To really think there needs to be more help available for childcare

[pinkcreamsoda]

I am looking at nurseries as I am really hoping to have a baby in the next eighteen months.

I earn 45,000 a year so I know I am luckier than most. This translates as about 2400 monthly pay.

Nursery is 1200 a month.

It’s a lot!

There is a lot of help already especially for people on low incomes ( up to 85% of childcare costs paid). Or you could think about each dropping a day each so that you only have to pay for 3 days a week. Or do what we have done for 15 years and work around each other to avoid childcare costs.

Also the gov isn’t being super generous with the 30 hours, the fact that childcare is so expensive & you can only get the 30 hours if you work above a certain number of hours means that it is generally targeted at the higher earners. The government collects more tax by keeping those mothers in work.

but the costs are pretty high and must prevent some people working at all
Here's an idea - before you get pregnant you work out if you can afford children. If you can, great, go have unprotected sex. If you can't then you either save like mad until you reach a level where you can afford them (and don't get pregnant until you reach it) or you don't have them. They're not something that you're automatically entitled to have and that the state should subsidise.

I agree I think there needs to be better more flexible childcare available.
I work shifts which cancels out nurseries as they will not be flexible and finding a childminder who is willing to change days according to my shifts was a very difficult process.
The 15hours didn't help us either because I still had to pay the childminder during the 3hours of preschool my DDs had a day.
School as proved to be even more difficult and stressful finding childcare.

It's hardly worth for me to work and with more and more jobs being on 0 hour contracts and non permanent roles there needs to be a revolution on childcare

RangeRider so do people who get tax credits count as been able to afford children or not?

There would be more jobs- the job the SAHP does and another job created in childcare to look after their children
I agree there’d be one extra job in childcare for every ten or so kids. But there wouldn’t be any extra jobs magically created for SAHP to do. There aren’t even enough jobs for all the people who currently want one.

And people who could afford childcare but then have a change of circumstances such as illness or redundancy forcing them to take a lower paid job, divorce, death of a partner, etc.

Tbh I think there is quite a lot of childcare help already. I would rather more help was available for the equivalent of childcare for disabled adults as people need that for far longer than people need full time childcare.

I really don't understand the current mentality that someone else should shoulder the costs of childcare. Why should tax payers fund your life choices? Childcare is expensive, no ignoring that fact! Nurseries etc have overheads, training costs and staff that expect and deserve a reasonable wage, so that money has to come from somewhere.
Don't have the child if you need help funding it. Harsh as that may sound, but I stand by my point that tax payers shouldnt be expected to fund your choices.

Why should tax payers fund your life choices?
Because tax payers need someone to produce the next generation of tax payers who will fund their pensions and run their country.

Children having access to good quality childcare means they are safe, educated, and cared for. If you want someone to blame, blame employers for not paying wages that are high enough to live on after costs like childcare. The government has to subsidise it otherwise people couldn't afford to work.

does that apply to everyone on benefits or just people that have children?

@EddieVeddersfoxymop you realise the UK birth rate is below replacement level?

If everyone who needed any support from the state decided against having children the country would be screwed.

Well, even more so than it already is.

Unfortunately, until the government realises that the amount they pay childcare providers doesn’t actually cover the costs of providing the service it’s not a great industry to be in at the moment. The funding rate is below my normal childcare rate (I’m a childminder) so whilst parents with 3 year olds are doing well out of the ‘free’ 30 hours of childcare, the settings providing them are having to tighten their belts, cut corners and not provide the experience they think children deserve. (Despite being pretty much full for the last financial year, I only just made minimum wage. If you put in the extra hours I did to attend courses, to improve outcomes for children, I’d be well under).
So I’m afraid I don’t think the government should be more to help families until they pay the settings a proper rate for the funded hours.
And while I’m ranting I should say that I thought it was ridiculous they gave 30 funded hours to all 3-4 year olds. It would have been far better to give everyone 10 free hours when maternity pay ran out.

Luck has played a part in me having a well paid job, I agree.

I don’t get this OP. You are the one who used the word “lucky” first in relation to your earnings.

I agree there is a fair amount of help for people having children and with children in the UK. In some countries people get nothing. Some people earn less than you and manage. Why do people feel entitled to have others pay for their lives for them? 🤔

Op- it's good that you're thinking ahead. I agree that there is little help and encouragement for working parents. Hubby and I have a joint income of £75k a year and have a two year old in full time nursery which is very costly . We also have an au pair for wrap around care which is soo helpful but again costly.

Look into the tax free childcare account . I get an estimate of £150 a month from the government towards childcare costs . I think you get £2 on every £8 that you pay for childcare. It's capped at 2k a year but very helpful . There is also childcare vouchers and of course the 15/30 hours of funding once they turn three. It's not forever so worth making the sacrifice for the short term if you can. All the best x

We have all been there. If you intend to work full time it is worth paying for it. You will get payrises hopefully. Also once they are 3 you get funded childcare and tax free rebates. Once they start school it also gets even cheaper. What you will struggle then is finding time for homework. It helps if both of you have flexible jobs without a lot of hours.

And I didn’t have two in nursery at the same time. If you are young enough, try a 3+ year gap. Then you take your second maternity the year before your first start school

Here's an idea - before you get pregnant you work out if you can afford children

He's an idea, how about every single company in the U.K. Stop fleecing the residents? High food bills, high mortgages and rent, high fuel bills, etc etc etc .....

To those who say that government help is needed to keep the tax payer cycle turning....really?? Think back a generation. There was no subsidised childcare, no tax credits, and yet a generation of tax payers was created.
I struggle, quite genuinely, with the level of entitlement that is prevalent these days. Have children, by all means, but don't expect the government to pick up the tab. We couldn't cope with current childcare rates, so chose to stop at one. That's not our sole reason (and that's a thread in itself) but it was a contributing factor.
I don't know what the answer is, but the level of entitlement and expectation that the government will pick up the tab for this and that simply can't continue!
OP, I think it's wise to consider your options , and brave to post on here, but please don't assume that tax payers should support what is a choice, not a right.

Thing is, the world has changed from a generation ago. People could live well on one wage as mortgages and house prices and rent were lower. My parents first home cost £8K. Even with inflation that's a much smaller percentage of what they earned. They could afford for mum to give up work and still be comfortable.

Now the government want everyone in work, but many people, usually women, can't afford to work as the cost of child care is so high, in part because the cost of living is so high.

It's a different world to a generation ago with different problems.

Think back a generation
There was less need for childcare because it was possible to support a family on one income and a lot of women didn’t work. Families also tended to be less distributed, people rarely moved away for work or university so they lived near family who could provide childcare, and grandparents were more likely to have retired early and be available.

We live in a totally different world nowadays. Women work instead of staying at home. Families are separated. People work longer. There’s more need for paid childcare hence more need for help paying for it.

The childcare vouchers scheme closed to new entrants recently.

It’s bollocks that a generation ago everyone was supporting a family on one wage. House prices were lower but mortgages were massively more expensive. The staggeringly low interest rates of the last decade are a very recent phenomenon. A lot of things were relatively far more expensive too... electronic goods, white goods, in fact pretty much everything household related

I’m not saying it’s easy now; just that it’s a tad tiresome when people hark back a generation or two and think it’s all rosy.

My eldest dd and her husband are expecting a child and in many ways their circumstances are far more favourable. My dd will get a year ML, her husband will be entitled to at least 2 weeks paternity, they can share parental leave, they can both request flexible working and when the child is 3 they’ll get 30 hours childcare paid for