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

[AcademicOwl]

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!!!!

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?

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.

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

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.

I'm nothing if not an optimist Malbec :o

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Setting a good example- ha,ha the vast maj of mums work at various points of the lives of their DC,working isn't ground breaking news.Not taking a break is hardly something to feel superior about. I can think of far more things to set a good example about. Having a life balance that makes you and your family happy being one.

It may be an economic strategy but countless gives have had strategies for all sorts of things.Doesn't make them necessarily work or right.

Stitch which the vast maj of kids have.

I don't know anybody who was a sahp at some point not bringing in money.

If you means test it in the same way as child benefit, you are effectively telling a lot of people (me included) that one of you working is enough.

We don't get cb because dh earns over the threshold, fine. Please don't now make my career financially non viable for the same reason.

Didn't think I was being superior ivy. I was a single mum so it was important to me to show my ds that you work for what you get. I did have a good balance and still do. I did what was right for my family. If staying at home is right for your family do it and be confident in your choice. But don't get pissed that people who need it are getting help with childcare.

Thelittlebooktroll- it's interesting that the economic argument is being completely ignored isn't it?!
The fact that increased access to work - for those who want it is cost effective, because it creates a stronger economy, is being completely ignored by a small minority simply because they don't want to use the childcare.

It reminds me of the argument about CB where people gripe about households with two workers which still get it because they have no one on HR tax ... The strident minority harp on about how unfair it is, even though it's been widely documented that the changes to CB have been made in the most cost effective way. Clearly some people would rather the govt actually wasted money on means testing certain benefits in a less cost effective way. Why let sound economics stand in the way of your own personal resentment?!

Isn't there a saying about 'dog in the manger' attitude, when you don't qualify for something yourself, or don't want it yourself, but just can't bear to see other people getting it?

I'm not.I'm pissed with people who don't need it getting it who in turn stop those that do getting what they actually need.

This stamping of feet and sense of entitlement is ridiculous in a time of austerity and frankly long term I don't think it's feasible unless there are big cuts elsewhere.

Many of us who did keep our careers going do have a choice, had a decent break with maternity leaves and have a good work life balance
Ivy you are arguing that it should be harder for WOHM ,of which you say you are one !?

Out of curiosity ivy, who do think needs help with childcare?