Daycare vs Stay-at-Home Calculator
The second salary, the childcare it pays for, and the years
Your result will appear here
Fill in the fields on the left and this updates as you type.
Know what this estimate is based on
- Jurisdiction
- General mathematical model
- Scope and limitations
- Planning estimate only. Enter complete, current figures and keep an appropriate buffer for irregular or unexpected expenses.
- Source links checked
- Jul 30, 2026
Built and regression-tested by Smart Tools Lab. It has not been individually reviewed by a licensed financial, tax, or legal professional.
How to use
- 01
Enter the lower earner's gross salary and the other earner's, separately. The second one matters because the first stacks on top of it — the household's marginal rate, not the second salary's own average rate, is what taxes it.
- 02
Enter the household's marginal income tax rate, then the childcare bill, the children in care, and your monthly commuting and work costs. This is the arithmetic everyone runs, and the page computes it as a stat so you can see the number you arrived with.
- 03
Enter the employer retirement match as a percent of salary and what you defer yourself — the match is capped by your own deferral, so the smaller of the two is what is genuinely forfeited by leaving.
- 04
Enter the years out of the workforce and the years until that parent retires, then a return on invested money. These three turn a monthly figure into a lifetime one, which is the only honest frame for a decision with a twenty-year tail.
- 05
Set the re-entry pay step-down to whatever your own industry suggests. It opens at zero on purpose — the effect is real and well documented, but this page holds no verified national percentage and will not put one in your mouth. Then read the lifetime gap, and the schedule that itemises where it comes from.
Formula
Annual cash from working = gross salary − payroll tax (7.65%) − income tax at the household's marginal rate − net childcare − work costs, where net childcare = the bill less the FSA saving (the excluded amount × (marginal + payroll rate)) less the credit (creditable expense after the section 21(c) offset × the applicable percentage). Employer match = salary × the lesser of the match rate and your own deferral rate. Social Security loss = (salary × years out ÷ (35 × 12)) × 32%, drawn for the expected benefit years. Wage scar = salary × the step-down percentage × years worked after returning. Lifetime gap = each working year's (cash + match) compounded to retirement, plus each post-return year's scar compounded likewise, plus the Social Security loss.
Example
A $62,000 second salary stacking on $95,000, a 24% household marginal rate, $24,000 of childcare for two children, $350 a month of work costs, a full $7,500 FSA, a 4% match against a 6% deferral, five years out, thirty years to retirement, 6% returns and a 5% re-entry step-down. The monthly figure comes out at $1,379 — $42,377 of take-home, less $21,626 of childcare after the FSA's $2,374 (the credit is $0, because $6,000 of cap minus $7,500 of FSA is nothing), less $4,200 of work costs. That is $16,551 a year, and it is the number most people quit on. Now the lifetime frame: $12,400 of employer match forfeited across the five years, $56,686 of Social Security lost over a twenty-year retirement, $77,500 of re-entry step-down across the twenty-five years back at work, and $457,850 of investment growth on the difference. The gap is $687,189 — about forty-one times the annual cash figure, and made almost entirely of things a month cannot show.
Definitions
- Marginal rate
- The rate on the next dollar of household income. A second salary is taxed at this rate from its first dollar, not at the average rate a standalone paycheck calculator shows.
- Employer match
- The employer's retirement contribution, capped by your own deferral. It is not salary, it cannot be replaced, and it is forfeited for every year not worked.
- AIME
- Average Indexed Monthly Earnings — the average of your highest 35 years of indexed earnings that Social Security's benefit formula runs on. A year out of work enters it as a zero.
- Bend point
- One of the thresholds in the Social Security benefit formula. Earnings in the middle band convert to benefit at 32 cents on the dollar, which is where a second earner's marginal averaged earnings usually land.
- Wage scar
- The permanent pay step-down associated with a career break. Real and documented, but with no verified national figure in this repo — so it is your assumption here, opening at zero.
Good to know
The calculation everybody runs, and what it leaves out
The standard version of this comparison is take-home pay, minus childcare, minus commuting. On a modest second salary with two children in care it frequently lands near zero or below, and the conclusion writes itself: the job pays nothing. That calculation is not wrong so much as radically incomplete, and it is incomplete in one direction only — every omission falls on the parent who leaves. Three of them matter. The employer retirement match is not salary and cannot be replaced: it is forfeited for every year not worked, and because it is invested it compounds for the decades that follow. Social Security earnings credits are the second, and the most permanent: the benefit formula averages your highest 35 years of indexed earnings, and a year out of work is not a missing year but a zero in that average, drawn against for a twenty-year retirement. The third is the re-entry pay step-down — the well-documented pattern that a career break is followed by a lower rejoining salary and a slower subsequent track. None of the three shows up in a month. All three are measured in decades. That asymmetry is the entire reason this page reports a lifetime figure rather than a monthly one: childcare is a cost for a handful of years and a career is a cost for forty, and any frame short enough to hide the second will always flatter staying home.
Why the second salary nets so much less than it looks
Run a $62,000 salary through any standalone paycheck calculator and it fills the low brackets first, producing a comfortable-looking net. That is not what a second earner in a household experiences, and the difference is the single most common error in this comparison after ignoring the retirement match. A second salary stacks on top of the first: its FIRST dollar is taxed at the rate the other salary's LAST dollar reached. In a household already earning $95,000, that means every dollar of the second income is taxed at the household's marginal rate from the start — 24% in the worked example — plus 7.65% of Social Security and Medicare that no bracket exempts and no deduction reduces. So on $62,000 of gross the household actually sees about $42,377, before childcare has been paid for. The other half of the arithmetic is that the costs of working are paid with after-tax dollars while the salary arrives before tax, which is why commuting, parking, work clothes and the convenience food that a two-working-parent household buys more of are larger in this comparison than their sticker price suggests. Neither of these effects is a reason not to work. They are reasons the honest number is smaller than the offer letter, and reasons to run the comparison on the household rather than on the job.
Social Security, the retirement match, and the cost of a gap
The two long-run costs deserve their own arithmetic, because they are the ones nobody has to hand. Social Security's benefit formula runs on Average Indexed Monthly Earnings — the average of your highest 35 years of indexed earnings — and years you did not work enter that average as zeros rather than being skipped. This page estimates the effect by spreading the lost salary across the 35-year window, converting it to a monthly figure, and applying the 32% middle bend-point rate, which is where a second earner's marginal dollar of averaged earnings almost always falls. On a $62,000 salary and five years out that is roughly $236 a month of benefit, permanently, which over a twenty-year retirement is about $56,700. It is an estimate of the right order rather than an SSA calculation — it assumes the middle band and ignores indexing — and the page says so rather than dressing it up. The employer match is simpler and often larger: 4% of $62,000 is $2,480 a year, forfeited five times over, and by retirement thirty years out that $12,400 of contributions would have been several times its size. Note the cap in the formula: a match is paid only against what you defer yourself, so the genuinely forfeited figure is the lesser of the two rates, not the headline match. Both of these are money that never appears in any month's cash flow, which is precisely why the monthly comparison cannot see them.
What the model assumes, and what it will not price
Two honesty notes, because a tool that produces a six-figure verdict owes them. The first concerns the re-entry step-down. The effect is real and well documented in the labour literature; what this repo does not hold is a verified national percentage for it, so the field opens at zero and attributes nothing to anybody. It is your planning assumption, and the single most useful thing you can do with this page is set it to what your own industry suggests, then set it to double that, and see how much of the answer rests on a number nobody has measured for you. The second concerns everything the model cannot reach. The value of a parent at home is real and appears in no column here — not the childhood, not the flexibility, not what the household is like at seven in the evening. Nor does the cost of a job you dislike, or the resilience of a two-income household against one earner's layoff, or health coverage that may attach to one job and not the other, or the possibility that the second income can be resumed while a childhood cannot. A negative lifetime gap is a real result and this page will report one; it happens when childcare for several children swallows a modest salary over a short horizon. But whichever direction it points, the figure is an input to the decision and not the decision, and the most valuable thing it does is move the conversation off a monthly number that was never going to be right.
Frequently asked questions
Is it worth working after paying for daycare?
On the monthly arithmetic — take-home pay less childcare less commuting — it often looks like it is not, and that is the calculation almost everyone runs. Three costs sit outside that frame and all three fall on the parent who leaves: the employer retirement match for every year not worked, the Social Security earnings credits for those years, and the permanent pay step-down on re-entry. Childcare is a cost for a handful of years; a career is a cost for forty. The monthly view cannot see the difference and this page is built to.
Why is my second salary taxed so heavily?
Because it stacks. A paycheck calculator run on a $62,000 salary in isolation shows the low brackets being filled first. In a household that already earns $95,000, the second salary's FIRST dollar is taxed at the rate the other salary's LAST dollar reached — plus 7.65% of payroll tax that no bracket exempts. That is why a second income nets so much less than it appears to, and it is the most common error in this comparison after ignoring the retirement match.
How do years out of work affect Social Security?
Social Security averages your highest 35 years of indexed earnings, and a year out of work is not a missing year — it is a zero in that average, permanently. This page estimates the effect by spreading the lost salary across the 35-year window, turning it monthly, and applying the 32% middle bend-point band, which is where a second earner's marginal dollar of averaged earnings almost always lands. It is an estimate of the right order rather than an SSA calculation, and the page says so.
What is the wage scar, and why is it zero by default?
A career break is associated with a lower rejoining salary and a slower subsequent track, and the effect is permanent rather than temporary. That much is well documented. What this repo does not hold is a verified national percentage, so the field opens at zero and attributes nothing to any source. It is your planning assumption. Set it to what your own industry suggests, then set it to double that and watch how much of the answer rests on it.
Does the childcare tax break change the answer?
It changes the size of the gap, not usually its direction. The dependent-care FSA is the larger lever — worth your marginal rate plus payroll tax on up to $7,500 — and in 2026 it extinguishes the Child and Dependent Care Credit entirely, because section 21(c) reduces creditable expense dollar for dollar by whatever the FSA excluded. The page applies that offset rather than showing both benefits side by side, which would overstate the relief by the whole credit.
Can staying home actually win?
Yes, and this page is built to be able to say so — it is the only tool in this set whose primary figure can honestly come back negative. It happens when childcare for several children swallows a modest salary taxed at the household's top rate over a short horizon. Two things to test before acting on it: extend the years to retirement, because the gap is dominated by compounding rather than by the monthly shortfall, and set the re-entry step-down to something other than zero.
What is not in the number?
A great deal. The value of a parent at home is real and appears in no column here. Neither does the cost of a job you dislike, the resilience of a two-income household against one earner's layoff, health coverage that may attach to one job and not the other, or the fact that a second income can be resumed while a childhood cannot. The figure is an input to the decision, not the decision.