Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In most jobs where employees are on a 'gross' contract, tax comes out of that figure at the appropriate rate of tax as well as employees' National Insurance. Employers pay additional NI on top of that.


Some nannies are on net contracts (which most nanny payroll providers advise against as it means the employee gets no benefit from positive changes to taxation and the employer gets shafted by negative changes), which means their pay is fixed at that net rate.


More commonly the negotiations happen in 'net' speak (so the nanny is basically negotiating a take home pay rate) and then the payroll provider grosses that up and that gross amount goes into the contract. It means there may be minor variations to net pay on a monthly basis and as regulations change. So a nanny you have negotiated a net rate of ?7.50per hour with would actually be costing you ?10 an hour. I do think a lot of nannies don't properly appreciate the actual cost of their employment, and I do think it is bizarre the constant talking in 'net' rates - fine for a casual babysitter, but not someone trying to be taken seriously as a professional!


That all said, I agree that a nanny share does compare quite favourably with nursery, where rates for under twos go up to ?70 a day (but more commonly around ?50).


I'm not a payroll specialist so don't take any of that as gospel, but hopefully fairly accurate!

When you choose a nanny parents are choosing to have the one on one interaction which I believe is so vitally important for under 5's but especially for under 2's. Children are sponges and they should be able to go on daily outings in their environments, have that close bond with someone whom will provide love, nuture them in every area of development and encourage their progress through such important stages in their life. Which a nanny will hopefully provide. I am not saying that a childminder or nursery will not provide all of the above but a childminder may have 3 other children aswell as school pick ups etc... so a childminder may not be so flexable to be able to plan their day to your childs specific needs. Which is why they are not as expensive as a nanny/share. I know alot of childminders whom are fantastic so I hope no-one has taken offence to the above. I am just trying to stick up for us nannies whom work very hard, love their jobs and work very long hours with no breaks (as my charges are older). Childcare is very expensive but surely as parents you want the best possible care that you can afford and I am so pleased that nannyshares are becoming more popular as it means it is no longer that the upper class are the only ones whom can afford nannies.


As far as a nannyshare goes taking care of 2 babies, 2 families, 2 different routines, 2 different needs, having eyes in the back of you head aswell as trying to keep sane is a very hard job! A nanny who is involved in a share normally get ?2 extra of their normal typical rate. So if the nanny normal get ?8 an hour then in a share it will be ?10 (according to simply childcare). It is true there isnt any specific guildelines to what you should or shouldnt pay which is sometime why all of the confussion. Those parents who have twins will appreciate how hard it is having 2 little ones the same age. Each one going in a different direction, both wanting the same toy, both teething and crying! So it isnt just the extra hassle its the fact its double the work!


I am a nanny aswell as a trained montessori teacher and yes I did study for 3 years to become qualified so not all nannies arent trained and the majority of nannies I know have been trained in early years. So no not as long as a doctor but I didnt one day wake up and think Im going to be a nanny.


I hope I have made the point without upsetting anyone, that yes nannies are more expensive but you kind of get what you pay for! I love my charges dearly and I put my heart and sole into the job so seeing some of the comments are a little upsetting which is why I had to write something.

Most nanny jobs also are pretty short term, so we are potentially looking to get a new job every few years as parents tend to have more children, put them in nursery, want a nanny share and so on. So the job security is never great and I have gone weeks/months without a job whilst I look for a replacement job.
Our nanny charges ?90 a day (10 hour day). We're two families in a share and split the daily rate 50/50. She is registered self employed so takes care of her own tax and NI. And she's OFSTED registered so can accept child vouchers (a huge saving if you are a 40% tax payer).

littleEDfamily, I think chelle184 IS the nanny she may be thinking of and I believe our son is extremely lucky to be looked after her.;-)


I have looked into many childcare options and decided to go with nannyshare because our nanny is so wonderfully loving and caring and I just knew that there is no way he would get that feeling of being adored from other care options. I do think it is very important for young babies to have the one to one care.


And yes, childcare is expensive but it's absolutely all dictated by the market - supply and demand after all. Chelle184 is absolutely, without a doubt, worth every penny!

If you could declare yourself as a company, your house would be your premises and therefore an expense, the nanny could also be an expense and you could even through in groceries as an expense then you could pay tax only on your profits which would be nothing in most our cases. I think the nanny salary scheme needs amending, its ridiculous to pay their tax and NI from one's gross.

A HUUUUUGGGGGE thankyou Amy and little ED for the support!!!! :) xxx


I felt I had to stick up for us nannies and explain yes we maybe more expensive than other childcareers/nurseries but that is because we provide more! It isnt just a job, we become part of the family and look after your most prized poccession in life in the most important part of their lives.


Yes I do agree that a nanny should work on a gross salary but unfortunately its always been worked out on a net hourly basis.


Thanks again guys :) xx

  • 2 weeks later...
I find it amazing that the hourly rate for cleaning is ?9 - ?10 per hour and that the hourly rate for childcare is less. I'd rather be a cleaner - have R4 on, nip out for the odd ciggy, clean the house in any order you like, you're responsible for the house, yes but not for an actual human life.

Mellors Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think I'd be reducing my cleaner's rate if I had

> to pay her for 40 hours a week though.....


Totally agree!!


Cleaners don't get paid for every hour of the working day, their travel between jobs is unpaid and each job is probably 2 or 3 hours, realistically a max of 3 jobs a day, more than likely 2.

"Government policy is seriously squewed against the middle class working mother who wants a career."

I totally agree with the above poster.



Mommiemae - one pays a nanny eg 8/9 per hour AFTER her tax. This costs you 50 hours times eg 8 ie 400 AFTER ALL HER TAX AND YOUR NI as an employer. You can look on Nannytax to find what this grosses up to - 579 per week. I agree it is totally weird to be looking at things on a net basis. I need to find approx 28,000 a year out of my POST tax income.


As regards the comparison with junior drs, yes it is an awful situation where highly intelligent and compassionate people, the very cream of our achievers, are valued so badly.


As regards the comp with cleaners, cleaners seldom work 10 hours a day in one location so they waste time travelling, they aren't paid for the lunch hour and they don't get 2 plus hours off a day when the child sleeps. Thye don't get 4 weeks holiday pay either generally. Over a 10 hour day, nannies actually work 8 max. Most hourly workers are paid for the hours they actually work.


Basically, the system has to change. It will because employers like us are realising that it is not sustainable financially.


OTOH, I was told recently that 10 years ago there would have been many many more jobs available than today. Looks to me like nannies are pricing themselves out of the market and employers are increasingly staying home or using nurseries.

new mother Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


>


(cleaners) aren't paid for the lunch

> hour and they don't get 2 plus hours off a day

> when the child sleeps. ...

>

>

> OTOH, I was told recently that 10 years ago there

> would have been many many more jobs available than

> today. Looks to me like nannies are pricing

> themselves out of the market and employers are

> increasingly staying home or using nurseries.


I think you'll find that a nanny still works out cheaper than a nursery if you have two ort more children, plus there are fewq ways to arrange school drops and pick ups if you have an older child.


Those families who think a nanny isn't worth the money won't use one.. minders are a great alternative if you have just one child and can find one.


Btw, do you honestly think a nanny is taking an hour for lunch and not working while the child/ren nap? Do you take a 2 hour break in the middle of the day if you are looking after your children yourself? I certainly don't. I am lucky to grab a few short breaks of 10-15 mins during the day ... I certainly don't begrudge any childcarer the same sort of break!!

Interesting thread!


When we were looking at childcare options we found it difficult to work out what a nanny or share would actually cost in total (since lots of the discussions were along the lines of ?X per hour net), it was not transparent at all.


For those with more than one child, especially under two, nursery can be v.expensive too, especially in and around East Dulwich since there are no council-run nurseries (except Gumboots I think, though not sure).


Re. "self-employed" nannies, be careful: HMRC has stringent rules on what it classifies as self-employment vs PAYE, and is cracking down on "false" self-employment. A nanny working for just one or two families would probably be classified as employed, not self-employed, regardless of what her contract said, so families could be liable for unpaid tax.

  • 5 years later...

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
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...