Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

542 replies

AcademicOwl · 28/05/2015 07:29

Ok, Queen's speech.
Proposal to increase 'free'* childcare to 30hrs for 3-4 year olds.

BUT only if all parents working.

As I understand, the current provision for 3-4 yo there are no caveats re parents working. So ok for SAHMs & SAHDs. Gives children chance to socialise pre-school, parents to find feet again and possibly find work.

I've got 2 DC under 5, and worked 3 days a week, so understand costs of childcare (I.e. Two in childcare = more than I earn by about £200pcm). Expecting DC 3 in Oct, so was considering a year out on a career break... Help make costs manageable, support family whilst they are titchy, etc. but DC 2 prob wouldn't be eligible for 'free' childcare if I do that.

Can't help but feel this is discriminating against SAHPs & again undervaluing the importance of parenting choices and the family unit...

What'd you want to bet they'll remove current 'free' provision?

*'free' because in our patch it isn't. The nursery work out how much money it contributes to your monthly bill, then you have to make up difference.and, yes, they are allowed to do that... I investigated at length a couple of years ago.

Grrrr!!!!

OP posts:
32percentcharged · 30/05/2015 11:12

I think it's totally up to the individual whether to mop the floor with or without their children, or indeed whether to mop it at all

thelittlebooktroll · 30/05/2015 11:13

Saying you have a cleaner is like waving a red cloth on this thread.

Tanith I am sorry I do t understand your point. If you are a childminder surely you want there to be a demand for your services?

I am not a higher rate tax payer and nor is DH but I agree with the point previous poster is making that higher rate tax payers are always getting penalised. You don't have to earn an awful lot in London before you are higher rate and it also depends how many children you have. Should higher rate tax payers only be able to afford one child as that's all they can afford in childcare whilst others get 3 children into childcare as they are qualifying for more free hours? How would this work if means tested?

emilyharrymum · 30/05/2015 11:25

I've been a SAHM forever and there is no way on this earth I'd want my youngest in childcare 30 hrs a week while I was at home. Sahms clearly don't require this. But I'd be very upset if someone suggested my children won't get the 15hrs pre school education anymore, I doubt this will happen as its for education and should not be linked to the parents employment status. I'm looking forward to my one full day and a couple of mornings nursery next year. Emily starts school in 2017 so this wouldn't benefit me anyway.

tilder · 30/05/2015 11:43

I would much rather the debate on the possibility of 30 free hours of childcare focused on issues such as the availability if said free childcare. The quality of that free childcare. The viability of those free hours give the level of government funding.

I would rather they offered 25 hours of properly funded childcare than 30 hours if underfunded childcare.

Instead we seem to be talking about cleaning, who does it, if the children help Hmm

If I started a new thread about availability, quality and funding of the free hours, would it be a taat?

32percentcharged · 30/05/2015 11:55

I don't see any reason not to start a thread if you want, but I doubt there would be anything more than speculation on it since none of us know the details yet

tilder · 30/05/2015 13:14

Am sure it would be speculation. But this is a massively important issue for a lot of people and information on what and how people would like this to work may, in an idealistic world, be a way of putting our view forward to those who will form the policy.

oddfodd · 30/05/2015 13:41

Everything I've read suggests this is aimed at families where both parents are working. I think they'll take away the 15 hours from children who have a parent at home.

How else are they going to pay for it? There's not enough money as it is to fund the 15 hours.

oddfodd · 30/05/2015 13:42

Sorry that's a bit garbled. I mean it specifically says it replaces it but is more narrowly defined. Also taking it away from most deprived children.

RufusTheReindeer · 30/05/2015 13:49

back

Your post of 11:12 today makes you sound exactly like a politician

Grin

Unless you are one...in which case it's not quite so funny Hmm

Stitchintime1 · 30/05/2015 14:09

In most of the newspaper coverage, it says the extra hours will be funded by a reduction on pension tax relief.

flamingoland · 30/05/2015 14:09

About time this happened- for the past few years I've scrimped and saved every single penny so I can send my child to nursery to allow me to go to work. During which time, I've seen many people I know who do not work get free childcare so they can sit on their arse in peace. Before anyone starts about children being deprived etc, what a patronising and condescending attitude to those on benefits.

tobysmum77 · 30/05/2015 16:03

If more parents work then there will be more tax receipts. That is how it will be paid for.

tobysmum77 · 30/05/2015 16:06

30percent great post absolutely.

My youngest goes to school in 2016 so this won't benefit me or my family. I still think its a good thing.

cotswolds5 · 30/05/2015 18:34

Maybe the govt needs to leave self funding sah alone and contrentrate on getting families where no one works into work.

morethanpotatoprints · 30/05/2015 18:48

tobysmum

Most women I know who work are p/t and don't pay tax.
the vacancies advertised are mostly p/t as well, or 3/4 very few full time jobs that would be enough to pay tax.
Besides, I think most returning to work prefer this anyway.

cotswolds5 · 30/05/2015 18:50

Well it is my reality 32cent. I was just referring to my personal experience but good to know it is far from ideal.

and the 30 hours will be too late for me as dd will be at school. Although when we met our salaries had less of a differential.
Also it stands to reason that someone doing an admin role is going to have less stress than someone responsible for a team of 30 and with a long commute but also accept that some other low paid roles have their own types of stress.

cotswolds5 · 30/05/2015 18:59

Yes separate taxation which benefits the wohp and penalises one with a sah. Incidently I only mentioned salary in response to a much earlier post where it was claimed that high earners don't necessarily work harder than lower earners. In the professions that I have worked it the high earners defin work harder.

32percentcharged · 30/05/2015 19:08

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

namechangefortoday543 · 30/05/2015 19:37

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 Smile
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 wellGrin

thelittlebooktroll · 30/05/2015 21:49

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.

Narvinectralonum · 30/05/2015 22:17

Morethan you have a very limited experience then.

NoNameDame · 30/05/2015 23:02

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??

IvyBean · 31/05/2015 07:01

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.

ArgentinianMalbec · 31/05/2015 07:47

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.

DuelingFanjo · 31/05/2015 07:53

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?