childcare costs

[splashymcsplash]

This is something that has been brought up time and time again.. childcare costs are very expensive, especially in London/SE.

AIBU to ask you to sign this e-petition so maybe, just maybe, something could be done about it?

right on spudulika!

Well you could say - "Let them eat cake - which they baked themselves with their own children" Or something

fanjo not really!

The people on that phone line thingy you ring said that they had behaved badly, possibly illegally (they did some other stuff too) but honestly, taking on a huge multinational? Who does that? The only people I've seen making those sorts of claims in the papers are (understandably) lawyers or mega-rich people. Ordinary people don't generally go around sueing the pants off organisations do they!

If you're self employed Juule, those things are considered legitimate business expenses.

I find it mind boggling that childcare isn't included. Apparently it used to be.

Childcare costs should come out of pre-tax salary as a starter IMO. Some argue (and they're right) that it benefits the rich more but blimey it's better than what happens at the moment.

I don't understand the cap on childcare vouchers TBH, never understood that.

*fanjo not really!

The people on that phone line thingy you ring said that they had behaved badly, possibly illegally (they did some other stuff too) but honestly, taking on a huge multinational? Who does that? The only people I've seen making those sorts of claims in the papers are (understandably) lawyers or mega-rich people. Ordinary people don't generally go around sueing the pants off organisations do they!*

I was only asking! To be fair, I didn't know it was a multinational either.

No I know

I just think it's a shame that in theory everything is rosy but in practice it doesn't always work that way.

I know, ideal world and all that :)

Just in case anyone does want to sign the original petition (which was not started by me btw) here it is again as I think it has become a bit lost:

petition link

I could say that I'll agree to my taxes subsidising your decision to go back to work when you agree to subsidise me for staying at home.

See? There are just too many people who want or need that extra bit of help and there's not enough money to go around.

I am not unimaginative. Nor am I a Marie Antoinette but you are entitled to your opinion. When I was growing up I watched my mother sorting out the household income. She would always pay the rent first as that was the most important to keep a roof over our heads, then came the food, then the clothes. At no time did she say that we were eating beans and pulses all week so she could afford to pay for childcare costs.

I really am struggling to get my head round the 'can't afford to work' argument when the 'can't afford to stay at home' one makes a heck of a lot more sense.

If someone said on here that they go out to work because it suits them and they can't stand being at home with the kids then I'd get it because at least they are being honest.

Voluptua, do you honestly believe that is the ONLY reason why people use childcare?

If so then yes, you do lack imagination.

Ok I lack imagination. Tell me why then

Balsam, a lot of SAHMs are subsidised, because the lower household income qualifies them for tax credits and/or benefits.

Single moms for one

People with a disabled/ill partner, or one that works away

People who are in the midst of studying for a degree, and taking 3 years off would mean starting all over

People who have spent years building up to a good job, and taking 3 years off would mean giving it up for good and thus reducing family income permanently

Women with PND who need time off to care for their mental health

People with ill parents

And especially, people with no other support in place -- a lot of the above could be handled if you have friends or family to help out, but if not then paid childcare is necessary, and this is difficult to find on an ad hoc basis

My point is that you have no idea why people use childcare. To say the only reason is that people don't want to be bored at home with their kids is just such a massive assumption.

I have an ill parent and I have no other support in place. I have a partner who works away a lot. I completed my degree whilst caring for my children.

I agree to all of the above but the original argument here is that people are turning down jobs or leaving them because they cannot afford to take them. Therefore that is why I made the assumption that people are using childcare to allow them to go out to work.

But you're assuming that people go out to work just because they don't want to be stuck at home bored with their kids all day.

I'm sure a lot of people would like to stay home with their kids but the costs for the entire family, whether short or long term, are simply too high.

Why do you assume they are making a bad choice, when you don't know their circumstances? Why assume they are being selfish or shallow, when they could simply be following a cost-benefit analysis?

Child care costs have always been high. I had to give up work because I couldn't afford to pay for childcare, this was before you got subsidised childcare. The costs came off my wages AFTER I had already paid tax and there was no way of claiming anything back then. Now I work part time, to fit in with the family, doing a job which I am over qualified for and therefore do not earn a good wage. I am not moaning about this btw! But why should I now subsidise other working parents? If my taxes go up it won't be worth me working at all.
Bottom line - No there isn't enough money to subsidise it and no I don't want to pay towards the costs.

I am not! Life changes constantly and you cannot predict what will happen in the future. You make your choices as best you can. I am just questioning choices based on the argument that people 'cannot afford to work'. I am jumping between threads as there is another similar thread active at the moment.
The government does subsidy those on the lowest incomes to allow them to work. The original post on this thread was that childcare costs were too high so do childminders or nurseries charge less and pay their workers a rubbish wage or does the government subsidy child care costs even more. For whom? For those who are caring for a parent, are ill, are studying - don't have a problem with that. Yet again I come back to the very basic argument based on a very simple cost-benefit analysis that if childcare costs outweigh wages then stay at home to look after the kids.

I think just a few suggestions, or at least when the economy is better (if?)

• Increase the pre-school allowance to say 20 hours a week
• Make childcare costs tax deductible - all come out prior to tax on salary
• For certain keyworker type jobs - say police, fire, medical roles, teachers in certain fields where there are shortages, they should get a certain amount of free childcare through vouchers
• Take more low income people out of tax altogether and reduce taxes for the lower tax band instead of giving it back through credits.

All very well to criticise people for the number of kids they have had or the arrangements they have made, but most people did this not thinking the economy would be this bad for this long, and how can you allow for food prices, fuel, energy, rail fares having gone up to the extent that they have?

Edith1 She sounds expensive charging more after charging £4.00 ph. I charge £4.50 ph with snacks and pick-ups all in that charge. I also do discounts for siblings to help make it easier for parents with more than one child coming to me.

This is the going rate in my area, I am also in competition with 400 other childminders in my area too

Yet again I come back to the very basic argument based on a very simple cost-benefit analysis that if childcare costs outweigh wages then stay at home to look after the kids.

That argument is detrimental to society though as it means a whole range of people with a very good education and excellent skills are effectively removed from the workforce for several years.

What I'm trying to do personally is work more flexibly as they get older, not the other way round so I actually have more time with them. I've found it harder in my current job since DD1 started school as there is always so much to organise and do, and I think in a lot of ways she needs me more than when she was a baby, and I'd like to be around lots for both daughters when they hit secondary school age as that's when they really need someone to confide in.

I think in the vast majority of areas outside london childcare is 28 to 35 a day. Its only in London you ever hear of it being so expensive. Most other places the girls are getting paid between 100 a week for 40 hours up to about 6.15ish dependant on age and qualifications. Its hard to make money in childcare. Childminders only make about 3ish an hour per child in a lot of places

Anyone who has willing grandparents to help out for free...are so LUCKY!

But that cost-benefit analysis is too simple. It might be cheaper in the short run to stay home but there are significant costs to that in the long run, especially if you work in a field where staying home for several years effectively ends your career.

I should say that both DH and I have had spells as SAHP because that was cheaper than both of us working, so I'm not disputing that this makes sense for some people. But I don't think it will make sense for everyone.

SardineQueen
"If you're self employed Juule, those things are considered legitimate business expenses.

I find it mind boggling that childcare isn't included."

I'm finding it mind-boggling that "chauffeurs, gardeners, cleaners are tax deductible" Why? What's the reasoning behind that? Probably another thread.