat wrote: »

I missed out on time with my kids because of work. That's the 'sacrifice' I made because I thought it was the best thing for the family - not because I wanted to 'max out' my income. To be honest sacrifice isn't the right word anyway - if you think you're doing the right thing it's not a sacrifice at all.

That's' exactly what I thought, but as we don't have children it wasn't my place to say it.

ruggedtoast

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Well over 40 years ago, I promised ".. and with all my worldly goods I thee endow."

Mrs LM promised "... to love, honour and obey, till death us do part..."

Now at the time of making these promises, all my worldly goods amounted to about £40. She had all that. So that's my promise kept.

Now it's not my fault that her small print was 'ongoing'. So if I don't agree with what she wants, she can't have it. Actually, I have 'endowed' Mrs LM with huge swathes of money, mainly for tax reasons. But don't worry, I have not endowed her with any of the details or passwords of the accounts in question, so my money is safe.

Marriage is a fine institution. We should get tax relief for it!

What an utterly depressing portrayal of a marriage.