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.

RicStar the universal 15 hours at 3 is for education not childcare.

I think people should consider this before having children. A very quick Google search tells you how much childcare costs in your local area, you then decide how you'll afford it. If you can't afford it your options are to cut your cloth to fit / work opposite hours as your DP / delay having children for a while. I don't see how the government should be held accountable for all childcare.

I think people should consider this before having children. A very quick Google search tells you how much childcare costs in your local area, you then decide how you'll afford it. If you can't afford it your options are to cut your cloth to fit / work opposite hours as your DP / delay having children for a while. I don't see how the government should be held accountable for all childcare.

Circumstances can change. Pregnancies can be unplanned. However even if they don't is it only the rich who are allowed children? Isn't the sign of a civilised society one that supports the weak and vulnerable? The next step of what you are suggesting is like going back to the mother and baby homes of previous generations and enforced adoption...

Its usually a toss up between good parental leave provision and subsidising nursery places for babies/younger toddlers in Europe I think.

Italy and Spain don't have great maternity leave by European standards but nurseries are cheap/subsidised even for babies. I know wages are lower but I'm thinking of my cousins who live in Milan/other rich Northern towns where wages are fairly high.

Scandinavian countries and I think Germany have better/longer parental leave and less need for childcare for babies/under 2s.

At least you get that. In NI, afaiw, there's no free hours for under 3s and only 12.5h for 3-4 year olds. I'd be incredibly happy with 15 or 30 hours!

Whenever posts like this come up, there are always posters saying this is your problem, you should've thought about it, I don't want to subsidies you. But the reality is that if couples who would otherwise work more hours choose to do less purely for financial reasons, it does have an impact on the rest of us. No family is an island. Some of those reducing their hours would repay the costs of any subsidy, others might not but have skills we need. It's worth examining this critically.

I certainly have nothing against parents choosing not to both work full time. We could've afforded full time childcare but chose not to, basically for lifestyle reasons. But this is a couple who otherwise would.

It is very short sighted to pretend there aren't wider societal implications to people who would otherwise want to work being prevented from doing so, that it's only their affair and their problem. By all means acknowledge this and still take the view that it's better not to have more childcare subsidies for whatever reason, but be aware of the pros and cons.

@MilkTrayLimeBarrel it may be the vast majority of people’s choice to have children but it is absolutely no one’s choice to be born!

What @Queenofthebiscuittin said.

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

If your child is 2 and you meet the criteria...

"-Income Support
-income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA)
-income-related Employment and Support Allowance ---(ESA)
-Universal Credit - if you and your partner have a combined income from work of £15,400 or less a year, after tax
-tax credits and you have an income of £16,190 or less a year, before tax
-the guaranteed element of State Pension Credit
-support through part 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act
-they’re looked after by a local council
-they have a current statement ofspecial education needs (SEN)or an education, health and care (EHC) plan
-they getDisability Living Allowance
-they’ve left care under a special guardianship order, child arrangements order or adoption order"

....the child will get 15 'free' hours - this is for the benefit of the child. It isnt childcare.

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

This. Sorry but there IS no money to keep paying to subsidise children. Try living in a country where is no subsidy and the pay is even less. We stopped at two because realistically, we cannot afford 3. And no, we are not rich, so im not saying only the rich can have children. We did calculations on what we could/could not afford.

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?

How is this fair? They are rich, they have worked for their money, why should they be made to pay higher tax just because they have the money? And what is fair here? 80% 70% ? or does it depend on which artwork you can afford?

I used to live in a country where there was (is) a low tax, no welfare, no subsidies. It worked. There wasnt a 'punishment' of higher tax for high earners.

Silveryleaf you are really stretching what I said beyond all proportion.

Is it really that ridiculous to think that people should take personal responsibility for their choices and the consequences? I would have liked 3 children but stopped at 2, as that's what I could afford.

I have no issue with society supporting the vulnerable, but I would also expect that personal responsibility is accepted by anyone who chose to have children.
We can't just have what we want and damn the consequences, someone else will sort it out, that's not how society works.

As for those quacking on about the ‘rich’ having kids. No it shouldn’t just be about the wealthy having children but equally, we as a society shouldn’t just be having children without much thought as to how we are actually going to support them in the long term. Early childcare affordability should be a consideration for all families, whatever their income. If you can’t afford 2 in FT nursery, have a bigger age gap (or have fewer children than you planned). It’s not rocket science.

I thi k they could do something for the people who dont earn enough for the 15 hours but who lose money going to work because of childcare. Giving them the difference in their salaries for example. Surely it helps the economy overall if more people are in work

I receive 15 hours free childcare for my 2 year old as a single parent on income support. I have always said its unfair on working parents who have to pay nurseries/childminders. The hours are going up to 30 hours in October which I personally feel far too long for a 2 year old while I'm at home. I have a possible job opportunity lined up and if I get it the free hours will be a massive help and I will feel less guilty about using them. I 100% understand why people who don't meet the criteria can be bitter and resentful I don't blame them one bit.

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 hmm
You do realise that the 15 hours free isn't so the SAHM can get her nails down, go to the gym or drink her Vodka in peace right? It's actually a comment o mtbe fact that the Government think the child is worse off than one who is in paid for nursery and needs the extra socialisation / preschooling. It's basically the Govt saying they aren't doing a good enough job. Because it isn't for ANY SAHM, it's only low income houses where the family income is below (I think about) 16k

It's basically the Govt saying they aren't doing a good enough job.

It isn't. It's saying that in longitudinal studies children from lower income families (and those that meet the criteria I posted earlier) go on to have lower attainment and poorer outcomes than children from families who don't qualify.....not because the families are crap or can't be arsed, but because we live in an unequal society. It is supposed to help those children and families. It is a good thing.

Indeed, those extra 15hrs are an attempt to fight inequalities and give young children who need it, a leg up, in their development.

Sorry for comma placement there

The hours are going up to 30 hours in October which I personally feel far too long for a 2 year old while I'm at home.

The 30 funded hours are for working parents of 3 year olds....I don't think they are increasing the funded hours for 2 year olds?

The 30 funded hours are for working parents of 3 year olds....I don't think they are increasing the funded hours for 2 year olds?

I'm in Scotland so it might be different here but the 30 hours also applies for the 2 year old funding. It's being rolled out across the county.

Is it really that ridiculous to think that people should take personal responsibility for their choices and the consequences? I would have liked 3 children but stopped at 2, as that's what I could afford.

I stopped at one. I do take personal responsibility. But you can only take responsibility if you've the ability to respond. Some people find themselves in situations which are beyond their control and they need support. I don't believe in letting these people suffer. I don't believe in innocent children suffering. Just because some people are feckless or have been feckless in the past, it doesn't give an excuse to leave the vulnerable to suffer.

Yes, working parents won't benefit from the increase from 15 to 30hrs and that's still for households with an income under £16k

In many European countries, the Scandinavian ones for example, the reason why nurseries can be subsidised (taxes are no higher when you consider the UK’s complete tax system) is because most mothers return to work after maternity leave and having a SAHP is actually the exception. We probably do as a society need to make it more worthwhile for parents to return work and that means linking benefits like fully subsidised childcare / introducing enhanced benefits to those who work.

The 15 free hours is supposed to be education, not childcare, and it isn't for the children of SAHPs. It's for low income households, which can and sometimes does include households with no SAHP.

That being said, I can see why the lines are getting blurred, because the free education hours for pre-schoolers keep being referred to as childcare and UC requirements expect all adults in the household to look for work when the youngest child turns 3, ie at the point when everyone has free hours entitlement. And the free hours at 2 do lead to resentment amongst the working poor. I'm a supporter, but it's daft to think people who are just over the threshold and could really use them aren't going to be jealous. I would be. I wouldn't want to be in a position where I did qualify for them, but if you're a grand or so over, of course you'll be jealous.

On the subject of people taking responsibility, there aren't actually that many households in the UK that have 3 or more children. The large majority have no more than 2. Something has gone wrong somewhere when we regard people wanting to have 2 children and be able to continue working and making an economic contribution as some kind of entitled irresponsibility.

It's because we have all fallen for the conservative selling point of low taxes. That obviously means less money for schools, hospitals, childcare etc. Obviously low taxes suit the wealthy as they don't use or need these state supplied services. They buy into private. What most people don't understand is that in the long run, higher income tax benefits the rest of us a lot more.