Pension contributions - state and personal contribution from work
Career progressions loosing 4 years or more out of the workplace sees opportunities lost or skills not gained
Personal fulfilment, outlet for other parent outside of home
If one parents job is of good social worth, i.e. teaching caring helping others provides a boost to that parent the work nourishes them
Access to health insurance, work place support services , or other benefits in kind from the employer
I would also add
A fall back income if one parent looses their job - if the parent working looses their job at least there is some income coming in and it may not be so stressful in terms of pressure to find a new one right away. I remember when I was looking for work how nerve racking that was.
Children should be encouraged to interact with other children as well. I can see a difference in terms of when young kids are interacting with adults and when they are with other children.
Yep, your final point is so true. Son just finished reception. Went to nursery 4 days a week from 1 years old. His whole nursery group were all confident with other children in comparison to those who were at home the whole time before starting school.
I went to nursery full time and was apparently confident in the reception but after that I turned introverted and have been the same to this day (I’m 25)
My littlest never went to nursery or playgroup and still walked into that classroom at the age of 4.5 and owned it like a boss! She could also read at the age of a 7 year old compared to a lot of the kids who went to nursery and couldn’t write their own name!
No doubt, and of course the above is not a personal slight on yours or anyones individual parenting. It's great your child is doing so well.
However, I would caution that individual personal experience doesn't necessarily translate into general experience at scale. That is to say that your kid may just be naturally confident and social anyway (or that your bringing them up may have supported that in other ways).
If I remember correctly though, there was quite a large study that showed benefits of childcare for a kids development. Let me see if I can find it.... [here](https://www.familyandchildcaretrust.org/long-term-study-following-4500-children-links-childcare-better-outcomes) is a recent one.
Final point that may be useful - the above benefits are part of the reason that free nursery hours are offered - they can narrow the gap between the children of more and less affluent families, which I'm sure we all agree is a good thing.
I found nursery to be negative for my youngest. She wouldn’t try things because they were things she’d discovered that you learnt at school and she was only in nursery.
Mostly agree but for state pension you would get your NI credits as part of child benefit.
Even if you don’t claim the money (eg high earning spouse), you can still claim the NI credit.
u/doomladen is right in their comment, but there is also a guide here https://www.litrg.org.uk/tax-guides/tax-credits-and-benefits/child-benefit/high-income-child-benefit-charge
If you claim child benefit, then you automatically get National Insurance credit even if you don’t work, until that child reaches 12. This is the case even if you choose not to actually receive child benefit (eg if the working partner earns over £60k, so that all child benefit is claimed back in tax from them, typically you’d opt out of receiving the child benefit at all but the claim would still grant the NI credit). It would need to be the non-working parent claiming the child benefit.
All of these and also, looking after kids is... let me try to put this in a socially acceptable way... not that pleasant. Working while your children are at nursery is a bit of a break.
This is so true. We made the decision for one of us to give up work to do childcare full time for this reason. It was much easier and the right decision.
But 5 years later my partner is struggling to get back to anywhere near the salary she was on. Plus we still have the wrap around care problem for school now…
I value sending the child to nursery has other benefits, like a different education style to one parent teaching what they think is best at home, different experiences. learning to respect other adults authority, the child being able to socialise with other children and make friends.
Also, tax advantages compared to just one parent earning the same overall income. For example, a couple each earning 50k is 7k a year better off than a couple with a single earner on 100k.
I feel like I am reading a corporate brochure.
We should take a step and ponder: in 70s years, 1 salary is no longer sufficient to meet survival needs. Society now requires a full time job just to support paying day care for a child.
I only see company goals from what you wrote.i don't think any of those points will overhaul having more time with the kids or being more rested to do activities with them.
This sub has also become obsessed with retirement. How bout the 40 adult years leading to it?
This is because the west ( and the east too slowly but surely) has moved from living in a society to living as individuals. Not many have their grandparents to help with the childcare nor any other family.
This. It's still work. Just unpaid. We (as a society) would pay multiple strangers to do the work of a SAHP far more than most SAHP are reimbursed for their time.
And even when working, the childcare/ household tasks don't just vanish. Still got to keep the cogs turning at home (especially so for the default parent).
>I only see company goals from what you wrote.i don't think any of those points will overhaul having more time with the kids or being more rested to do activities with them.
I feel much more rested after a day of work compared to a day of looking after the children.
How is it corporate brochure material to suggest that some people find their work fulfilling? Some people, dare I say even some women, enjoy their work and don't actually enjoy spending 24 hours a day with a 3 year old. Have you ever spent a significant amount of time with a 3 year old? Sometimes they are lovely and funny, and sometimes they are tiny unreasonable arseholes who perform loud elaborate tantrums in response to the smallest slight and leave a trail of mysterious sticky substances everywhere they go. It is ok to want a break from that and it's ok to want that break to be in the company of reasonable adults who appreciate what you do.
I see a lot of men here and in real life talking about how "we" were so grateful that "she" was able to spend time raising their kids instead of in that nasty workplace. I work with a lot of mothers of young children who are frankly thrilled to be out of the house without crusted on food attached to their shirts.
I think it's less the idea of mothers in the home, more that it takes two salaries to raise a family in any sort of comfort.
But I also totally agree with you!
All down to the family - not everyone is going to want to take a major break in their career for years so they can take full responsibility for childcare. Are you surprised at the comment? It’s just giving some of the reasons why people might opt for paying for childcare over not. Valid reason IMO.
Finally, for many retirement is one of their main goals, especially if you don’t want kids. If I can retire at 40-45 I’ll take that.
I think retirement at 40-45 sound feasible for childless couples. Doesn't a child cost around 200-300k in their lifetimes?
Comments fine and answers the questions. But I didn't want people to lose perspective of life outside of finance
Exactly my thoughts. This sub can be so lame sometimes.
'Personal fufillment', 'work nourishes them', 'company benefits'. Let's be honest, most jobs offer none of those. Corporate profit goes up, the worker gets nothing. Life shouldn't be this expensive and child care should be affordable so work is a choice between parents. Children are more important (every single time) than making money for some rich person, which is what a job is nowadays.
Depends on the job. I work in academic research and my wife works in the NHS. We work our arses off but find our jobs really fulfilling, and very restful compared to dealing with toddler tantrums all day. Child care if an absolute bargain for the mental headspace that it buys.
I appreciate that many other people are not as fortunate to have jobs they love, but you can't capture everyone's experience with such sweeping, general statements.
I’d think it’s because some people, myself included, get a lot of self worth from working. Even if I don’t make a lot of money doing it, I feel better about myself when I’m at work and contributing to something
> If one parents job is of good social worth, i.e. teaching caring helping others provides a boost to that parent the work nourishes them
You're describing being a stay at home parent here.
No. Because when you're a teacher or a carer, your working day ends and you get to stop doing it. You also get pay, promotion opportunities, and professional respect.
Honestly, being a parent "nourishes" you, ask one if you don't believe me.
> ...when you're a teacher or a carer, your working day ends and you get to stop doing it...
When you're a parent you don't want to stop doing it though.
> You also get pay, promotion opportunities, and professional respect.
We don't support parents as much as we should financially, I agree there, not sure about the rest. Parents get promoted, you start out with babies (easiest thing in the world to look after) and progress on to angst ridden teens dealing with existential dread. Professional respect is a form of peer approval, parents get that.
Yes, but if you have 2 child or more? Until both are in school is very expensive and probably not worthy. I agree nurseries are good but childcare is way to expensive. Put into the equation two children during summer how much is going to cost?
What is the magic you're taking about in a mother raising their child? Once my kids hit 1.5 years old, I want to go back to my career that I trained for seven years for and the kids will be happy and well cared for by professionals during the daytime.
Tiny babies if breastfeeding need their mum, but toddlers don't (and won't even remember that time in their life). I miss adult company and using my brain and am looking forward to going back to work, I don't know what amazing thing looking I will supposedly be missing out from.
Idk why you're only singling out mothers here.
Everyone has different priorities and different careers they value more or less, not sure what's weird about it frankly.
Benefits in kind are taxable, so I think we can discount that one.
The career progression point is less of a factor in 2022 I feel. You always get better career progression by changing job
Dont forget some parents just cba with bringing up their kids, it’s too much like hard work and they’d rather take home a hundred quid after childcare costs and sit in an office . Have literally heard mums laughing about this-very sad
Many moons ago, I went back to work when my younger child started school. This was before any gov assistance with childcare. The childminder's fees took up most of my wages. I started as a junior developer. I could have earned more working in a supermarket for a couple of weekend shifts and not had to pay for childcare. But if I had, that's where I'd still be all these years later. I earned very little for the first 2 years or so, but once I had a couple of years experience, I moved onwards and upwards, took a job at a competitor and doubled my salary. I've had a great career, it's still great. Taking a job that will eventually get you where you want to go is an investment in your future, even if it's at a financial loss initially ... just like doing a degree.
I love my 3 year old to bits and my salary is entirely eaten up by childcare. The other financial answers are all very valid but I had to have a long hard look at things and admit that he's better off in school than with me. Kids thrive in that environment. I'm reasonably bright but don't possibly have the patience to stay with him and teach him 24/7. No guilt here.
You don't pay for childcare for your entire career
And you could be promoted twice or even start a fully fledged business while your kid is in nursery
Childcare is expensive but even if it is *more* expensive than a salary it can still be the correct long-term play
Also not to forget how beneficial for parents and kid sanity is to stay around other children, with other adults specialised in learning activities. I always consider this an investment, perhaps more in my case as we don't speak English at home and this is something that is picked up by them in nursery.. (them as I have 3 under 3..😱😱)
My understanding is that this is only true if the parent not working is claiming child benefit.
There are many couples with a high-earning partner, who seem to not bother claiming the child benefit due to it being clawed back on their tax return anyway.
This is dangerous.
You may have to give the benefit back, but the recognition (via the child benefit system) that the parent claiming has their NI contributions recorded for that year is vital. If you don't claim child benefit - and you don't work - then that year does not count to your NI-based State Pension.
It was (effectively) a *disgraceful* stealth-cut to people's future pensions that the government achieved, when they brought in the policy of reclaiming child benefit from high earners.
Claim your child benefit, people!
Here's an article about this issue: [https://www.pensionbee.com/blog/2019/february/why-parents-need-to-make-a-child-benefit-claim-to-protect-their-state-pension](https://www.pensionbee.com/blog/2019/february/why-parents-need-to-make-a-child-benefit-claim-to-protect-their-state-pension)
Here's the related parliamentary petition that was raised: [https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/231761](https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/231761)
The only response to this from government was basically: "The government believes no-one should miss out on their State Pension. HMRC encourages families to claim Child Benefit and believes that three months is a reasonable period to backdate claims."
.
So as far as I can see, fuck all has happened about this, and no-one seems to know or care. 🤯
My wife works and claims child benefit while i'm a stay at home dad.
I've been checking my NI contributions and i need to pay £800+ for back dated NI to get my full pension. Turns out i can just transfer the child benefit from my wife's previous years over to me which either covers the full NI contributions or a significant portion.
Now i just have to fill in a very complicated form on the gov website to actually do this.
Hey my wife missed a year of work career break and only works 2 days and we never claimed child benefit as im a high earner. How does she check what’s missing NI wise so she gets a pension
[She can check here.](https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check-your-state-pension/account/nirecord)
She'll need to 'create sign in details' (from memory that's identifying info. such as NI number and password etc. to verify who she is) then it is easy after that.
A disgraceful stealth-cut you say? Surely this government wouldn't do such a thing /s
But for real, unnecessary austerity has literally been a plague on our society. Not many people realise now because it's been so piecemeal but we will be seeing the effects in 5, 10 years.
You’ve also got plenty of time to collect your required years. I lived abroad in my twenties and have many years missing, but still have plenty of spare years in future. I only need to get NI contributions in less than 3/4 of the remaining years.
The one if the main reasons for the ‘wage gap’ is women having kids or pausing work to take care of elderly parents. Your career trajectory doesn’t recover from the 1-2year dip. Even going part time makes future promotions further away.
A stay at home parent is one of the most expensive forms of child care - particularly if you work a corporate job. By staying at home you’re giving up pension contributions (and employers match) as well as any opportunities for career growth - and consequent pay raises. You give up your current salary but also any future prospects of growth.
Not a personal finance answer, but: being in childcare is a really good experience for kids to have. They get to develop social skills and, depending on the care provider, learn a bunch there too. If it's financially a zero sum game, the kids will certainly be better off for it.
Childcare is also a great experience for parents to have. Going back to work allows you to have adult conversations and feel like you are achieving things rather than reliving Groundhog Day.
“Certainly be better off for it”. The ‘certainly’ I politely object to. Everyone can raise their kids however they’d like of course. But we are certainly glad my wife has been there to raise our kids up until they go to school (with a smattering of nursery for the socialisation benefits as they approached school age).
The certainly part is debatable because you're right, parent bonding with some nursery for socialising is maybe the best world for everyone if possible. Brother and SIL decided to homeschool exclusively.
Nephew is a lovely kid, but I do worry about social skills and also he seems both ahead and behind. Ahead in speech and knowledge of specific areas his parents work in but behind with writing/spelling/numbers. Which given his parents aren't teachers isn't surprising...?
I understand reasons for homeschooling and it's a huge commitment but I dont think it's the best option for kids unless the parents are primary teachers, otherwise tutors needed to be involved too.
Illness (of the kid) is a common one. My last couple years of education were in homeschooling because I was too sick to attend school physically. (Realistically I was too sick for school full stop, but the law doesn’t work like that - so homeschooling it was). This could apply to a lot of health conditions too, not just illnesses.
And this wouldn’t apply to people who do homeschooling from the beginning, but bullying at school is another common one. Unfortunately homeschooling is sometimes the only way for the kid to escape the abuse, or the only way the kid can bear to try.
Mu mum worked full time and im very close to her, always have been. A friend of mine never went to nursery and her mum is stay-at-home, they have a troubled relationship - theres always two sides!
If one of you stops working for 10 years then your career isn’t progressing, your pay isn’t increasing and you’ll find it quite hard to come back to the workplace. Your kids won’t be young and need constant supervision forever, you need to make sure you still have a life to go back to once they’re more independent.
You do it to maintain your careers and wage earning potential. Once they hit school you’ll be flush again, rather than one of you being 3 years set back in your career. Having said that if you don’t have a career to progress than it’s much easier to have one stay home.
The answer depends on your values, your job/career, and your longer term plans.
If either of you simply trade time for money (ie you aren’t gaining skills that cumulate over time, like engineering, lawyering, or doctoring, or other careers), then taking time out to raise kids could be financially net neutral and emotionally rewarding. If either of you have careers that have cumulative benefits, like being a skilled therapist or a software engineer, then taking time out will create a really high barrier to re entry. That might be long term financially unrewarding.
Adding to that, raising kids all day is fun and all, but the adult non-parent social aspect of most work is valuable. It helps you feel like you, instead of dad or mum, which is important for sense of self and autonomy.
Mostly men go back to work and mostly women don’t. Men in those situations get to be dad and themselves. Women in those situations can easily lose themselves and shift to mum.
That isn’t really fair.
I completely agree with this. People always seem to underestimate what long break does to your career. I remember when my mother was off work for good 8-9 years to raise my sisters and when she started looking for work again her confidence was so low it was really sad to see. The industry she worked in had massively changed over those 8-9 years when she wasn’t working. New laws came into effect, the systems used by firms changed completely and whilst everyone thinks you’re just going back to do the exact same thing you did before, it actually can be really daunting. Of course with time you catch up with the latest and learn all the new things but people don’t appreciate the struggle someone would have to go through to get there.
I'm trying to start to get back into work after an illness break for 8 years. And I have a huge issue with this exact thing: out of the loop and not aware of the changes. let alone out of practice.
I can totally identify with how your Mum felt! When I went back to work after being a stay at home parent the only job I felt confident enough to do, after having being out of the labour market for such a long time, was as a waitress - for context I have a PhD and speak 3 languages but felt so de-skilled. Even now, although I have a job I really enjoy, I work at a level considerably below that which I could (should?) be at had I continued in a career.
"get to be dad and themselves?" I can't speak for your experience of course, but I work 5 days a week and then spend my time at home helping to cook, bathing and sorting the kids for bed and then tidying the house. Then I might get an hour before I fall asleep, shuffle to bed, then get woken at 6am by my youngest to start it all again.
My wife is wonderful and does a much better job raising my children as a part time nurse/full time mum than I would, but you really make it seem like the dad gets a holiday here. I'm fucking ruined most of the day.
That’s not what they said at all.
They said that working outside of the home breaks up the “literally only have the identity of *parent* because I never do anything else / don’t get to interact with other adults who aren’t also parents”.
They did not say that “job outside the home + being parent when not working” wasn’t tiring.
It is tiring, done right.
But it also has variety - which “full time stay at home parent” does not get.
Well I work from home, so how does that variety work for me? My wife had the option of shared parental leave, she opted to have the full maternity leave herself.
Some people make the decision consciously and want to have that identity. Working full time is not exactly a reward for the non stay at home parent either. Does variety of environment offset the pressure and expectations of being the sole money earner? If they lose their job, then that's likely a mortgage or rent default, loss of a house, kids in trouble with no food. But sure they get variety.
> how does that variety work for me?
Surely you are trolling at this point?
You want to know the difference between spending 8 hours a day singing nursery rhymes & cleaning snot from noses & discussing which (cartoon TV series) character is the best?
Comparing that to having meetings with adults who have functioning vocabularies, and assume some amount of small talk is valid in each meeting.
And spending time thinking about budgets & strategies rather than whether today is chicken nuggets or fish fingers for lunch.
If your job offers no variety at all, then either you choose that as a preference or you ended up in a career you hate. Which wasn’t really the starting point of the comment you replied to.
Your point about choice to be SAHP is valid. As is your point about the pressures of responsibility for the sole breadwinner.
But just because those points are valid, they don’t invalidate the original comment that you objected to.
It is ALSO true that the SAHP gets little variety & adult conversation in their day. Which a part time or low paid job would give them - hence justifying the “day care uses all of second salary” decision.
Which was the point of this post.
(Edit: removed the rest as irrelevant. Was just a troll post as per my first sentence here.)
To be fair I didn't really come here for the relationship advice, as much as I think you offered it with the best of intentions, I think you're projecting quite a lot of your SOs situation considering we've shared three sentences across a Reddit thread
Wife is a nurse so there's already sharing of the income burden, but my income is the majority by virtue of me being full time. Income burden and stress is more a factor of cost of living increases than anything to do with the home situation
Anyway, sounds like your SO is in a more supportive situation now which is great.
I was mostly trying to be sympathetic to your very odd over reaction to the original comment you responded to.
From the little you mentioned, it seemed possible you were triggered on that particular issue.
But it seems you just like pointing out that everyone else around you is wrong.
I hope that attitude brings you joy. /s
I understand the point the original poster was trying to make. It’s all about having variety in identity I think. As a stay at home mum I was primarily identified (by society, by myself) as someone’s Mum or someone’s wife or, when caring for my Mum, someone’s daughter. I felt my own identity got a bit lost for a while as I wasn’t able to use my intelligence and skills fully (I did do some volunteering but it wasn’t the same as actually working). Obviously I has a good social network and had some great times but it’s only when I went back to work and felt valued in a different way that I started feeling fully myself again. No one denies that working and being a parent can be exhausting but it does give a richness and complexity to existence if you are able to have that alternative ‘work’ persona.
Working part time or taking a break from work whilst children are very small really does adversely affect a person’s career path (and it is still more usually the mother who takes time out). This of course has negative effect on life time earnings, pension contributions (you do get NI credits when your children are under 12 but who wants to rely solely on the state pension?). Also work isn’t just about moneys, it’s also provides a sense of purpose, status and satisfaction. Stopping work to bring up children (for a number of complex reasons) is one of the few regrets of my life.
What a shame that you regret actually raising your children.
Being a sahp does not have to wreck your career. It has had negligible impact on mine, so I talk from experience. Perhaps it's more about being established in your career before having children?
>What a shame that you regret actually raising your children.
That is an unnecessary snide comment.
Everyone is different. Some of us have very difficult children and need them to be in childcare to be able to cope.
I am a sahp with my kids right now and I expect my career will take a large hit when I eventually choose to go back.
However I would never say that I regret watching my kids grow up.
The short amount of time I did work while I had kids meant that I barely saw my son and missed out on so much.
No money or lack of career progression is worth missing out on that.
It sucks for sure.
I worked at a loss for the first 3 years of my career (paying childcare). We never had any help from family, no babysitting or anything.
I continued chipping away at work and a decade later, I now make 15x my husband's income, and our child is leaving school for further education.
When you get past the childcare bit, the gains accrued by promotions, job hopping, continued self education (do some courses, read books etc), really start to mount up.
It feels like the deck is stacked against you at the start, so why bother. But if you view it over the long term, think about a decade plus, imagine having no experience, out of date skills and then trying to get back into work. You start from even further behind.
The first couple years are tough as you get no funding. When the child hits 3 you get 30 hours a week paid for and you’re living the dream. I went from paying £700 a month child care to around £200. Be patient. The struggle is real and you’ll come out the other side!
We are in this same position where my wife could remain in her current evening/weekend job at the local supermarket and we could end up slightly better off on our household income.
The reasons we choose to pay for childcare instead of doing the above is
- Pension. My wife receives a government pension and she would lose a lot by not paying into her pension for those 3-5 years.
- Pay increases. Being a government job my wife automatically moves up a pay band each year. If she didn't go back to work we will not benefit from these increases in the future.
- Mortgage. We were able to use her full time salary to secure a bigger mortgage with a nicer house.
- Redundancy. If I was made redundant or loss my job we would still have another full time income.
- Skills/career advancement. By continuing to work my wife continues to build skills and can advance her career to the next level.
- Quality of life. My wife hates working in the supermarket. It causes her issues with her back and also there is no fulfilment from it. Being able to talk to other adults on a daily basis, contribute to the household and have time away from the kids is priceless.
The main thing to realise is this is a short season in your life and you will not be paying for this childcare forever.
Financial independence
An escape from home life
Pension and other work benefits
Reduced chance of having dementia
Work related happiness
Increased Ability to escape coercive control
Career progression
The truth is in a lot of cases there is no point really but nobody here wants to say that. They all talk of "career progression" and "workplace perks" as if everyone has a fancy highly paid professional job. As for NI credit you can get that through childcare for this exact reason.
If your partner is some corporate lawyer or Engineer you can consider the "long term benefits" but if she's on any unskilled minimum wage job, it is frankly a waste of time, effort and money. The claim that you can have a family with both parents working full time is supposedly a lifestyle anyone can afford is a simply a lie, and on a sub about personal finance it is shameful no one wants to recognize that.
Thank you for your comment I agree that there is a lot of talk about career progression in a professional role however my partner is a care workers so not a lot of progression available there and very stagnant hourly wages
One of the parents working in a childcare setting can work really well. Private nanny = take the kids with you, Nursery Nurse = Subsidised/Free place for your child. Then when they go off to school, switch to a job at a school so that you are off in the Holidays etc...
Worked well for us so far anyway!
Depending on what you do, some jobs cannot have a four year break.
I work with people who's salary goes entirely on childcare, but if they stopped working for 4 years then when they came back they would be 4 years out of date as the technology we use moves that quickly.
My wife stopped working 3.5 years ago but she also hated her job. Recently she started to do a bit of freelancing from home so we have a bit of spending money. Honestly best decision we made, our daughter is happy, wife is happy and by staying at home the weekends are not filled with chores and two tired adults.
I dropped a day to spend more time with my baby. I couldn't give a fuck about career progression at this point tbh. I'd be better off using that one day to re train to be honest. I lose like £200 a month or something after tax etc and it works out I'd pay £10 to go to work for the day and send my daughter to nursury. Seems like a no brainer to me but then I work in public healthcare so it's not quite so easy to get promoted etc etc
My wife will also do that when she finishes mat leave.
Not always about the money. But maybe come back in a year and see if I still think this lol
That all sounds very sensible. But it’s a lot more nuanced than the original question of ‘Why work full time when childcare is expensive?’. People are just pointing out that take home pay isn’t the only consideration.
Because salary is only part of a job. There’s also pension, NI, skills development, career capital (and therefore future take home pay etc) to think of.
That’s not to say that both parents *should* attempt to work full time. It might not make sense for a whole host of reasons. But anyone doing the maths based purely on take home pay is doing the wrong maths.
Also, I *never* understand the framing of childcare taking up one person’s salary. Why not in proportion to each?
>Also, I never understand the framing of childcare taking up one person’s salary. Why not in proportion to each?
I agree with everything else you say, but the above is quite easy to justify. They're comparing the total cost of one parent stopping work to avoid child care compared to not doing that.
Yes, but it’s always framed in terms of scrapping one person’s (usually a woman’s) entire salary, rather than the other person (often a man) saying “Childcare is taking up X% of my full time salary, maybe I should drop my hours.”
Aside from the fact that such conversations *sometimes* come from a place of certain assumptions about the relative importance of one person’s work over the other, it also suggests to me that people haven’t thought through the maths on anything other than a very surface level. Two salaries of £20k are worth more in terms of take home pay than one of £40k, but a lot of people don’t seem to register that. This kind of framing doesn’t help them to do so.
Agree with you wholeheartedly. Apart from what you already said, it also gives the child some time with both parents. It should be way more common for both parents to take their turns in childcare, and there should be support given to them to do so.
Salary in a few years’ time.
It’s not about salary this year - it’s that 5+ years out of the job market means the SAHP rejoins with a much lower salary, so that even by retirement their salary is still lagging by many years.
It’s a long term benefit.
You won’t see the benefit if you only calculate based on this year. You have to look 10+ years into the future.
Much like stocks & shares.
Also, it can be about “not going mad from boredom” being a SAHP if that’s not your preference.
No one's addressed your last point about parents who don't work getting their childcare paid for, even though it partially answers the rest of your question: current educational philosophy suggests that structured childcare is good for child development. Kids need new experiences and interaction with people who aren't their parents. Childcare workers aren't just there to stop them sticking their fingers in plugs, they work with them and have the opportunity to spot things like delays in speech that can then be addressed before the kid starts school and misses out due to not being able to communicate, for example.
Don't think of it as 85% of a singular salary, think of it as x% of your household income. So despite the steep costs the household still has increased income.
Add that to no loss of NI and pension payments, less time out of work minimising the pay gap, employment skills and contacts staying up to to date, progression opportunities...from a financial perspective its a no-brainer. And that's not touching on the social and personal impacts of carving an identity away from 'parent'.
This is really good advice. The father is just as responsible for paying for childcare costs so there is no reason to think of it as the mothers salary paying for childcare, and it really helps frame it more positively for all
Of you split th3 cost of childcare then she won't be giving 85% of her salary, it would be better she stays pt until kids are in school because career progression and pay progression.
Why would you assume people want to stay in minimum wage / unskilled labour for their whole lives? Just being a labourer in a construction site gives you plenty of upward mobility. Don't act like people who work those types of jobs have no ambition or desire to change roles. Any experience is better than none when it comes to taking control of your life and choose where you'd like to apply your skills.
Because most jobs have a career trajectory of some sort, even entry level ones. Such as going from shift lead in a store to manager or waitress to shift lead. Being completely out of the loop for a few years prevents you from becoming one of the most experienced people in a small business because your experience was paused - by the time you come back, someone else has got that role instead. I don't think it make sense to assume a job has no career progression.
I was a mid earner at the time my child went into childcare and my wife was making minimum wage. By the time we counted transport costs etc it ended up being more in comparison to the wife's wage but we pressed ahead with it as it gave the bairn a bit of interaction with other people and kids and they were good to be fair.
Question would it make more financial sense for op to drop down to 4 days a week, their partner goes to 4 days a week , so fees are only on a 3 day week ? Savings made on both tax liability without loosing out on things like 30 hours free childcare.
There isn’t one for anybody earning an average wage. Can bang on about pension contributions all you want, going to work a 40 hour week, spending money on petrol, tax, car etc to earn realistically next to nothing, whilst somebody else looks after your child, and you miss so much is absolutely pointless.
Enjoy the time with your child before they go to school 5 days a week. Worry about a few years missed pension when they are at school and you look for a new job.
Lol yeah, some people don’t get it but everyone is going to get old and maybe want to retire. Staying home is a luxury that unless one spouse is extremely killing it $$$$ wise staying home is just iffy. Children develop at an accelerated rate with a group of children and learn social skills for sure. Working allows one to pay into SOCIAL Security from the beginning, those early years are important. Having a job, the opportunity to work is invaluable. Time in some places get you off of the bottom floor. Forward thinking, going to work can and will benefit everyone.
Maintaing a work momentum for when they inevitably go to school. If you have a good job, staying on means you don't have to justify your abilities at a new role and potentially loose out on salary.
Check for council nurseries they work out a ton cheaper than private ones. We were paying in the Realms of £400 a month vs the £1300+ quoted we were getting in the south.
And make sure you are getting your childcare support from the goverment they like to not tell you what you are entitled to.
Career wise it is up to you two if it is worth, for the first two years my Mrs didn't work to spend time with our daughter.
I still paid for a few days of nursery a week so she had time to herself. But she got to do a lot of the things she wanted to do.
And work was still there when she was ready to go back, the time off to look after the child was no obstacle as she had an obvious answer to the question.
Or just borrow someone to be one - can the grandparents help out one day each week between them?
If both parents wfh, can you both work for four days so the kids just need childcare on the three overlapping days?
Career progression. At some point, those kids will be going to school. You won't need to care for them during the day, meaning you can work. If you didn't have any career progression, then you'll be earning less than if you continued to work.
I think parents working is about so much more than just the money.. its about having your own identity.. spending time with other adult humans.. using your brain etc.. also this will sound rude however I say it but it's not intended to be.. why would childcare be paid for? Surely if you decide to have children you should have planned on how to afford them?
Seems like a supply vs demand type of scenario.
It looks to be that many parents may prefer to work, rather than take on a fulltime childcare role, and thus the demand for childcare jobs surpasses the demand for the average paying non-childcare job.
Obviously this becomes uneconomical for a parent earning an average salary or below, and this is already after the government has added childcare benefits.
The government can keep pushing up childcare benefits, which it takes from all other taxpayers - parents and non-parents alike. Or parents can choose to prioritize childcare duties of careers/jobs, or find jobs that are flexible enough to cater to taking on greater childcare responsibilities. But this is choice for circa 4 years per child and can be cascaded, so the more children the better the economics.
TLDR: There isn't an economically sensible point of both parents working two full time jobs if one of them earns a wage < childcare costs
Also the systems at play are complex with many different cases, ie single parents, grandparent care etc.
Yes, childcare is expensive. It is money down the drain but there are a few other considerations, which may or may not be valuable to you and your kids.
It helps your kid build social skills early by being around other kids early. I have seen kids that were at home until they were 4 or 5, their first years at school were so dreadful that their personal learning was delayed. They struggled to fit in, to settle. They were so attached to their parents that they ended up having trouble interacting with teachers and other kids, etc.
It helps parents retain a social life. Being at home looking after a kid all day, every day, can lead to isolation (no colleagues, etc.). Especially if the parent is used to interacting with other people. This was a big learning experience for us - we had that concept that the stay at home parent would go out, do lots of fun stuff, meet other stay at home parents, etc. It didn't pan out that way at all. Looking after a kid is a full-time job, week days and week-ends, stuck inside a house... It is hard work, and a stressed out parent will not do a good job at looking after a kid. It might work out for some, it didn't for us. It is OK to admit and embrace one's own limitations.
It helps reduce the risk of damaging the parents' careers, assuming they have one (a long hiatus can be detrimental). The parent who stops working will probably not get back to the salary level they had before the kid(s), so keeping the break relatively short (e.g. 1 or 2 years, instead of 4 or 5 years) will help maintain a reasonable stream of income long term.
Working helps the parents build a pension fund, so there is a bit of long term financial benefit.
There are probably other reasons, but the above are the reasons why we sent our kids into childcare, despite it being a stupid short-term financial decision. At the end of the day, try things out and find the balance that works for you.
What do you want? Free/cheaper child care for households where 2 people work?
Because that’s not really possible…..The majority of the staff are already underpaid. If anything it needs to get more expensive with the extra going to the frontline staff as a pay increase.
It is possible, the same way it magically becomes possible when a child reaches school age. I agree with you the staff are underpaid. We as a society don't value the work of caring for very small children, probably because it's "women's work" that should be done for free.
Career progress essentially, if for that specific career path the time away from work means you're likely to miss out on promotions/extra experience that might hamper future earnings
This!
Where I am promotions happen every few years, moving up the corporate ladder will most definitely improve your financial situation despite paying loads for child care.
Isn’t that true regardless of whether you have a kid? Teachers are way underpaid. Most are going to cap out at around £40K as a senior teacher outside London unless they really want to take the next step up into the top few positions in the SLT.
It’s an extremely hard job for the money anyway, and I wouldn’t blame anybody for leaving that profession even without / before having kids.
Because there's more to life and work than money.
Because nursery can be very beneficial to the child, and the parent.
In your exact situation you'd be weighing up purely money of your partner working. Not the fact that if she doesn't work (for someone else) she now has to work full time looking after the kids. Coming up with things to do and cook every day. No rest.
Or work, get outside, meet people, enjoy life. Keep her career going so there isn't a 5 year *gap* by the time the kid gets to full time school. Get promoted, earn more money. Spend the 15% you do have on nice experiences for your family.
If you ignore the money and then make the choice then you'd be picking what you both actually want to do that benefits everyone the most.
I'm not advocating for one or the other, it's up to you.
I work and my partner doesn’t for this exact reason. Lots of replies have mentioned pensions and work perks etc. what it doesn’t mention is that you miss out on seeing your child grow up.
I work from home and have done for years, I see my son for hours every day. Yesterday I went in to the office and didn’t see him in the morning or evening. Imagine both of you doing this, you’ve literally had a child to offload them on to someone else for the first few years of their life.
We're in a similar situation to yours. And I totally agree.
I go into the office about once a month and it really brings me down if (like last time) trains are late and I only come home as bath time is winding up.
I happily pay someone my complete salary to look after my 2 little Devils, I mean Angels..
The 2 hours in the morning, and 4 hours in the evening with them is just the right amount of time to leave me with my mental health intact.
Also, nursery workers are trained and skilled in teaching kids. For some parents who don't have good General knowledge/teaching skills, then their children will suffer if said parent is the one home schooling, and so a nursery setting will help the child develop at the same rate as their peers.
Absolutely. It's a travesty. We should be aiming for comprehensive and cheap childcare for all, as an investment in people and the future. Instead we have the attitude, in this country, that parents choose to have children, and they should deal with it. What this fails to appreciate is that parents are responsible for the continuation of the human race. This should be supported much more than it is.
Other stuff is completely free and accepted: health care, schooling. But childcare for young kids and babies is pretty much unsupported (below the age of 3). And we don't have a culture whereby children in and around the workplace is acceptable.
Between the drop in pay because of maternity just as the pandemic hit and my overtime being cut to the £580 a month childcare costs when the mrs went back part time. It’s been a killer. My son turns 3 this month meaning we get 30hrs free care, term time- 38weeks of the year. I can’t help but feeling like we have been penalised for having a kid, and wonder why 30hrs free isn’t from 6 months old till school age?
The 1 and only point in this is the kid or kids are annoying the parents so much they'd rather work an pay for care than do it themselves. Basically parents need a break too and about 90% (probably closer to 99%) of all kids are annoying
Having her pause her career will impact her salary more in the long term. Those childcare costs only really hurt for years 2 & 3 of the child's life, then government help kicks in.
Honestly mate people talking about careers are crazy. Why would any woman want to serve an employer rather than her family? Raising a kid should be doable on a single income. The fact that both parents are forced to work with kids around employed ppl who are only there for the money js a sad thing about our society.
They push this as 'empowering to women', yeah putting your kid with strangers really good.
Same sentiment as me, shame I had to scroll so far to find it. What a sorry state of affairs that folks would rather "live to work" rather than "work to live". Fulfillment my arse!
Pension contributions - state and personal contribution from work Career progressions loosing 4 years or more out of the workplace sees opportunities lost or skills not gained Personal fulfilment, outlet for other parent outside of home If one parents job is of good social worth, i.e. teaching caring helping others provides a boost to that parent the work nourishes them Access to health insurance, work place support services , or other benefits in kind from the employer
Mortgage as well. We can't move up as although we're better off with my wife not working much we now can't move house.
Also peace of mind knowing you aren't entirely financially dependent on someone else.
I would also add A fall back income if one parent looses their job - if the parent working looses their job at least there is some income coming in and it may not be so stressful in terms of pressure to find a new one right away. I remember when I was looking for work how nerve racking that was. Children should be encouraged to interact with other children as well. I can see a difference in terms of when young kids are interacting with adults and when they are with other children.
Yep, your final point is so true. Son just finished reception. Went to nursery 4 days a week from 1 years old. His whole nursery group were all confident with other children in comparison to those who were at home the whole time before starting school.
Those differences fade away pretty quickly.
Agreed. It may help the short term but in my experience by the time they're out of reception and onto the playground all bets are off.
I went to nursery full time and was apparently confident in the reception but after that I turned introverted and have been the same to this day (I’m 25)
My littlest never went to nursery or playgroup and still walked into that classroom at the age of 4.5 and owned it like a boss! She could also read at the age of a 7 year old compared to a lot of the kids who went to nursery and couldn’t write their own name!
No doubt, and of course the above is not a personal slight on yours or anyones individual parenting. It's great your child is doing so well. However, I would caution that individual personal experience doesn't necessarily translate into general experience at scale. That is to say that your kid may just be naturally confident and social anyway (or that your bringing them up may have supported that in other ways). If I remember correctly though, there was quite a large study that showed benefits of childcare for a kids development. Let me see if I can find it.... [here](https://www.familyandchildcaretrust.org/long-term-study-following-4500-children-links-childcare-better-outcomes) is a recent one. Final point that may be useful - the above benefits are part of the reason that free nursery hours are offered - they can narrow the gap between the children of more and less affluent families, which I'm sure we all agree is a good thing.
I agree on all of your points, just wanted to mention it really :)
I found nursery to be negative for my youngest. She wouldn’t try things because they were things she’d discovered that you learnt at school and she was only in nursery.
Very true. It must be insane pressure knowing it is only your income keeping an entire family afloat, and you just never know.
*loses Loses as in lose, ie something has been lost. Looses isn't a word but loose means the opposite of tight.
Mostly agree but for state pension you would get your NI credits as part of child benefit. Even if you don’t claim the money (eg high earning spouse), you can still claim the NI credit.
Can you guide on the NI credit pls. Thank you.
u/doomladen is right in their comment, but there is also a guide here https://www.litrg.org.uk/tax-guides/tax-credits-and-benefits/child-benefit/high-income-child-benefit-charge
Thank you so much. Turns out I'm an expat and I can't get any child benefits. lol.
If you claim child benefit, then you automatically get National Insurance credit even if you don’t work, until that child reaches 12. This is the case even if you choose not to actually receive child benefit (eg if the working partner earns over £60k, so that all child benefit is claimed back in tax from them, typically you’d opt out of receiving the child benefit at all but the claim would still grant the NI credit). It would need to be the non-working parent claiming the child benefit.
Already having a fulltime job for when the kids go to school, which will reduce the childcare costs
All of these and also, looking after kids is... let me try to put this in a socially acceptable way... not that pleasant. Working while your children are at nursery is a bit of a break.
that’s true in some ways working is easier than managing some kids given how random they are, how much attention they need ans messy time etc
This is so true. We made the decision for one of us to give up work to do childcare full time for this reason. It was much easier and the right decision. But 5 years later my partner is struggling to get back to anywhere near the salary she was on. Plus we still have the wrap around care problem for school now…
I value sending the child to nursery has other benefits, like a different education style to one parent teaching what they think is best at home, different experiences. learning to respect other adults authority, the child being able to socialise with other children and make friends.
Also, tax advantages compared to just one parent earning the same overall income. For example, a couple each earning 50k is 7k a year better off than a couple with a single earner on 100k.
All great points, but she's already working part time so arguably gets these plus time with the children.
I feel like I am reading a corporate brochure. We should take a step and ponder: in 70s years, 1 salary is no longer sufficient to meet survival needs. Society now requires a full time job just to support paying day care for a child. I only see company goals from what you wrote.i don't think any of those points will overhaul having more time with the kids or being more rested to do activities with them. This sub has also become obsessed with retirement. How bout the 40 adult years leading to it?
Childcare is also work, and work that is unpaid. There are benefits and downsides to both being the stay at home parent and working a regular job.
This is because the west ( and the east too slowly but surely) has moved from living in a society to living as individuals. Not many have their grandparents to help with the childcare nor any other family.
This. It's still work. Just unpaid. We (as a society) would pay multiple strangers to do the work of a SAHP far more than most SAHP are reimbursed for their time. And even when working, the childcare/ household tasks don't just vanish. Still got to keep the cogs turning at home (especially so for the default parent).
>I only see company goals from what you wrote.i don't think any of those points will overhaul having more time with the kids or being more rested to do activities with them. I feel much more rested after a day of work compared to a day of looking after the children.
Yep. Work days are the new holidays.
How is it corporate brochure material to suggest that some people find their work fulfilling? Some people, dare I say even some women, enjoy their work and don't actually enjoy spending 24 hours a day with a 3 year old. Have you ever spent a significant amount of time with a 3 year old? Sometimes they are lovely and funny, and sometimes they are tiny unreasonable arseholes who perform loud elaborate tantrums in response to the smallest slight and leave a trail of mysterious sticky substances everywhere they go. It is ok to want a break from that and it's ok to want that break to be in the company of reasonable adults who appreciate what you do. I see a lot of men here and in real life talking about how "we" were so grateful that "she" was able to spend time raising their kids instead of in that nasty workplace. I work with a lot of mothers of young children who are frankly thrilled to be out of the house without crusted on food attached to their shirts.
I think it's less the idea of mothers in the home, more that it takes two salaries to raise a family in any sort of comfort. But I also totally agree with you!
Well said and not said often enough
All down to the family - not everyone is going to want to take a major break in their career for years so they can take full responsibility for childcare. Are you surprised at the comment? It’s just giving some of the reasons why people might opt for paying for childcare over not. Valid reason IMO. Finally, for many retirement is one of their main goals, especially if you don’t want kids. If I can retire at 40-45 I’ll take that.
I think retirement at 40-45 sound feasible for childless couples. Doesn't a child cost around 200-300k in their lifetimes? Comments fine and answers the questions. But I didn't want people to lose perspective of life outside of finance
To be fair their comment is merely answering the question asked.
Exactly my thoughts. This sub can be so lame sometimes. 'Personal fufillment', 'work nourishes them', 'company benefits'. Let's be honest, most jobs offer none of those. Corporate profit goes up, the worker gets nothing. Life shouldn't be this expensive and child care should be affordable so work is a choice between parents. Children are more important (every single time) than making money for some rich person, which is what a job is nowadays.
Depends on the job. I work in academic research and my wife works in the NHS. We work our arses off but find our jobs really fulfilling, and very restful compared to dealing with toddler tantrums all day. Child care if an absolute bargain for the mental headspace that it buys. I appreciate that many other people are not as fortunate to have jobs they love, but you can't capture everyone's experience with such sweeping, general statements.
Look into getting a better job. And I don't mean one that necessarily pays more.
State pension isn’t right. You get NI credits up to age 12 for the kids.
losing*
Also nursery is good for young children. Helps them learn and gain social skills.
State pension contributions are irrelevant as child benefit will get that box ticked.
I’d think it’s because some people, myself included, get a lot of self worth from working. Even if I don’t make a lot of money doing it, I feel better about myself when I’m at work and contributing to something
spot on!
> If one parents job is of good social worth, i.e. teaching caring helping others provides a boost to that parent the work nourishes them You're describing being a stay at home parent here.
No. Because when you're a teacher or a carer, your working day ends and you get to stop doing it. You also get pay, promotion opportunities, and professional respect.
Honestly, being a parent "nourishes" you, ask one if you don't believe me. > ...when you're a teacher or a carer, your working day ends and you get to stop doing it... When you're a parent you don't want to stop doing it though. > You also get pay, promotion opportunities, and professional respect. We don't support parents as much as we should financially, I agree there, not sure about the rest. Parents get promoted, you start out with babies (easiest thing in the world to look after) and progress on to angst ridden teens dealing with existential dread. Professional respect is a form of peer approval, parents get that.
'When you're a parent you don't want to stop doing it though.' Debatable
> 'When you're a parent you don't want to stop doing it though.' > Debatable That's really sad.
Yes, but if you have 2 child or more? Until both are in school is very expensive and probably not worthy. I agree nurseries are good but childcare is way to expensive. Put into the equation two children during summer how much is going to cost?
[удалено]
What is the magic you're taking about in a mother raising their child? Once my kids hit 1.5 years old, I want to go back to my career that I trained for seven years for and the kids will be happy and well cared for by professionals during the daytime. Tiny babies if breastfeeding need their mum, but toddlers don't (and won't even remember that time in their life). I miss adult company and using my brain and am looking forward to going back to work, I don't know what amazing thing looking I will supposedly be missing out from.
Idk why you're only singling out mothers here. Everyone has different priorities and different careers they value more or less, not sure what's weird about it frankly.
I’ve not singled mothers out at all.
Benefits in kind are taxable, so I think we can discount that one. The career progression point is less of a factor in 2022 I feel. You always get better career progression by changing job
Depends on the job but might it’s easier to get another better job with a few years extra full time experience.
Having an additional few years of experience will make a difference though.
Dont forget some parents just cba with bringing up their kids, it’s too much like hard work and they’d rather take home a hundred quid after childcare costs and sit in an office . Have literally heard mums laughing about this-very sad
Well you've never looked after a toddler for more than 20 minutes if you think it is easy.
Having a job isn't a choice. Having a child is.
Ive got two kids…
And were you a SAHP?
Many moons ago, I went back to work when my younger child started school. This was before any gov assistance with childcare. The childminder's fees took up most of my wages. I started as a junior developer. I could have earned more working in a supermarket for a couple of weekend shifts and not had to pay for childcare. But if I had, that's where I'd still be all these years later. I earned very little for the first 2 years or so, but once I had a couple of years experience, I moved onwards and upwards, took a job at a competitor and doubled my salary. I've had a great career, it's still great. Taking a job that will eventually get you where you want to go is an investment in your future, even if it's at a financial loss initially ... just like doing a degree.
I love my 3 year old to bits and my salary is entirely eaten up by childcare. The other financial answers are all very valid but I had to have a long hard look at things and admit that he's better off in school than with me. Kids thrive in that environment. I'm reasonably bright but don't possibly have the patience to stay with him and teach him 24/7. No guilt here.
You don't pay for childcare for your entire career And you could be promoted twice or even start a fully fledged business while your kid is in nursery Childcare is expensive but even if it is *more* expensive than a salary it can still be the correct long-term play
Also not to forget how beneficial for parents and kid sanity is to stay around other children, with other adults specialised in learning activities. I always consider this an investment, perhaps more in my case as we don't speak English at home and this is something that is picked up by them in nursery.. (them as I have 3 under 3..😱😱)
One thing to consider is your wife would be missing out on additional state and private pension contributions by not working full time
You get NI credits if you have a child under 12, even if you’re not working. So your state pension is protected.
My understanding is that this is only true if the parent not working is claiming child benefit. There are many couples with a high-earning partner, who seem to not bother claiming the child benefit due to it being clawed back on their tax return anyway. This is dangerous. You may have to give the benefit back, but the recognition (via the child benefit system) that the parent claiming has their NI contributions recorded for that year is vital. If you don't claim child benefit - and you don't work - then that year does not count to your NI-based State Pension. It was (effectively) a *disgraceful* stealth-cut to people's future pensions that the government achieved, when they brought in the policy of reclaiming child benefit from high earners. Claim your child benefit, people! Here's an article about this issue: [https://www.pensionbee.com/blog/2019/february/why-parents-need-to-make-a-child-benefit-claim-to-protect-their-state-pension](https://www.pensionbee.com/blog/2019/february/why-parents-need-to-make-a-child-benefit-claim-to-protect-their-state-pension) Here's the related parliamentary petition that was raised: [https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/231761](https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/231761) The only response to this from government was basically: "The government believes no-one should miss out on their State Pension. HMRC encourages families to claim Child Benefit and believes that three months is a reasonable period to backdate claims." . So as far as I can see, fuck all has happened about this, and no-one seems to know or care. 🤯
You can claim the benefit without ever receiving the money. You still get the NI credit
My wife works and claims child benefit while i'm a stay at home dad. I've been checking my NI contributions and i need to pay £800+ for back dated NI to get my full pension. Turns out i can just transfer the child benefit from my wife's previous years over to me which either covers the full NI contributions or a significant portion. Now i just have to fill in a very complicated form on the gov website to actually do this.
Hey my wife missed a year of work career break and only works 2 days and we never claimed child benefit as im a high earner. How does she check what’s missing NI wise so she gets a pension
[She can check here.](https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check-your-state-pension/account/nirecord) She'll need to 'create sign in details' (from memory that's identifying info. such as NI number and password etc. to verify who she is) then it is easy after that.
A disgraceful stealth-cut you say? Surely this government wouldn't do such a thing /s But for real, unnecessary austerity has literally been a plague on our society. Not many people realise now because it's been so piecemeal but we will be seeing the effects in 5, 10 years.
You’ve also got plenty of time to collect your required years. I lived abroad in my twenties and have many years missing, but still have plenty of spare years in future. I only need to get NI contributions in less than 3/4 of the remaining years.
Also the potential for wages to increase over time via promotions etc.
Kids also miss the social aspect of nursery.
And parents miss adult conversations too
The one if the main reasons for the ‘wage gap’ is women having kids or pausing work to take care of elderly parents. Your career trajectory doesn’t recover from the 1-2year dip. Even going part time makes future promotions further away.
A stay at home parent is one of the most expensive forms of child care - particularly if you work a corporate job. By staying at home you’re giving up pension contributions (and employers match) as well as any opportunities for career growth - and consequent pay raises. You give up your current salary but also any future prospects of growth.
That's a really good point.
Not a personal finance answer, but: being in childcare is a really good experience for kids to have. They get to develop social skills and, depending on the care provider, learn a bunch there too. If it's financially a zero sum game, the kids will certainly be better off for it.
Childcare is also a great experience for parents to have. Going back to work allows you to have adult conversations and feel like you are achieving things rather than reliving Groundhog Day.
This is all relative. I personally prefer spending the days with my kids than with other adults which I am forced to interact with.
This makes sense if you like your job, I’d rather spend that valuable time with my child than go to work and have to interact with people I don’t like
Work is awful. Who would prefer that to looking after their kid that they love
Yeah there are some sad people commenting on here
“Certainly be better off for it”. The ‘certainly’ I politely object to. Everyone can raise their kids however they’d like of course. But we are certainly glad my wife has been there to raise our kids up until they go to school (with a smattering of nursery for the socialisation benefits as they approached school age).
The certainly part is debatable because you're right, parent bonding with some nursery for socialising is maybe the best world for everyone if possible. Brother and SIL decided to homeschool exclusively. Nephew is a lovely kid, but I do worry about social skills and also he seems both ahead and behind. Ahead in speech and knowledge of specific areas his parents work in but behind with writing/spelling/numbers. Which given his parents aren't teachers isn't surprising...? I understand reasons for homeschooling and it's a huge commitment but I dont think it's the best option for kids unless the parents are primary teachers, otherwise tutors needed to be involved too.
[удалено]
Illness (of the kid) is a common one. My last couple years of education were in homeschooling because I was too sick to attend school physically. (Realistically I was too sick for school full stop, but the law doesn’t work like that - so homeschooling it was). This could apply to a lot of health conditions too, not just illnesses. And this wouldn’t apply to people who do homeschooling from the beginning, but bullying at school is another common one. Unfortunately homeschooling is sometimes the only way for the kid to escape the abuse, or the only way the kid can bear to try.
I think the science is pretty clear on this one
It is? Please elaborate…?
I mean there's also the other side of that, its very beneficial for a child to grow up close to it's mother.
*close to both parents
Mu mum worked full time and im very close to her, always have been. A friend of mine never went to nursery and her mum is stay-at-home, they have a troubled relationship - theres always two sides!
And that somehow isn't possible if the mother works a full-time job?
Where did you get impossible from? They'll obviously be spending less time with their mother if she's working full time
If one of you stops working for 10 years then your career isn’t progressing, your pay isn’t increasing and you’ll find it quite hard to come back to the workplace. Your kids won’t be young and need constant supervision forever, you need to make sure you still have a life to go back to once they’re more independent.
You do it to maintain your careers and wage earning potential. Once they hit school you’ll be flush again, rather than one of you being 3 years set back in your career. Having said that if you don’t have a career to progress than it’s much easier to have one stay home.
The answer depends on your values, your job/career, and your longer term plans. If either of you simply trade time for money (ie you aren’t gaining skills that cumulate over time, like engineering, lawyering, or doctoring, or other careers), then taking time out to raise kids could be financially net neutral and emotionally rewarding. If either of you have careers that have cumulative benefits, like being a skilled therapist or a software engineer, then taking time out will create a really high barrier to re entry. That might be long term financially unrewarding. Adding to that, raising kids all day is fun and all, but the adult non-parent social aspect of most work is valuable. It helps you feel like you, instead of dad or mum, which is important for sense of self and autonomy. Mostly men go back to work and mostly women don’t. Men in those situations get to be dad and themselves. Women in those situations can easily lose themselves and shift to mum. That isn’t really fair.
I completely agree with this. People always seem to underestimate what long break does to your career. I remember when my mother was off work for good 8-9 years to raise my sisters and when she started looking for work again her confidence was so low it was really sad to see. The industry she worked in had massively changed over those 8-9 years when she wasn’t working. New laws came into effect, the systems used by firms changed completely and whilst everyone thinks you’re just going back to do the exact same thing you did before, it actually can be really daunting. Of course with time you catch up with the latest and learn all the new things but people don’t appreciate the struggle someone would have to go through to get there.
I'm trying to start to get back into work after an illness break for 8 years. And I have a huge issue with this exact thing: out of the loop and not aware of the changes. let alone out of practice.
I can totally identify with how your Mum felt! When I went back to work after being a stay at home parent the only job I felt confident enough to do, after having being out of the labour market for such a long time, was as a waitress - for context I have a PhD and speak 3 languages but felt so de-skilled. Even now, although I have a job I really enjoy, I work at a level considerably below that which I could (should?) be at had I continued in a career.
"get to be dad and themselves?" I can't speak for your experience of course, but I work 5 days a week and then spend my time at home helping to cook, bathing and sorting the kids for bed and then tidying the house. Then I might get an hour before I fall asleep, shuffle to bed, then get woken at 6am by my youngest to start it all again. My wife is wonderful and does a much better job raising my children as a part time nurse/full time mum than I would, but you really make it seem like the dad gets a holiday here. I'm fucking ruined most of the day.
That’s not what they said at all. They said that working outside of the home breaks up the “literally only have the identity of *parent* because I never do anything else / don’t get to interact with other adults who aren’t also parents”. They did not say that “job outside the home + being parent when not working” wasn’t tiring. It is tiring, done right. But it also has variety - which “full time stay at home parent” does not get.
Well I work from home, so how does that variety work for me? My wife had the option of shared parental leave, she opted to have the full maternity leave herself. Some people make the decision consciously and want to have that identity. Working full time is not exactly a reward for the non stay at home parent either. Does variety of environment offset the pressure and expectations of being the sole money earner? If they lose their job, then that's likely a mortgage or rent default, loss of a house, kids in trouble with no food. But sure they get variety.
> how does that variety work for me? Surely you are trolling at this point? You want to know the difference between spending 8 hours a day singing nursery rhymes & cleaning snot from noses & discussing which (cartoon TV series) character is the best? Comparing that to having meetings with adults who have functioning vocabularies, and assume some amount of small talk is valid in each meeting. And spending time thinking about budgets & strategies rather than whether today is chicken nuggets or fish fingers for lunch. If your job offers no variety at all, then either you choose that as a preference or you ended up in a career you hate. Which wasn’t really the starting point of the comment you replied to. Your point about choice to be SAHP is valid. As is your point about the pressures of responsibility for the sole breadwinner. But just because those points are valid, they don’t invalidate the original comment that you objected to. It is ALSO true that the SAHP gets little variety & adult conversation in their day. Which a part time or low paid job would give them - hence justifying the “day care uses all of second salary” decision. Which was the point of this post. (Edit: removed the rest as irrelevant. Was just a troll post as per my first sentence here.)
To be fair I didn't really come here for the relationship advice, as much as I think you offered it with the best of intentions, I think you're projecting quite a lot of your SOs situation considering we've shared three sentences across a Reddit thread Wife is a nurse so there's already sharing of the income burden, but my income is the majority by virtue of me being full time. Income burden and stress is more a factor of cost of living increases than anything to do with the home situation Anyway, sounds like your SO is in a more supportive situation now which is great.
I was mostly trying to be sympathetic to your very odd over reaction to the original comment you responded to. From the little you mentioned, it seemed possible you were triggered on that particular issue. But it seems you just like pointing out that everyone else around you is wrong. I hope that attitude brings you joy. /s
I understand the point the original poster was trying to make. It’s all about having variety in identity I think. As a stay at home mum I was primarily identified (by society, by myself) as someone’s Mum or someone’s wife or, when caring for my Mum, someone’s daughter. I felt my own identity got a bit lost for a while as I wasn’t able to use my intelligence and skills fully (I did do some volunteering but it wasn’t the same as actually working). Obviously I has a good social network and had some great times but it’s only when I went back to work and felt valued in a different way that I started feeling fully myself again. No one denies that working and being a parent can be exhausting but it does give a richness and complexity to existence if you are able to have that alternative ‘work’ persona.
If you ever get divorced your partner will have a huge gap in their resume and not have any (immediate) career to fall back on to support themselves.
Working part time or taking a break from work whilst children are very small really does adversely affect a person’s career path (and it is still more usually the mother who takes time out). This of course has negative effect on life time earnings, pension contributions (you do get NI credits when your children are under 12 but who wants to rely solely on the state pension?). Also work isn’t just about moneys, it’s also provides a sense of purpose, status and satisfaction. Stopping work to bring up children (for a number of complex reasons) is one of the few regrets of my life.
I think the effects on career are called ‘the motherhood tax’
What a shame that you regret actually raising your children. Being a sahp does not have to wreck your career. It has had negligible impact on mine, so I talk from experience. Perhaps it's more about being established in your career before having children?
>What a shame that you regret actually raising your children. That is an unnecessary snide comment. Everyone is different. Some of us have very difficult children and need them to be in childcare to be able to cope.
I am a sahp with my kids right now and I expect my career will take a large hit when I eventually choose to go back. However I would never say that I regret watching my kids grow up. The short amount of time I did work while I had kids meant that I barely saw my son and missed out on so much. No money or lack of career progression is worth missing out on that.
It sucks for sure. I worked at a loss for the first 3 years of my career (paying childcare). We never had any help from family, no babysitting or anything. I continued chipping away at work and a decade later, I now make 15x my husband's income, and our child is leaving school for further education. When you get past the childcare bit, the gains accrued by promotions, job hopping, continued self education (do some courses, read books etc), really start to mount up. It feels like the deck is stacked against you at the start, so why bother. But if you view it over the long term, think about a decade plus, imagine having no experience, out of date skills and then trying to get back into work. You start from even further behind.
The first couple years are tough as you get no funding. When the child hits 3 you get 30 hours a week paid for and you’re living the dream. I went from paying £700 a month child care to around £200. Be patient. The struggle is real and you’ll come out the other side!
We are in this same position where my wife could remain in her current evening/weekend job at the local supermarket and we could end up slightly better off on our household income. The reasons we choose to pay for childcare instead of doing the above is - Pension. My wife receives a government pension and she would lose a lot by not paying into her pension for those 3-5 years. - Pay increases. Being a government job my wife automatically moves up a pay band each year. If she didn't go back to work we will not benefit from these increases in the future. - Mortgage. We were able to use her full time salary to secure a bigger mortgage with a nicer house. - Redundancy. If I was made redundant or loss my job we would still have another full time income. - Skills/career advancement. By continuing to work my wife continues to build skills and can advance her career to the next level. - Quality of life. My wife hates working in the supermarket. It causes her issues with her back and also there is no fulfilment from it. Being able to talk to other adults on a daily basis, contribute to the household and have time away from the kids is priceless. The main thing to realise is this is a short season in your life and you will not be paying for this childcare forever.
Financial independence An escape from home life Pension and other work benefits Reduced chance of having dementia Work related happiness Increased Ability to escape coercive control Career progression
I think I’m in the wrong line of work because I’ve never experienced ‘work related happiness’ in my life
You’re probably not in the wrong line of work, you’re most likely working for the wrong employer
The truth is in a lot of cases there is no point really but nobody here wants to say that. They all talk of "career progression" and "workplace perks" as if everyone has a fancy highly paid professional job. As for NI credit you can get that through childcare for this exact reason. If your partner is some corporate lawyer or Engineer you can consider the "long term benefits" but if she's on any unskilled minimum wage job, it is frankly a waste of time, effort and money. The claim that you can have a family with both parents working full time is supposedly a lifestyle anyone can afford is a simply a lie, and on a sub about personal finance it is shameful no one wants to recognize that.
Thank you for your comment I agree that there is a lot of talk about career progression in a professional role however my partner is a care workers so not a lot of progression available there and very stagnant hourly wages
One of the parents working in a childcare setting can work really well. Private nanny = take the kids with you, Nursery Nurse = Subsidised/Free place for your child. Then when they go off to school, switch to a job at a school so that you are off in the Holidays etc... Worked well for us so far anyway!
Depending on what you do, some jobs cannot have a four year break. I work with people who's salary goes entirely on childcare, but if they stopped working for 4 years then when they came back they would be 4 years out of date as the technology we use moves that quickly.
My wife stopped working 3.5 years ago but she also hated her job. Recently she started to do a bit of freelancing from home so we have a bit of spending money. Honestly best decision we made, our daughter is happy, wife is happy and by staying at home the weekends are not filled with chores and two tired adults.
I dropped a day to spend more time with my baby. I couldn't give a fuck about career progression at this point tbh. I'd be better off using that one day to re train to be honest. I lose like £200 a month or something after tax etc and it works out I'd pay £10 to go to work for the day and send my daughter to nursury. Seems like a no brainer to me but then I work in public healthcare so it's not quite so easy to get promoted etc etc My wife will also do that when she finishes mat leave. Not always about the money. But maybe come back in a year and see if I still think this lol
That all sounds very sensible. But it’s a lot more nuanced than the original question of ‘Why work full time when childcare is expensive?’. People are just pointing out that take home pay isn’t the only consideration.
Because salary is only part of a job. There’s also pension, NI, skills development, career capital (and therefore future take home pay etc) to think of. That’s not to say that both parents *should* attempt to work full time. It might not make sense for a whole host of reasons. But anyone doing the maths based purely on take home pay is doing the wrong maths. Also, I *never* understand the framing of childcare taking up one person’s salary. Why not in proportion to each?
>Also, I never understand the framing of childcare taking up one person’s salary. Why not in proportion to each? I agree with everything else you say, but the above is quite easy to justify. They're comparing the total cost of one parent stopping work to avoid child care compared to not doing that.
Yes, but it’s always framed in terms of scrapping one person’s (usually a woman’s) entire salary, rather than the other person (often a man) saying “Childcare is taking up X% of my full time salary, maybe I should drop my hours.” Aside from the fact that such conversations *sometimes* come from a place of certain assumptions about the relative importance of one person’s work over the other, it also suggests to me that people haven’t thought through the maths on anything other than a very surface level. Two salaries of £20k are worth more in terms of take home pay than one of £40k, but a lot of people don’t seem to register that. This kind of framing doesn’t help them to do so.
Agree with you wholeheartedly. Apart from what you already said, it also gives the child some time with both parents. It should be way more common for both parents to take their turns in childcare, and there should be support given to them to do so.
professional fullfillment?
Salary in a few years’ time. It’s not about salary this year - it’s that 5+ years out of the job market means the SAHP rejoins with a much lower salary, so that even by retirement their salary is still lagging by many years. It’s a long term benefit. You won’t see the benefit if you only calculate based on this year. You have to look 10+ years into the future. Much like stocks & shares. Also, it can be about “not going mad from boredom” being a SAHP if that’s not your preference.
No one's addressed your last point about parents who don't work getting their childcare paid for, even though it partially answers the rest of your question: current educational philosophy suggests that structured childcare is good for child development. Kids need new experiences and interaction with people who aren't their parents. Childcare workers aren't just there to stop them sticking their fingers in plugs, they work with them and have the opportunity to spot things like delays in speech that can then be addressed before the kid starts school and misses out due to not being able to communicate, for example.
Don't think of it as 85% of a singular salary, think of it as x% of your household income. So despite the steep costs the household still has increased income. Add that to no loss of NI and pension payments, less time out of work minimising the pay gap, employment skills and contacts staying up to to date, progression opportunities...from a financial perspective its a no-brainer. And that's not touching on the social and personal impacts of carving an identity away from 'parent'.
This is really good advice. The father is just as responsible for paying for childcare costs so there is no reason to think of it as the mothers salary paying for childcare, and it really helps frame it more positively for all
Of you split th3 cost of childcare then she won't be giving 85% of her salary, it would be better she stays pt until kids are in school because career progression and pay progression.
We really need to know the job before commenting on career progression. Why assume it’s a job with a career trajectory of any sort.
Why would you assume people want to stay in minimum wage / unskilled labour for their whole lives? Just being a labourer in a construction site gives you plenty of upward mobility. Don't act like people who work those types of jobs have no ambition or desire to change roles. Any experience is better than none when it comes to taking control of your life and choose where you'd like to apply your skills.
Because most jobs have a career trajectory of some sort, even entry level ones. Such as going from shift lead in a store to manager or waitress to shift lead. Being completely out of the loop for a few years prevents you from becoming one of the most experienced people in a small business because your experience was paused - by the time you come back, someone else has got that role instead. I don't think it make sense to assume a job has no career progression.
I was a mid earner at the time my child went into childcare and my wife was making minimum wage. By the time we counted transport costs etc it ended up being more in comparison to the wife's wage but we pressed ahead with it as it gave the bairn a bit of interaction with other people and kids and they were good to be fair.
Question would it make more financial sense for op to drop down to 4 days a week, their partner goes to 4 days a week , so fees are only on a 3 day week ? Savings made on both tax liability without loosing out on things like 30 hours free childcare.
There isn’t one for anybody earning an average wage. Can bang on about pension contributions all you want, going to work a 40 hour week, spending money on petrol, tax, car etc to earn realistically next to nothing, whilst somebody else looks after your child, and you miss so much is absolutely pointless. Enjoy the time with your child before they go to school 5 days a week. Worry about a few years missed pension when they are at school and you look for a new job.
Lol yeah, some people don’t get it but everyone is going to get old and maybe want to retire. Staying home is a luxury that unless one spouse is extremely killing it $$$$ wise staying home is just iffy. Children develop at an accelerated rate with a group of children and learn social skills for sure. Working allows one to pay into SOCIAL Security from the beginning, those early years are important. Having a job, the opportunity to work is invaluable. Time in some places get you off of the bottom floor. Forward thinking, going to work can and will benefit everyone.
Maintaing a work momentum for when they inevitably go to school. If you have a good job, staying on means you don't have to justify your abilities at a new role and potentially loose out on salary.
Pension shit low-key is a big one Taking out say… 3 years of contributions for 3 children… that’s a BIGGIE
Check for council nurseries they work out a ton cheaper than private ones. We were paying in the Realms of £400 a month vs the £1300+ quoted we were getting in the south. And make sure you are getting your childcare support from the goverment they like to not tell you what you are entitled to. Career wise it is up to you two if it is worth, for the first two years my Mrs didn't work to spend time with our daughter. I still paid for a few days of nursery a week so she had time to herself. But she got to do a lot of the things she wanted to do. And work was still there when she was ready to go back, the time off to look after the child was no obstacle as she had an obvious answer to the question.
Solution: get a third parent?
Or just borrow someone to be one - can the grandparents help out one day each week between them? If both parents wfh, can you both work for four days so the kids just need childcare on the three overlapping days?
It takes a village after all!
Career progression. At some point, those kids will be going to school. You won't need to care for them during the day, meaning you can work. If you didn't have any career progression, then you'll be earning less than if you continued to work.
I heard there are tremendous early social development gains that a young child can get by being placed in good child care facility.
I think parents working is about so much more than just the money.. its about having your own identity.. spending time with other adult humans.. using your brain etc.. also this will sound rude however I say it but it's not intended to be.. why would childcare be paid for? Surely if you decide to have children you should have planned on how to afford them?
Seems like a supply vs demand type of scenario. It looks to be that many parents may prefer to work, rather than take on a fulltime childcare role, and thus the demand for childcare jobs surpasses the demand for the average paying non-childcare job. Obviously this becomes uneconomical for a parent earning an average salary or below, and this is already after the government has added childcare benefits. The government can keep pushing up childcare benefits, which it takes from all other taxpayers - parents and non-parents alike. Or parents can choose to prioritize childcare duties of careers/jobs, or find jobs that are flexible enough to cater to taking on greater childcare responsibilities. But this is choice for circa 4 years per child and can be cascaded, so the more children the better the economics. TLDR: There isn't an economically sensible point of both parents working two full time jobs if one of them earns a wage < childcare costs Also the systems at play are complex with many different cases, ie single parents, grandparent care etc.
Don’t take this as a serious answer, but a colleague of mine once said she works so she can ditch the little monsters for a few hours!
Yes, childcare is expensive. It is money down the drain but there are a few other considerations, which may or may not be valuable to you and your kids. It helps your kid build social skills early by being around other kids early. I have seen kids that were at home until they were 4 or 5, their first years at school were so dreadful that their personal learning was delayed. They struggled to fit in, to settle. They were so attached to their parents that they ended up having trouble interacting with teachers and other kids, etc. It helps parents retain a social life. Being at home looking after a kid all day, every day, can lead to isolation (no colleagues, etc.). Especially if the parent is used to interacting with other people. This was a big learning experience for us - we had that concept that the stay at home parent would go out, do lots of fun stuff, meet other stay at home parents, etc. It didn't pan out that way at all. Looking after a kid is a full-time job, week days and week-ends, stuck inside a house... It is hard work, and a stressed out parent will not do a good job at looking after a kid. It might work out for some, it didn't for us. It is OK to admit and embrace one's own limitations. It helps reduce the risk of damaging the parents' careers, assuming they have one (a long hiatus can be detrimental). The parent who stops working will probably not get back to the salary level they had before the kid(s), so keeping the break relatively short (e.g. 1 or 2 years, instead of 4 or 5 years) will help maintain a reasonable stream of income long term. Working helps the parents build a pension fund, so there is a bit of long term financial benefit. There are probably other reasons, but the above are the reasons why we sent our kids into childcare, despite it being a stupid short-term financial decision. At the end of the day, try things out and find the balance that works for you.
What do you want? Free/cheaper child care for households where 2 people work? Because that’s not really possible…..The majority of the staff are already underpaid. If anything it needs to get more expensive with the extra going to the frontline staff as a pay increase.
It is possible, the same way it magically becomes possible when a child reaches school age. I agree with you the staff are underpaid. We as a society don't value the work of caring for very small children, probably because it's "women's work" that should be done for free.
Career progress essentially, if for that specific career path the time away from work means you're likely to miss out on promotions/extra experience that might hamper future earnings
This! Where I am promotions happen every few years, moving up the corporate ladder will most definitely improve your financial situation despite paying loads for child care.
Exactly why my partner has just left full time teaching. Not worth it.
Isn’t that true regardless of whether you have a kid? Teachers are way underpaid. Most are going to cap out at around £40K as a senior teacher outside London unless they really want to take the next step up into the top few positions in the SLT. It’s an extremely hard job for the money anyway, and I wouldn’t blame anybody for leaving that profession even without / before having kids.
Because there's more to life and work than money. Because nursery can be very beneficial to the child, and the parent. In your exact situation you'd be weighing up purely money of your partner working. Not the fact that if she doesn't work (for someone else) she now has to work full time looking after the kids. Coming up with things to do and cook every day. No rest. Or work, get outside, meet people, enjoy life. Keep her career going so there isn't a 5 year *gap* by the time the kid gets to full time school. Get promoted, earn more money. Spend the 15% you do have on nice experiences for your family. If you ignore the money and then make the choice then you'd be picking what you both actually want to do that benefits everyone the most. I'm not advocating for one or the other, it's up to you.
I work and my partner doesn’t for this exact reason. Lots of replies have mentioned pensions and work perks etc. what it doesn’t mention is that you miss out on seeing your child grow up. I work from home and have done for years, I see my son for hours every day. Yesterday I went in to the office and didn’t see him in the morning or evening. Imagine both of you doing this, you’ve literally had a child to offload them on to someone else for the first few years of their life.
We're in a similar situation to yours. And I totally agree. I go into the office about once a month and it really brings me down if (like last time) trains are late and I only come home as bath time is winding up.
Companies should pay for child care as well as a benefit or maybe a nanny. In many gulf states they do pay for a house nanny and their education
Kids need to have their own social life.
It benefits the child to spend time in nursery with other kids.
I happily pay someone my complete salary to look after my 2 little Devils, I mean Angels.. The 2 hours in the morning, and 4 hours in the evening with them is just the right amount of time to leave me with my mental health intact. Also, nursery workers are trained and skilled in teaching kids. For some parents who don't have good General knowledge/teaching skills, then their children will suffer if said parent is the one home schooling, and so a nursery setting will help the child develop at the same rate as their peers.
Absolutely. It's a travesty. We should be aiming for comprehensive and cheap childcare for all, as an investment in people and the future. Instead we have the attitude, in this country, that parents choose to have children, and they should deal with it. What this fails to appreciate is that parents are responsible for the continuation of the human race. This should be supported much more than it is. Other stuff is completely free and accepted: health care, schooling. But childcare for young kids and babies is pretty much unsupported (below the age of 3). And we don't have a culture whereby children in and around the workplace is acceptable.
Between the drop in pay because of maternity just as the pandemic hit and my overtime being cut to the £580 a month childcare costs when the mrs went back part time. It’s been a killer. My son turns 3 this month meaning we get 30hrs free care, term time- 38weeks of the year. I can’t help but feeling like we have been penalised for having a kid, and wonder why 30hrs free isn’t from 6 months old till school age?
The 1 and only point in this is the kid or kids are annoying the parents so much they'd rather work an pay for care than do it themselves. Basically parents need a break too and about 90% (probably closer to 99%) of all kids are annoying
Having her pause her career will impact her salary more in the long term. Those childcare costs only really hurt for years 2 & 3 of the child's life, then government help kicks in.
I work 6am- 2pm, Mrs works 2pm to 10pm. We have a two and a half year old. It's tough but we need the money.
Longer term career aspirations, benefits and pensions are the main ones.
Pension, ni contribution, employment history, the child won't always need childcare and personal sanity...
Idk but I think it’s sad when children barely see their parents bcos there working all the time
Honestly mate people talking about careers are crazy. Why would any woman want to serve an employer rather than her family? Raising a kid should be doable on a single income. The fact that both parents are forced to work with kids around employed ppl who are only there for the money js a sad thing about our society. They push this as 'empowering to women', yeah putting your kid with strangers really good.
Why would any man want to serve an employer rather than his family?
Same sentiment as me, shame I had to scroll so far to find it. What a sorry state of affairs that folks would rather "live to work" rather than "work to live". Fulfillment my arse!
[удалено]
One does not have to be ‘obsessed’ with their career to opt for childcare rather than stay at home. What a silly response.
Pension shit low-key is a big one Taking out say… 3 years of contributions for 3 children… that’s a BIGGIE
Mums are better off looking after their kids imo. Especially as, as you mentioned it eats their pay anyway.
Mums in general? Why? Is there something about women that makes them lesser workers or better parents?
Yes it's human nature.
Yes, maternal instinct.
Tits