To think there should be more funding for under 3yo childcare?

[Rainbowhairdontcare]

I know things are better nowadays, but still find it disheartening that two parents in FT work will only get the "tax-free" childcare help (around 20%). Our take-home pay is around £2k after commuting costs, £1k go to housing and utility bills (CT, energy, and broadband) and then 800 go to childcare even after that 20% off. Leaving us with £200 to feed ourselves, unexpected bills, road tax, insurance, etc..

Our basic UC is 750 +650 of childcare. Our deduction is £1350 so we're still better off with tax free childcare. As this is unsustainable, DH will have to go part time. A bit unfortunate given we don't want to rely on the system, but it's what works out best for our family. We'd both like to work FYT but because childcare is too expensive we can't afford to work as much as we'd like.

Personally I think universal childcare is the answer.

Vote labour in the next GE? Look at Jeremy Corbyn's speech.

You say it’s not sustainable but how old is dc? Once they are three won’t you get more funding ? Could you stick it out till then both full time ?

He'll be one, so still two years of this. In the meantime we have either not be as economically active as we'd like or get into debt to work.

It’s a nice idea and if it was fully funded I’d say yes but as with the 30hrs its not and puts the strain on the careers/ nurseries.

I don't think I'll be able to go back to work after DS2 is born - nursery for an under 2, plus before and afterschool club for DS1 is more than my salary.

And I know it's a joint expense but that -200£ ish a month is the difference between paying bills and not. Not everyone can hold on for 2 years until the free hours kick in.

Most European countries heavily subsidise nurseries, I think we should too.

I don't think universal early years childcare is the job of government. I even think the universal 15 hours at 3 is a waste and would be better targeted - I dont believe children need to start education at 3. I get it is a hard few years but it always has been and is part and parcel of having children.

It's already subsidised. I don't think it's the taxpayers job to pay any more. It's something people have to think about before having children.

It's already subsidised. I don't think it's the taxpayers job to pay any more. It's something people have to think about before having children

I have to agree, reluctantly. There's only so much money around and a myriad of things that desperately need funding

It's not about education, it's about affordability. Government wants us to be as away as possible from benefits, but even if you want to you can't stay away from them.

But you're subsidising it in the end (even if you don't want to).

By one of us going part time we get £600 via UC.

Most European countries heavily subsidise nurseries, I think we should too.

They also have higher income tax.

I think free childcare needs to be targeted to families where both parents work. Appreciate there are benefits of socialisation and early involvement for kids where neither / only one parent works, but if it’s going to be rationed it should be provided to households where there are two incomes up to the benefit limit.

It's not a sustainable system though, I mean nurseries and childminders have to be paid

I don't disagree that there is no magic money tree but when you look at it on a financial level you have to look beyond "we can't subsidise childcare, people need to think about it themselves".

If people can't afford childcare to work, they stop working. They then become entitled to a variety of benefits which obviously have to be paid for. In addition to this there is the long term damage to the individuals career prospects which could ultimately reduce how much tax they pay together with knock on issues such as no pension contributions.

It's not a straightforward issue and the financials need to be considered long term.

@ Teddybear exactly, even the 15hrs for working parents would be a much appreciated help.

I'm a single mum and worse off working by about £130 a month. It's going to be better off for me/us in the long term, but, for now, it sucks.

That's said, with everything else getting cut, funding more childcare for families capable of working is definitely not on the list of priorities.

I would prefer higher income tax and better public services/more support for disadvantaged groups personally.

As things stand I'll be going from a tax payer to not a tax payer, and and I'll not be paying back my student loan for a while.

I'm not sure why you or anyone should think the Government (i.e. taxpayer) should fund childcare when it is your choice to produce children?

The government currently prioritizes free childcare for families where both parents don’t work. It should be changed to families where both parents work.

I guess it comes down to a question of does it make more sense for the government to pay for childcare or pay benefits so a parent can stay home with the child.

What gets me is that if you don't work, you can get free childcare (unsure of amount of hours) from 2yo... You know, for all the time off sahm need
Yet those of us working have to struggle on for longer.
I don't know how we will ever afford childcare for 2 children if we have another but that's what stops us having another... Which is sad

I'm not sure why you or anyone should think the Government (i.e. taxpayer) should fund childcare when it is your choice to produce children?

Because society depends on a workforce, and of predominantly women are being forced to work part time or not work, that's a detriment to everybody.

You could ask the same question about state schools.

@Camomila not all of them do it from birth though. Some only do it from 2 years old.

Most European countries heavily subsidise nurseries, I think we should too.

They also have higher income tax.

I think higher taxes is not a bad thing. Jeremy Corbyn said in his speech that he would increase taxes only for the highest earners. Previous governments have given this sector of society tax breaks. They are so rich the extra money will probably mean very little to them. You only have to see what they spend on travel, clothes, art, jewellery, home furnishings to realise for some people thousands of pounds can be spent with very little thought.

Is it not right that they pay a fair proportion of tax on their wealth instead of the poorest people suffering?