Heather Mills didn't get enough money

Yes, she's a "less than candid witness", yes, she has living needs that total £600,000 a year and finally, she actually owns a suit that looks like a harlequin's outfit, but the former model-campaigner-ex-McCartney muse was awarded £35,000 a year for her daughter Beatrice, with Sir Paul agreeing to pay up to £30,000 for a nanny. And while I know many will scoff, in the scheme of things this is just not that much money.

We used to have a nanny share for my daughter with another child and because we felt strongly that we should pay a fair wage (we kinda like our daughter and figured it would be good to have someone well remunerated for looking after her all day), we were able to hire an amazing woman. She cooked healthy quinoa dishes, she organised endless playdates, she corrected them when they tried to sit on each other's heads. And as a result she earned the equivalent of around £32K a year. That is to say, a living wage in London.

I know Sir Paul has the admirable desire to live as normally as possible. But £30,000 for a nanny is just scraping by. Chuck in the fact that the nanny will need to be discreet, security-minded and immune to tabloid payouts and that number looks to breed resentment.

Why is it that the people who are the most important to our children's development outside of family - the nannies, the childminders, the teachers - are paid so little? Do we really still think that these are low-skilled jobs or as a society are we just looking to get as much as possible out of the people who provide services for as little as possible? We stop ourselves from thinking about the children of our nannies who themselves go into childcare so mummy can get paid to look after someone else's progeny.

Of course Heather can perhaps find some spare cash in her £24.3 million award to augment the nanny's fees. And she could always use that age-old nanny budgeting trick used in our neighbourhood: Give the nanny a generous weekly food shopping budget and let her keep the change.

Comments

[James Molyneux]

30k is the father contribution to a nanny.

It is up to the mother to contribute
her 30k as well.

60k should be enough to bring up a baby in britain shouldn't it?

Shes a young woman, and should be concentrating on getting a job now.

[supermother]

It will be an interesting debate if they divorce within 5 years when she gets bored or he loses office (and if I were him I'm try to get her pregnant to keep her) her career will have been enhanced by being his first lady or diminished. I imagine at present she is turning down new underwear adverts but that sales of her music will go up. I've no idea what his business interests are other than his state salary.

[J]

has anyone worked out yet who earns the most- Sarko or Carla Bruni?

[Delilah]

My m-i-l tried to swing a religious marriage without a civil one in order to avoid losing a widows' pension (her squeeze-to-be was insolvent), but the Church of Scotland minister wouldn't cooperate. So I think they must have jumped over a broom with a hedge priest elsewhere, rings appeared and everything was tickety-boo but unofficial. She had to change churches though.

[supermother]

Indeed, Edward. Also if you've lived off your spouse's earnings in a marriage you have had years of extra benefit. In a sense you should be paying that back on divorce not getting more of the same.

But the consequence if clear - there really is little advantage to people like me, higher earners, whatever their gender in marrying at all. Particularly now the Government has recently rightly decided not to give cohabitants divorce type rights on a parting. 43% of marriages fail and that's up to 65% for second marriages where they are children already. It's just too risky for virtually no gain - the only gain is a saving in inheritance tax on death.

Can you have a religious marriage without the civil marriage bit I wonder? You can in some religions but I suspect not in any Christian one. That might be one way around it.

[Edward]

On the contrary. Mills has had her earning power hugely boosted by her marriage to McCartney. If anything, she should be giving him money.

[HG]

I actually wish she'd just top herself.

[supermother]

Well the average wasge is £24k. So let's take Mr Average on that and wife at home. Yes the value of her services is about that and a 50/50 split is fine. In fact he wont' get his share until the children are 18 as they need to be housed in the meantime and a bit of equity in the house is all they have.

BUT as soon as Mrs Charman, Mrs Sorrel or Mrs McFarlane say no I don't want the equivalent of the average wage on divorvce and my need for food and a modst home satisfied, I'm entitled to 50% of £800m or whatever, that's when I just don't agree. No wife in 2008 makes a man's career. Going to a few cocktail parties and tolerating a few dull guests at dinner at home is not how the husband (or in my own case the wife) got on and made their money. SO then I would say the lower earner after the 20 years plus marriage should get a house and an income of say the average wage. C'est tout. Now Mrs Mcfarlane in one case got a compensatory element - had she worked she might have by now been a partner at Freshfields on £1m, Presumably if instead he's married someone from the typing pool the sums might have been different. Anyway it's all a bit of a mess so no one really has much idea at all what any entitled is.

Most people have hardly any money so 50% probably is an okay starting point for them.

[mumoftwo]

'When a couple splits, everything the woman has benefitted from, that is, the man's earnings and lifestyle, suddenly to her is thought of as "mine" and not to be taken away. In fact, it was often just a lifestyle she partook of while the going was good. She was fortunate in this, but never created it.'

I disagree with this reasoning where the lower/non-earning woman/man has contributed significantly to the lifestyle by having children, bring them up or supporting the husband/wife to building up their own business or career over the long-term. When you enter a partnership, and that is indeed what a marriage is, there is not an equal level playing field for both parties to make the same amount of money if you want children and to have them cared for by their parents. Many people's high-flying careers and late nights are build on their other half putting the children to bed, cooking the dinner and running the household in a myriad of very important ways. The question is, how do you then split the assets of the marriage which are not, in my eyes, the sole possession of the person who went out to work very long hours if indeed they couldn't have done so and had the shared lifestyle and children without the help of their partner who was happy not to do so. The lifestyle is therefore not 'leant' to the wife, as your statement implies, but created together through the divison of labour, which is renumerated differently in our society. Healther Mills shouldn't receive much on this basis as it was a short marriage in which he didn't increase his earnings/or hers substantially and I agree with SM that there is no basis for entitlement of a certain standard of living.

[supermother]

Yes, and it's gender neutral. My ex husband was advised that legally he was entitled to maintain the safe lifestyle at my expense after divorce. The rules leave many men working very hard living with parents or renting a room whilst their wife and family (a family they often are not allowed often to see) continue much as before. In our case it feels like he has all the cash and doesn't need to work again (although he does) and I have 100% responsibility practically and financially for 5 children, a kind of triple whammy - to support the children, to lose his help with them on a day to day basis which means big childcare costs for me (you cannot force an absent parent to help or even see a child) and less earnings for me because of the time I spend with them plus the huge debts to service which in effect feels like a maintenance payment for life. Still better than what went before and better than never seeing the children of course but feels unfair.

[iain carstairs]

This writer shows why women sometimes are not taken seriously when they talk about their needs: the concept of sharing, of shared contributions, is so alien to some women that absurd and completely unreasonable thinking is pretty well automatic. Small wonder men need law courts!

When a couple splits, everything the woman has benefitted from, that is, the man's earnings and lifestyle, suddenly to her is thought of as "mine" and not to be taken away. In fact, it was often just a lifestyle she partook of while the going was good. She was fortunate in this, but never created it.

Mills has been given £25m, am I right? So suddenly, this is now "all hers" and not to be taken away, and the man is expected to pay for everything else! Why doesn't Mills put in HER share of the 4 year old's airfares, nanny, food, housing and so on? The child is not going to live with Mills 24x7, you can count on that! And yet McCartney is supposed to shell out for Mills' share, while "her" £24m is clutched meanly to her bosom.

[Udo]

The court never said that Paul has to pay for everything concerning his daughter, just his fair share. If she put her share in without moaning about how hard done by she is then they should be able to hire Mary Poppins.

[Steve]

"As long as the male ego seems to require they marry women who earn less they will have this problem." - Posted by: supermother | 20 Mar 2008 16:09:26

Don't be daft, I've never met a bloke who didn't wish his wife earned more or could earn more. Maybe this is because I'm working class and for us earning power is a matter of survival rather than one of status and lifestyle.

[James]

Hasn't this bitch been arrested yet for tax evasion, contempt of court and perjury?

[Simon]

And why on earth are you only counting Sir Paul's contribution?? He pays 30k TOWARDS a nanny...surely you accept that Heather should pay too!! In your case im sure you split the cost with your partner?? So if she paid her equal share to her child, then they would have 60k for a nanny..still scraping by?!

[Laura Roberts]

The basic premise of this article is wrong.
He's paying 30k for a nanny. Then the writer says 30k isn't enough for a nanny.

The child belongs to BOTH of them. His 30k + HER 30k, if the lazy, gutter, vile parasite can be bothered to actually pay for anything herself = 60k.

60k is more than enough for a nanny. Which is perplexing in the first case, since she claimed that her career was in tatters and would need compensation for not being able to work again. If she's not working, then shouldn't she be at home bringing up this future Priory Clinic patient?

[Ron]

Both Paul and Heather have grown accustomed to the trappings of wealth, so they now think of things in purely financial terms. It's a shame that by doing so, they are passing on thier thinking to thier children. Wht will this teach them about the real world? It is quite likely that at the end of the day, the child of thier union will inherit a vast fortune and be unable to cope with the responsibility it brings, all because of the greed of one calculating woman.

[Gregory]

...and why is this so important?

[Peter Wheeler]

Although I much preferred Harrison and Lennon I still admired the Beatles throughout my somewhat mispsent youth. Sorry Paul but you fell into the same trap as I did, a younger woman marrying you and the getting in the club. I did'nt know that she did and I wonder if you did? O K we live at life's differant ends of the spectrum your rich and I am struggling daily (in France)to make ends meet. But the nice guys suffer by being taken for a c??? by a money grabbing bitch. Remember the old bit about Churchill when he offered Braddock a million to shag him she said yes he then said how about 10 shillings she said what do you take me for? Winnie replied -we know what you are we are discussing price. A word of advice if you don't mind here in France who ever can provide the better upbring for the child gets custady, seen in with my own 2 eyes with my ex's older sister? The Dad got custody. Think on tramps of England

[Meeeeee Tooooo]

Sorry - I must be missing something - why does the child need a Nanny in the first place?

Surely a nursery would do wonders - teach the kid how to get on with others, play fairly and keeps its feet on the ground...

[C]

I'm sure that McCartney wanted his daughter for all of the right reasons, but I doubt very much that she did.
He is now forever tied to the woman who in all likelihood knew that her payout from their inevitable divorce would be inflated if she had a child.
She pleaded that she was financially successful before she married McCartney, so she can go out and find the cash (not by lying on her back again one hopes) to supplement her nanny requirements if she feels that she hasn't got deep enough pockets to cover it from her £20m+ windfall. Please.

[paula]

the £35,000 is ON TOP OF PAUL MCCARTNEY PAYING FOR THE NANNY/SCHOOLFEES

[James]

Just because most blogs are comprised of gibberish, it doesn't mean you have to follow suit.

I mean, heaven forfend people might dispense with their nanny and *gasp* raise their children themselves.

[Ed]

Paul and Heather are sharing custody 50% each, so the nanny is only needed part time, not to mention that Heather has no job to spend her time on.

[Blewyn]

30K is nowhere near a living wage in London.....not if you think (as I do) that a living wage means you can buy your own place. I guess 30K will just about cover the rent and bills, but who one earth wants to settle for that ?