Childcare reform: what about parents not on benefits?

But yes obviously, another thing that absolutely needs changing and is a huge nepn red flag for our successive Governments' attitudes to women and children is the dire state of child maintenance. The minimum rates need to be at least doubled if not tripled as a percantage of earnings to reflect what it costs to raise a child, how much of their income they'd be contributing to that if they were the parent who hadn't scarpered. And it should be enforced with the same enthusiasm the Government show for enforcing for example non-payment of Council tax: trashed credit record, eventually imprisonment.

But regardless of that there will always be many lone parents. And increasing proportion in fact, partly because we have now encouraged women to leave abusive relationships. Why would we want a system that on top of them trying to do two parents' work and be the ones who stick around to pick up the pieces, also then want to tax them more than a couple on the same income even if they do what people say they want them to do, and work full time to provide for their children themselves? It makes no sense at all.

You don't work... so what do you need childcare for? I've a child with disabilities, I'm a single parent, I'm currently unemployed due to child and therefore not entitled to childcare either. So what's your fucking point? If you don't work, then look after your child yourself. Problem sorted. Stop bashing everybody else. Believe me, I'd rather be working and I'm sure my daughter would rather not have a disability rather than living off pittance.

@Overthebow
it should be the dad where possible that pays for the child not up to the government.

Absolutely, and having a proper system for enforcing this with significant penalties for dads who avoid paying would help massively.

At the end of the day, unless one parent has actually died, children have two parents, whether those parents are still together or now. You can split up from a partner, but you don't divorce your children. Of course it should primarily be the parents who pay for the children they're created, not 'the government' - which in reality means taxpayers, often strapped for cash parents themselves who are struggling to pay for the children they chose to have themselves.

Yes I was thinking that. And what about situations where the dad is around and paying decent child support

Again, a vanishingly small proportion do that, sadly.

@freyamay74 In countries where tax is on a household basis it doesn't literally mean all adults in the household: if you have adult DCs living at home they have a separate allowance as an individual "household". If in a shared house with friends/ lodgers etc all have a separate allowance. What it means is that a family unit will not get double the allowances if everyone else. The same way that benefits operate now (because that benefits the Government, because they have to pay less out...) but not tax (because that would not benefit the Government, as they'd have to cease effectively double-taxing single adults/ parents).

I do understand why women campaigned for separate tax in the UK, given women's plight at that time: very few options to own property in their own right, or leave abusive marriages, or own property in their own right or progress careers properly or even have bank accounts in their own name. But now, this system is actually disadvantaging many, many women and children. Society has changed, we are able to leave abusive situations far more easily. Men also walk away from their children far more often, a double edged sword. So what was thought to be beneficial for equality at that time is now actively piling more disadvantage on the already disadvantaged.

A couple co-habiting or a married couple would get a single allowance. By default this would be split 50/50 so women in couples would still have financial independence and autonomy. If it suited them better to distribute it differently they could - by opt in signed by both parties that either party could revoke at any point - redustribute the allowance between them as they see fit. This would also remove the anomalies in terms of one dual parent household losing child benefit for example at £60k and another being able to earn £120k before that happens, just because they split work/ childcare in different ways. It is a simple system that would be fairer for everyone and would not disadvantage women in relationships at all: many would benefit in fact.

It would simply remove the discrimination against households with only one adult, who at the moment are being hugely penalised.

In terms of perverse incentives, I'd argue that actually the current system is what provides those: making it financially ruinous still to leave bad relationships. It is hard enough anyway surely to make that choice and raise a family on one income, and do all the work yourself, you don't need double tax levied to discourage it further! Setting single parents on a level playing field, being able to earn the same amount as other families before being taxed or paying higher rates etc would be basic fairness. Obviously as with benefits, you would need anti-abuse measures to stop the very tiny cohort of people who'd consider pretending not to be in a relationship for the purpose of ripping off the state but those systems exist already for the purpose of benefits calculated per household and would identify those same people pretending to be in that situation for tax purposes. The amount of fraud involved is tiny, compared to the economic benefits to be had by reducing child poverty and enabling single mothers to work more, not having huge career gaps and losing their earning potential, increased productivity, a small reduction in tax rate in return for far increased tax revenues over a lifetime...

Thanks for engaging with this discussion.

@SquidwardBound that doesn’t help most working parents still. The average person earning 30-35k is still going to struggle paying £1k per child childcare a month

Only working parents get the childcare element of UC.

UC is not necessarily an out of work benefit.

I mean, there's a hell of a difference between say a single widowed mother who has the children 24/7 and a single mum whose children spend several days a week with their dad.

Yes I was thinking that. And what about situations where the dad is around and paying decent child support, it should be the dad where possible that pays for the child not up to the government. There would be so many variations it just wouldn’t work. I also think the right to be taxed independently is important.

Yes it’s ridiculous. If they can’t help everyone then surely it should be those entitled to child benefit to include the middle earners. Or some other way of including more people. But to just help people on UC is not enough.

@ScruffyGiraffe I've been really interested to read your posts. I agree there's lots that needs reforming, but I do wonder, could there be a perverse incentive to what you propose? Our taxation system is based on people being taxed as individuals (and was a hard won right for women, who a few decades ago were taxed as an appendage to their husband ). My thought about your idea is let's say a single mother had worked hard in her career and was earning 50k. In your scenario she's taxed as a couple would be on a joint household income of the same. Surely it's going to be a disincentive to that single mother to get into a new partnership/marriage? And conversely, is it going to be a disincentive to both partners in a marriage to work (or to work to capacity) ? I'm just interested in your thoughts because while I understand what you're saying, i think there could be all sorts of knock ons. Another one I've just thought of is what about house shares or other living arrangements where people not necessarily married are living in the same household? I feel the right to be taxed as an individual (not as an appendage or part of a household) is important. Oh and what about a situation where in a separated couple , the child is with the mother most of the time but spends some days/ weekends/ nights with the father; does the father also get taxed less? Is the tax the mother pays variable depending on how much the child is with her? I mean, there's a hell of a difference between say a single widowed mother who has the children 24/7 and a single mum whose children spend several days a week with their dad.
Really interesting posts, but as you can see, lots of questions swirling round!

My biggest childcare bill was £2400 a month. Two in full time wrap around, one toddler in day nursery full time. If UC hadn’t covered a huge portion of that (I was on a much lower wage back then), I’d have been fucked post divorce, out of a job immediately and out of the work force for fuck knows how long, plunged into poverty and all the issues that brings.

Luckily, my eldest started Y7 the following year and my middle is now in Y7 so my bill is c.£1000 a month for an amazing childminder.

Good insight. And ridiculous. Productivity and tax revenues and living standards will not rise unless they address the punative thresholds at every level of the tax system.

I think this is really a kick in the teeth for most working parents. People on benefits have already had a 10% increase and loads of money towards energy bills. The tories just kept hammering middle income people

Thank you for jolting me out of my bubble @ScruffyGiraffewith patience and grace. I will be more inclusive in my thoughts and actions going forward. Solidarity

Yep. And imagine doing that with two under two as a lone parent and being tax more on the same income the couple are earning.

As I said, the whole system is ridiculous but please when you think how hard it is to manage as a couple, with 48 hours per day to earn/ be with your children as you see fit, imagine what it is like for a lone parent trying to do all of that in 24 hours per day and being taxed more than you on the same earnings!

It really is a disgrace that any family has to struggle with childcare costs so ridiculously high. It isn't impossible to fix. Other countries manage heavily subsidised childcare just fine: it's the norm across most of Europe. Max cost per child is a two or three hundred pounds per month as a norm. It should be changed for everyone, and the state would then receive far more tax that more than funds the cost! So ironic.

I suspect the reason they don't is because instead of making rational policy based on evidence of what works and will make us all better off they make policy based on optics and focus groups and tabloid headlines. They fear that the whole "I don't understand economics and I'm furious my money is being used to fund this when I don't have children" cohort will be stirred up by it because they're too stupid to realise that funding childcare properly would make everyone better off.

Just like with Brexit, nobody seems to care about the actual economics and effects. There were apparently a lot of people who said they were quite happy to be poorer?! So here we are.

If people could stop fighting over crumbs and, as a PP said, support rational policies that have been proved to work elsewhere that benefit everyone, even those without children, then things could be fixed. But they don't. So that doesn't happen.

My points about single parents demonstrate exactly this: people who aren't single parents themselves will rarely engage with the issue. Aside from the basic unfairness of them being taxed more on the same household income, it would benefit everyone if this was rectified. Productivity would increase, tax revenues would actually rise and far fewer people would end up ultimately reliant on the state and losing their earning potential (future tax revenues for us all).

The short-sightedness is depressing, and the unwillingness of many people to support policies that immediately wouldn't benefit them personally, even if in the long-term they clearly would (aside from the fairness issue!).

Ultimately if we as constituents aren't pressuring politicians for the policies we want then that will not happen. MPs want to keep their jobs. There will be an election next year. If everybody wrote to their MPs about these issues then they absolutely would be addressed, because what fills their inbox scares them and they don't want to lose their seats.

But instead of supporting each other as women - women impacted far more than men! - people do nothing, and it all continues largely as before.

The cynic in me says that what they want to do is fill up the low level vacancies that are causing problems. Carers, hospitality, retail. Reforming childcare in UC will mean that people take on these roles more often (most readily available jobs after a stint of being out of work or being off as a SAHM) or will increase their hours as they are already doing these jobs.

It should be more universal.

This. The 30hrs come too late for the majority of families.

Only people earning very low incomes get 15 hours before their child turns 3.

Everyone gets 15 hours after that. But as stated upthread it's not really 15 hours: that is based on it being term time only. What working parent can take 13 weeks a year of annual leave (except the very tiny proportion who are teachers or TAs or who have term-time only contracts in othet professions). Therefore nurseries generally average out these hours over the year meaning 15 hours is actually 11 per week. And because the Government funding for these hours is insufficient to cover the nurseries' costs, there are usually additional charges for these hours. Then all other hours have to be paid for at full rate.

Some people also get another 15 hours funded at aged 3 if all adults in the household work and earn over and under certain thresholds. But again this "30 hours" figure is misleading and equates to if you only had childcare in term time. In reality it is 22 houra per week. So someone with a full time job even if they got the 22 hours would have to pay top up fees for those hours, and then fund another 20 hours or so themself to cover full time work. Even if they met the criteria to be eligible for this, which some do not.

Actually it's 15-30 hours free child care depending on circumstances. If you have serious health issues then why aren't you getting pip or esa they have nothing to do with a partners wages. I have health issues, partner works full time, but our 3 youngest are still home just started looking into nurserys and we only have to pay a small amount currently towards it if I do put them in.

Feels like you literally can't win. If a lone parent and not working you'd be called a scrounger. If you work full time in a stressful job and try to fund everything yourself you get comments like "you must be on a pretty high income..?" implying that you should just suck it up that you're charged more tax than other families with the same income. Even when so many posters have said they're struggling when there are two of them, so they have 48 hours per day to split between work and childcare and pay less tax on the same earnings. 🫣🤦🏼‍♀️

I would love women to stand together on this and campaign to end this discrimination. Believe me, anybody could find themselves in this situation even if you do everything "right": long established marriage before children, already own a home, already established a good career. It is in all of our interests to get this discrimination against single parents (90%+ women) stopped.

@Babyroobs our productivity as a country is being trashed partly by the disincentives in the tax system at all levels of earnings per the article I posted earlier. What was shocking was that Hunt had to set up an enquiry to find this out when it's obvious to most people. If we want living standards to rise and public services to be properly funded then increasing productivity is the only way to do it and no matter what other economic reforms are made they won't achieve their goal without reforms to these issues with the tax system, at all levels. It will benefit everybody to fix these issues, it's a no-brainer. Here's the article again so save scrolling back:

amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/13/full-time-part-time-work-no-longer-pays-uk-economy

Plenty of research on this from other countries too. We don't have to reinvent the wheel: just emulate the systems that they have already tried and tested and work.

The issues for single parents and parents of disabled DC are the same, but magnified for the reasons I've explained. So yes, it's good if people recognise that and changes to address that are supported by everyone because they are often ignored in the conversation by all politicians. And it would be in everyone's interests to fix this in terms of child poverty, equality for women, basic fairness but also productivity and tax revenue.

Agreed. I am resigning this month and cant bloody wait. I am better taking a career break until all DC in full time education. Feel like we are killing ourselves grafting and only ending up with about 50£ more at end of month than if I was at home making memories with the kids. So long suckers!

Not much use having a decent income on paper if you're taxed more than other families earning the same and what is left is all sucked up by mortgage and childcare (which for disabled DCs is not going to reduce anytime soon...) and you can barely afford to keep the heating on and feed them properly.

If you can't work why do you need childcare? So you get free hours for the kids benefit but why do you need the extra? Is it so you can rest?

You must be on a pretty high income if paying that in childcare and not entitled to any UC ?