To be quite angry about proposed changes to 3-4yo childcare- only for ALL working parents?

Littleshorty, I agree. There are quite a lot of elephants in the room here.

I think you don't even have to justify work by saying that it's meaningful to society. I think it's quite possible that one of the best things for children is to have a loving caring mother who is bringing in money.

The problem some sahp have got with more free childcare for wohp is that they won't have the ' childcare is too expensive' excuse not to work. If you're at home your child doesn't need childcare. Don't resent people that need help when they get it.
Like others on this thread I worked even when some weeks I didn't bring home anything once childcare and bus fare was paid. I did it for my sanity, to show my ds a good example and so that now he's at school I can work more and choose my hours not start somewhere else at the bottom.

IB you still haven't grasped the fact that it isn't charity. It will pay off for the government. It's part of an economic strategy.

To those who do the calculation of my childcare equals my take home pay, it's sometimes worth considering the long haul. Of course some people take several years out and then get great jobs or resume their careers. But there is lots of evidence that an extended break from work costs women dearly. The LSE regularly publishes papers showing how much it costs them. Those years of work, those pension payments - you don't get them back.

It's not personal for me. I don't have any childcare needs any more, but I can see that for many women those 30 hours will make a difference. Yes, some high earners will get it too - maybe it should be means tested - but to be cross because you don't want it and someone else does is just plain weird.

Totally agree with tilder

It wont affect me at all but how bloody brilliant for those who do want to keep their hard studied for careers and those on lower salaries who will get to keep more of it. Im an older parent and I just don't see the threatened effects that are constantly chucked about on here to scare those who use CC. In fact poverty is the biggest factor in childhood outcomes and life chances.

There seems to be an unpleasant moral judgement being applied to women who WOH and do well here along with a big helping of resentment and tunnel vision.
These women provide all sorts of vital services - is your GP a woman?, That scientist who is researching those new cancer drugs that might save a family members life or extend it?
Equally we need people doing the lower paid but vital work such as carers.
They might be doing all sorts of roles in society, many are highly trained and they are begrudged a small amount of help to enable them to continue ??
Its so narrow minded ,inward looking and if you considered the bigger picture ultimately self destructive.( less services( massive shortages of midwives, nurses and GPs), pay for more training, less taxes and less to fund pensions)
Put aside your own circumstances ,as I have,it wont benefit me and think what it actually means.

These threads are never complete without posters old enough to have bought their family homes before the market went batshit coming on to preach about prudence and planning. Some of you seem utterly unable to comprehend that for people of fertile age, this is increasingly not an option because of the need to get tens thousands of pounds together for a deposit even in the cheaper areas.

32 full time is full time regardless of job status. Some middle jobs are worse than higher paid jobs as you don't have any clout to demand flexibility.

Jobs don't come in neat little packages you get to pick and choose. A job is a job with it's own needs.If you don't want what it entails many others will.

Then those need to plan ahead more instead of throwing their hands up in the air once at the nursery gate.

Maybe some prior planning pre DC for those that can afford it would be prudent as they are just taking money from those who need it more on a lot less thus limiting those who want to work.

I get a cliff edge isn't good but wonder if a tapering of means testing like CB would be better.

The proof will be in the pudding.Childcare prices will go up,quality is key,more families on low incomes will want 2x wp. If 15 hours is enough then great but I suspect it won't be and the pot isn't bottomless.

Argentinianmalbec - you say It 'makes sense' for the lower earner to stop working if their income is less than childcare... Well According to you, I must have been daft then, because I went to work even when nursery cost the equivalent of my income (and the other costs of working- running a second car etc definitely meant working was costing more than being at home)

BUT it was the best thing I ever did. I doubt I would have even got back into my previous role if I'd given up work for years and there certainly wouldn't have been the chances for progression I've had.

I am well aware that the crippling cost of care does put people off working though which is why I support the proposed 30 hours. And if people don't want it or need it, because they Want to give up work, or just work a few hours a week then don't use it, or just use some of it! Stop whining about something you don't want, and stop trying to convince yourself that it would be a poor investment when the evidence shows that getting people into work is the best economic investment.

And finally, as for the 'women want little part time lower status jobs to have a work/ life balance' - well,again, fine if that floats your boat and you have a partner who is willing to possibly sacrifice his work/ life balance to facilitate it... But many of us nowadays believe in running a family where all members have the chance to achieve their potential and have a decent balance, whether that means both parents working in 'middling income' roles (rather rhan one working crazy hours and the other on pin money) or both parents reducing their hours a bit, or many other possible variations.

IB I did not belittle anyone in my post if you read the sentence Where I say I now that's not what everyone wants, but childcare is one obstacle to women not leaving high paid interesting jobs when they have children often to never return because that is difficult after a 5-10 year career break.

I work in a very female dominated fairly low paid job myself and also had to take a break when my two youngest were born, but I want there to be choices and at the moment a lot of women don't have a choice because they cannot afford childcare.

I did a quick fag packet calculation of the help I currently get. The salary sacrifice (for both of us) is worth roughly £1200 a year. Add on the cost to the government of the 15 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year (i think its £3.5 an hour) and it comes out at around £3200 a year. A lot of money.

I still think they have made a good investment - my tax already covers it.

I have huge admiration for the way people meet the costs of childcare. So I think regardless of your income, a short-term government investment is a good thing. If you want a job that is school hours, below the tax threshold (and can find one) that's fine - your choice. Please don't deny me the opportunity to maintain a career I love,where that too is my choice.

I teach all my children to fly high, reach high, aim high (as we all do). That their life is their choice. I don't add the caveat 'but only until you have children'. For me the government help has made a massive difference. A little bit more help will hopefully mean more have that choice.

I'm nothing if not an optimist Malbec :o

Our childcare costs for several years, combined with my commuting costs, where close to my take home pay. I am part time but on a good salary - full time I would be a higher rate tax payer. We don't live in the se either.

So a relatively small amount of government help has made the continuation of my career financially viable (plus provided employment for my childminder).

I work in a scientific profession which has few women. It is not a career that I could return to after an extended break. I will be paying tax on my income until I retire. I would say the government have made a very good financial investment by helping support my career for a few years.

Btw just because you don't pay tax on your income, you still pay tax on everything (well nearly everything) you buy.

Haha odd - I wish my pay would rise over time.

Not necessarily, no. Taking several years off can be disastrous for many careers. Also people's pay generally rises over time, they get promoted etc.

Duelling - DP earns more than me but if the combined childcare is more than one wage then it makes sense for the lower earner to stop work, no?

If your husband is only earning the same or less than you then I can see it would be a struggle. However it should surely be classes as a joint bill meaning that you are really bringing home £1000 after childcare if your DP/DH/the father of your child is paying his fair share of childcare bills.

Isn't he?

I don't understand how calling childcare a joint bill like any other household bill makes any difference. Putting 2 children in FT nursery place where I live would cost £2400 a a month. That's nearly £30K a year, and more than I earn. So I am destined to be a sahm until dc2 is school age. At which point, I will have been out of the work place for that long I'll have to start again probably at a lower level and wage than the job I left.
This is all hypothetical - I have 1x DD at the moment who is in nursery 3 days a week, the other 2 days she is cared for by a grandparent (although this is set to change soon and she will be in nursery FT costing £1200. I only bring home about £1600 so it would feel like working FT for about £400, no matter what people are saying about it being a joint bill)
30 free hours would make a huge difference to my family. I certainly wouldn't need it if I was a sahm though, so yabu.

Thelittle I'll think you'll find that the women who work in low paid or part time jobs want that in order to have a life balance. They want more time with their dc,a decent family life,limited stress and other benefits for their children. They want the job they have.They want to pick their kids up from school some days and to have more time with their dc other tha a few hours squashed into an over loaded weekend or just before bedtime.Belittling that is utterly wrong.Also said jobs may be worthless to you but many play an role part in society and said mothers are probably damn good at it.Society won't survive with just lawyers and middle management which everybody can't and should never want to be just because.

And Noname it goes both ways.Why should gov pay unlimited amounts of cash to fund the care of children you choose to have?Plan,save and have the family you can afford.YY to those on smaller salaries who genuinely need the help and will never earn enough to fund childcare but sorry frittering money on the care of children couples choose to have and are perfectly able to fund themselves is madness.The care of your children is your responsibility.

There is only so much money that can be spent on this,the more they up it the more waste goes on those who don't need it.For the poorest families 15 extra hours isn't going to make much difference,quality of care is key too so the money spent will need to be increased which is less likely when money also has to go on many who don't need it.

Funding wealthy families just takes from those that need it most just as free school dinners do. The threshold in ks2 and secondary for fsm should have been upped but it won't now as any surplus cash goes on wealthier kids getting food many dump in the bin and not on more that are hungry.It's madness.

It is NOT discrimination at all. You have the same choice to go to work and then get the 30 hrs free childcare. Just like wohp will face the same consequences as you if they change their circumstances by not working.

Do you think the government should fund you to stay at home and not look after your children??

Morethan you have a very limited experience then.

I don't think it's good that women/mothers mainly work in PT and often low paid jobs. Investment in childcare would be one step towards more women climbing the ladder career wise. I understand that not everyone wants that, but it should be possible.

Im a higher rate tax payer.
I still pay tax but I have a lovely lifestyle and my DC have done very very well for themselves
In my area most women earn well and pay tax ,even if they WOH PT.
They set the standard and so their DC also do well

I guess a lot depends on personal circumstances... I worked only 3 days a week when my children were small but still paid tax.
That was my personal choice as I was the one who benefited (with dh's agreement obviously) but many women choose to return f/t. I suspect now with transferable leave more dads will take time off anyway- we'd share leave like a shot if it had been around when we had babies.
Having said that, returning to f/t work when the children were in school was the best thing I ever did, as no way would I have been able to work my way up without having done that