Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Childcare Costs 'cancels Out Wages'

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30622583

One in 10 UK families see one earner's wages used solely to cover childcare and commuting costs, research by insurer Aviva has suggested.

Some 4% of women surveyed said they were "paying to work", because their costs were greater than their wages.

It concluded that juggling these costs was proving frustrating for parents.

Business leaders recently called on the government to extend childcare support for parents with children aged one and two.

The CBI employers' organisation said that this, and raising the threshold for National Insurance, would help raise family incomes and get more adults into work.

Hard work no longer worth it for "hard working" families?

My mates missus has gone into running her own child care business from the house, even the pay is less than she was earning because they now don't have child care costs of their own they are better off. Plus with all the legitimate costs I'm sure an accountant can find they'll actually be much better off than working.

You can't survive on one wage and now with both individuals working in a marriage you are still no better off you are just treading water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30622583

Hard work no longer worth it for "hard working" families?

My mates missus has gone into running her own child care business from the house, even the pay is less than she was earning because they now don't have child care costs of their own they are better off. Plus with all the legitimate costs I'm sure an accountant can find they'll actually be much better off than working.

You can't survive on one wage and now with both individuals working in a marriage you are still no better off you are just treading water.

so if it doesn't pay then don't do it.

personally in that situation if I was mum I would stay at home with the baby.

I certainly wouldn't want any extra "state" help at that age, no matter how much funding business gives.

it's important for mums and babies to bond at that age.

having the extra "state" help at 1 year old is frankly little better than hitlers baby-hatcheries. very,very dangerous path to go down there.

I think we need to call it out for what it is, and "out" this corporate-state socialist agenda.we've seen it before elsewhere and it's evil.period.

companies endorsing such need to be boycotted/ named and shamed.

Edited by oracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if it doesn't pay then don't do it.

personally in that situation if I was mum I would stay at home with the baby.

I certainly wouldn't want any extra "state" help at that age, no matter how much funding business gives.

it's important for mums and babies to bond at that age.

having the extra "state" help at 1 year old is frankly little better than hitlers baby-hatcheries. very,very dangerous path to go down there.

I think we need to call it out for what it is, and "out" this corporate-state socialist agenda.we've seen it before elsewhere and it's evil.period.

companies endorsing such need to be boycotted/ named and shamed.

But that won't boost GDP and make government debt 'appear' to be shrinking, when actually it's exponential.

It's far more likely the government would introduce a 100% tax on clild car, then give double back in rebates as it would boost GDP.

It's al about growth and GDB, even though it's meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have twin 2.5 year old boys. They have just started nursery 2 days per week to give them exposure to other children and adults and they benefit from a wide range of activities we can't provide at home. The cost is slightly more than my wife's income and we are struggling. This will change next September when they they qualify for state childcare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....the childcare I used to use was excellent and affordable until the rules regulations and bureaucracy became unbearable to them, so they shut shop.....many working mums lost the best care there was on offer........the system sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly I'm a bit surprised people are still breeding given the level of housing costs versus wages, lack of security of tenure, and lack of job security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly I'm a bit surprised people are still breeding given the level of housing costs versus wages, lack of security of tenure, and lack of job security.

Kids don't require security of tenure or even job security, all they require is love, preferably from both a mother and father.

When I was young, we were sent to pre/play school in the local community hall. I'm sure it was practically free.

It was and it worked. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kids don't require security of tenure or even job security, all they require is love, preferably from both a mother and father.

Yeah, sure, lack of resources has no harmful effect on the mental and physical health of the children being raised and the adults doing the raising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jemmy Button

Kids don't require security of tenure or even job security, all they require is love, preferably from both a mother and father.

It was and it worked. ;)

They do need food putting on the table, though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do need food putting on the table, though...

Sure.....first love then food and a secure roof......fancy toys, and clothes mean very little..quality time means most and money can't buy love. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30622583

Hard work no longer worth it for "hard working" families?

My mates missus has gone into running her own child care business from the house, even the pay is less than she was earning because they now don't have child care costs of their own they are better off. Plus with all the legitimate costs I'm sure an accountant can find they'll actually be much better off than working.

You can't survive on one wage and now with both individuals working in a marriage you are still no better off you are just treading water.

A couple up the road do this and can mind an enormous number of children between them.

Several child minders on the street in addition to them too.

Only issue has been for some not having a second grey waste bin for nappies since the council cut back on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess at some point you just have to accept that the relative lack of housing and small number of adult waking hours not spent engaged in wage labour which people born in the late 1970s/1980s can afford means that the children of people born in the late 1970s/1980s will grow up in households in which there is relatively poor access to housing and there are few adult waking hours not spent engaged in wage labour.

The effects of decades of declining real wages will be passed on to people born in the 2010s through their childhood experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sure, lack of resources has no harmful effect on the mental and physical health of the children being raised and the adults doing the raising.

lack of decent quality emotional bonding does far more damage to a kids upbringing than lack of physical resources

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jemmy Button

lack of decent quality emotional bonding does far more damage to a kids upbringing than lack of physical resources

I agree but I think the point is you are going to need SOME money to get the sprog through life. Nappies don't grow on trees (unless there's some miraculous Nappy tree somewhere.) I think most people have children, not out of love...but just cos they are BORED and they need something to give meaning to their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lack of decent quality emotional bonding does far more damage to a kids upbringing than lack of physical resources

If both parents are doing 45+ hours of wage labour and commuting a week to pay for housing and childcare that is going to reduce the amount of time and energy available for 'decent quality emotional bonding'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If both parents are doing 45+ hours of wage labour and commuting a week to pay for housing and childcare that is going to reduce the amount of time and energy available for 'decent quality emotional bonding'.

You have your whole life to work.....you can never get your kids formative years back again .... a few years damage can take a lifetime to undo. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lack of decent quality emotional bonding does far more damage to a kids upbringing than lack of physical resources

The parents who love their phones more than their kids are a bigger problem than those who go out to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The parents who love their phones more than their kids are a bigger problem than those who go out to work.

They will end up raising children who realise the best if not only way to get attention is to be naughty

Of course everything will be negative - "Don't do that" or worse "Go away"

That will translate into being naughty in a bigger way

& so the children as adults will stand a fair chance of ending up in prison one day

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have your whole life to work.....you can never get your kids formative years back again .... a few years damage can take a lifetime to undo. ;)

The interests of landlords, banks, employers and the government are not served by ordinary people having time to spend with their children during their formative years, and the balance of power lies more with the former than the latter at the moment. Ordinary people might want to spend more time with their children but not be able to afford to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.