[Liquid101]

Originally Posted by nheather

Yep happened to us. Pain because

(a) she doesn't have to say when she is coming back but you have to keep the job open.

(b) you have to find a replacement who is happy taking on a temporary job

(c) in my experience, Nannies demanded a higher wage for a temporary position.



You can claim SMP but it doesn't necessarily cover the salary that you have to keep paying, and certainly not the NI. My experience is that you got less than you were paying. But I am PAYE - perhaps you have more flexibility being self employed.

Plus SMP doesn't account for the holidays that she is accruing whilst on maternity leave. Not to mention that the replacement is accruing holidays at the same time.

Cheers,

Nigel

But you don't have to pay somebody on maternity any more than SMP do you? You don't have to pay them their full salary, or at least that's my understanding of it.

Accruing holidays while on maternity is something I will never understand. We have people coming back from their maternity leave here that then have 60 days of holiday to take during their year.

[imightbewrong]

I was always amused that SWMBO would accumulate holiday at full-time while on maternity, then she went back to work but part time, so accumulated holiday more slowly.

[nheather]

What salary do you 'have' to pay above SMP?

But you don't have to pay somebody on maternity any more than SMP do you?

Well it depends on what the supply of good nannies is in your part of the country.

Remember that I'm talking 10 or more years ago.

Where I live nannies (and childcare) are in huge demand and are pretty difficult to get and keep hold of. Back then, maybe the same as now, nannies weren't interested in gross salary they demanded a take home pay and it was up to the parents to ensure that taxes, employee and employer NI were paid.

Furthermore, it was quite common for nannies to demand full salary whilst on maternity leave. This is not that uncommon, most of the companies I have worked for do not apply the 90% pay for maternity but continue paying full 100%.

So we had to pay 100% salary, and employer's NI. We could claim back 90% of the salary for the first 6 weeks and then it might have dropped for the rest (can't recall). ANd don't forget the holidays they are accruing whilst they are off - SMP doesn't cover them - but they will be accruing all the same to spend when they return.

The problem with nanies is that it is related to your children so it is hard to be cut throat commercial and emmotional issues come into it. Do you risk telling a nanny that your children love and trust to stuff it, they are getting statuory and that's that.

One of our biggest nightmares was when the nanny announced that she had been offered a job at some millionaire's house. She got accomodation, £50 increased weekly take home and a car was provided. We would get 1 week's notice and that was it. The horror of losing the nanny and having bugger all time to get a replacement was really scarey. Fortunately there were a couple of things she didn't like about the new job so we were able to convince her to stay by increasing her weekly take home from £150 to £200.

If you think employing a nanny is like employing a gardener I suggest you try it to find out. It is much more scarey, more emotional than commercial - they pretty much have you by the short and curlies. Unless you have a huge supply of nannies to choose from where you live you will find the same.

Cheers,

Nigel

[Mr_Wistles]

Originally Posted by FZR400RRSP

I'm sure this is chump change to you, but there's many a family would like to be left with £800 a month after they've paid their childcare costs.

I have school fees on top also though

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by unique

thats precisely what needs to be reviewed. the level of paperwork etc required that prevents people from doing this. if you look back a few years, neighbors would regularly look after peoples kids, perhaps for free even. it's obviously not as appropriate to do it in all cases these days, but with so many unemployed people available who could do this, and others who say they can't afford to work without the childcare, it's an issue worth investigating

But the point is parents don't want just anybody looking after their children.

I can imagine all these checks and paperwork etc were put in place because children have suffered in the hands of bad child-minders.

[imightbewrong]

Originally Posted by nheather

Well it depends on what the supply of good nannies is in your part of the country.

We've looked at getting a nanny in the past, and sometimes consider it now. Any that wanted full pay for maternity would be told to jog-on - but we wouldn't be getting one because we had to, just to provide some backup to SWMBO, so them leaving would always be an option

[nheather]

I have school fees on top also though

I found this put childcare fees into perspective for me.

We did consider sending our children to private school but chose not to for various reasons. But whilst we were looking one aspect shocked me.

The fees for an excellent private school were significantly less than the fees for a run of the mill daycare nursary - made me think.

And before you say, yes I know the staff ratios are higher, but at the nursary my children went to, most of the staff were college students on work experience (probably unpaid) or young girls on little more than minimum wage. Also I'm comparing the fees at 4 years old which are lower than for new borns.

Cheers,

Nigel

[imightbewrong]

Don't forget though that nursery care is going to be 8-6, or even longer - so not only do you have a higher staff-student ratio, you will be paying a lot more hours too - 9-3.30 for teachers isn't it?

[imightbewrong]

In an efficient market, childcare should find a natural price determined by the cost compared to not doing it. e.g. a parent will on average consider paying a certain % of the pay in childcare, and above it is not worth it. Childcare is not something you do for the benefit of a child - quite the opposite in fact.

[nheather]

Don't forget though that nursery care is going to be 8-6, or even longer - so not only do you have a higher staff-student ratio, you will be paying a lot more hours too - 9-3.30 for teachers isn't it?

Yes I realise that, but that makes school hours 65% as long, which is commensurate with the price differences I was seeing.

So I stand by my amazement, that the fees for a run of the mill daycare staffed with unpaid college students, and minimum wage teenagers are the same as those for a good private school.

Cheers,

Nigel

[kav]

Originally Posted by FZR400RRSP

I'm still confident that the ludicrous child benefit rule changes due to be implimented in 2013 are overturned once the date nears and more pressure is applied by all and sundry.
I'm all for it being abolished over and above a certain household income, but that's not the way they're doing it.

Yeah they way it's being implemented is a joke, and there are calls to have it changed. I won't hold my breath, but it would be nice not to lose it.

[Liquid101]

Originally Posted by kav

Yeah they way it's being implemented is a joke, and there are calls to have it changed. I won't hold my breath, but it would be nice not to lose it.

The problem is, if you were to operate any other kind of means testing it would probably cost as much money to run as the savings it generates.

The reality is, if you were to set it to a household income of 60k instead - the vast majority of people affected would be the same as the ones you caught under the already proposed threshold.

There are bound to be exceptions where you only have one person earning between 45-60k - but I would imagine that most households with one higher rate tax payer would go into the 60k+ anyway.

[FZR400RRSP]

Originally Posted by Liquid101

but I would imagine that most households with one higher rate tax payer would go into the 60k+ anyway.

Er, why?
I don't follow your logic that if there's only one earner in the 40% bracket in a household it's 'probable' that they're earning £60k+

[Liquid101]

Originally Posted by FZR400RRSP

Er, why?
I don't follow your logic that if there's only one earner in the 40% bracket in a household it's 'probable' that they're earning £60k+

I'm just suggesting that households with a higher rate tax payer in that have a sub 60k total household income are probably in the minority.

Assuming that the higher rate tax payer was on 50k - the other member of the household would only have to work part time or minimum wage to take them over the higher threshold.

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by Liquid101

I'm just suggesting that households with a higher rate tax payer in that have a sub 60k total household income are probably in the minority.

Assuming that the higher rate tax payer was on 50k - the other member of the household would only have to work part time or minimum wage to take them over the higher threshold.

I imagine that plenty of these people only have one earner and one stay at home parent.

[dejongj]

We made a conscious decision for my wife to stop working. When doing the sums, she would end up with just a few hundred pounds extra a month after childcare costs. To us it was just not worth it working the whole months for just a few hundred just to pay someone else, not see your children etc.

It does make me wonder at times whether it is financially truly worth it, considering the costs both direct and indirect.

[Kristian]

Not sure what the long term answer is - perhaps a better tax break for working parents, or more support for parents who want to take a career break.

Isn't this the answer:

Originally Posted by kav

In my opinion - which I fully expect to get slated for - a lot of people are unwilling to drop their standard of living below that which they were used to. There's an expectation that they can have kids and still maintain the standard of living they were used to before having kids.

I agree Kav. We all (very sweeping statement, I know ) seem to want to keep our nice house/nice car/holidays/gadgets/luxuries etc once we start our families. If people could cut back on their expenditure then one of the parents could spend more time bringing up their young children rather than needing to use childcare because they need to work to pay for their [now excessive] lifestyle.

There will be families that are in financial circumstances that won't have the option to make cuts or changes e.g. single parents and low income wages. I think it's these people that need more help, without them taking advantage.

[Dony]

The cost of child-care most of you seem to pay scares the bejaysus out of me.

Our's cost £300 / month from 8.30am -12pm, and then she drops off my youngest at play-group. When needed, she will also mind my 2 older children.
During the school holidays she will have all 3 for the same price.

My wife works part-time, and only takes home about £120/week. Her wage covers the childcare costs, though she is currently thinking off leaving her job, and staying at home with the children. A neighbour has asked if she's mind her 2 children which she's considering doing.

[IronGiant]

That's about the same as we were paying Dony













a week...


and you could add on another £160 a week in the school holidays

[imightbewrong]

We used to pay £1200 pm for 2 kids 3 days per week. £15K ish per year straight out of the second salary, plus the awfulness of 'nursery' (not ours in particular), plus SWMBO only really doing her job for the money - no satisfaction or interest, knocked it on the head for us.

[Dony]

Originally Posted by IronGiant

That's about the same as we were paying Dony

a week...


and you could add on another £160 a week in the school holidays

Ouch.

That goes some way to explaining the difference in salaries between here and there (I know that people doing exactly the same job as me, though not as well get paid £20k more than me).

[dejongj]

Originally Posted by Dony

The cost of child-care most of you seem to pay scares the bejaysus out of me.

Our's cost £300 / month from 8.30am -12pm, and then she drops off my youngest at play-group. When needed, she will also mind my 2 older children.
During the school holidays she will have all 3 for the same price.

My wife works part-time, and only takes home about £120/week. Her wage covers the childcare costs, though she is currently thinking off leaving her job, and staying at home with the children. A neighbour has asked if she's mind her 2 children which she's considering doing.

Do you really think it is worth it to work all month (albeit part time) to have part-time child care costs which roughly only leaves you £180/month better off? To me that seems to be a lot of work for very little gain, but at a huge cost. Is that the motivation regarding the thinking of leaving her job?

Perhaps a slightly redial point, not directed at you dony, if a lot would do their sums properly wouldn't there be lots more vacancies about and improve the unemployment levels for all. Or am I thinking too old fashioned along the lines of one household one job.?

[imightbewrong]

Originally Posted by dejongj

Or am I thinking too old fashioned along the lines of one household one job.?

I think Dr Phil would have something to say about that - good thing he isn't here

I don't see much benefit to any one-house-one-job rules - how does it benefit the economy to force someone who could do a job better than someone else to sit on their hands and pretend they don't exist?

We have one job (mine) but if the financials were very different and/or the actual child-care was a lot better, we would probably have two jobs. If SWMBO was able to get a job more like mine, it would be a very different picture.

[Dony]

Originally Posted by dejongj

Do you really think it is worth it to work all month (albeit part time) to have part-time child care costs which roughly only leaves you £180/month better off? To me that seems to be a lot of work for very little gain, but at a huge cost. Is that the motivation regarding the thinking of leaving her job?

Perhaps a slightly redial point, not directed at you dony, if a lot would do their sums properly wouldn't there be lots more vacancies about and improve the unemployment levels for all. Or am I thinking too old fashioned along the lines of one household one job.?

I take your point completely, however my wife likes the social interaction she gets by going to work, and missed it terribly when she was off on maternity leave.
On the flip side, if she were to leave her job and be a stay at home mum, it would leave us £480 / month worse off.

I've been at her to leave her current job, because despite working for the company for 16yrs, she barely gets minimum wage, yet they have refused her requests for a payrise. It was actually my idea that she should leave and do childcare herself.

[FZR400RRSP]

Originally Posted by Dony

I take your point completely, however my wife likes the social interaction she gets by going to work, and missed it terribly when she was off on maternity leave.

This is a very valid point.
Whilst I'm sure plenty cope just fine, I've seen 'funny' things happen to stay-at-home mothers and kids.
Clingy kids etc.etc.
IMO and experience, mothers working and kids going to childcare is good for both.

[dejongj]

Originally Posted by imightbewrong

I think Dr Phil would have something to say about that - good thing he isn't here

I don't see much benefit to any one-house-one-job rules - how does it benefit the economy to force someone who could do a job better than someone else to sit on their hands and pretend they don't exist?

We have one job (mine) but if the financials were very different and/or the actual child-care was a lot better, we would probably have two jobs. If SWMBO was able to get a job more like mine, it would be a very different picture.

Yes, I wasn't necessarily thinking about a hard clear rule. I'm all up for the best person for the job. And ultimately leaving it to personal choice, I just wonder at time whether it is really worth it. I mean being left with say £200 extra a month after childcare, that would mean (based around 220 working days, 18 days per month, 126 hours per month) an hourly rate of £1.58. To me that doesn't seem worth it, but as I said each on to their own choice.

Originally Posted by Dony

I take your point completely, however my wife likes the social interaction she gets by going to work, and missed it terribly when she was off on maternity leave.
On the flip side, if she were to leave her job and be a stay at home mum, it would leave us £480 / month worse off.

I've been at her to leave her current job, because despite working for the company for 16yrs, she barely gets minimum wage, yet they have refused her requests for a payrise. It was actually my idea that she should leave and do childcare herself.

Don't want to make this specific about you, but surely it would only leave you £180 worse off as you no longer have the £300 childcare. Or did I miss something?

Originally Posted by FZR400RRSP

This is a very valid point.
Whilst I'm sure plenty cope just fine, I've seen 'funny' things happen to stay-at-home mothers and kids.
Clingy kids etc.etc.
IMO and experience, mothers working and kids going to childcare is good for both.

I agree it is not for everyone, yet at the same time just because there is a parent staying at home (doesn't have to be mum!) it doesn't have to mean clingy children either.

I do honestly appreciate everyone is different. My wife jokes at times that she doesn't have time to work And trust me I encouraged her to go contracting at the time as she was a MCSE, CNE, CCNE & CCNA/CCNP but was too busy planning the wedding and quit her job for it...Now with children going to school, children being ill at times, after school parties and sports/clubs even her pleasure time has to suffer. Heck even my weekends are filled with their activities and clubs and taxiing around. Maybe we are just bad at time planning. Life is definitely different with children.

But as said each to their own...

[Dony]

Originally Posted by dejongj

Don't want to make this specific about you, but surely it would only leave you £180 worse off as you no longer have the £300 childcare. Or did I miss something?

You didn't miss anything....I was having a stupid moment.

Truth is, we'd miss the £180 / month.

[dejongj]

Originally Posted by Dony

You didn't miss anything....I was having a stupid moment.

Truth is, we'd miss the £180 / month.

That is a shame to hear, hopefully the raising of the income tax limit and other similar steps will go towards helping families like your own and give you the option of some of the freedom. As to me putting in those hours for something that is necessary seems to make your wife work for much less than the minimum wage. Good luck :smashing:

On a slightly different view, still related to the topic I think, I am amazed by how few employers seem to be able to offer true flexible working. I honestly hoped that in this day and age there would be much better generally available arrangements. For a new venture that I am in the process of setting up we've are looking to give a very clear brief on that to the founding HR director we are looking for.

[IronGiant]

Today I got a call from school... your daughter has collapsed, the paramedics are coming...

I was there in 2 minutes... and held her hand while they gave her oxygen.

She's fine BTW

But it shook me up... I'm glad I'm doing Daddy Day Care from home.

[Jenn]

That would be my worst fear if I was working more than 2 minutes away from my son's school. Not being able to be there asap.