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.

I think the problem in this country is that we always take such a short term view of these things. Yes, subsidising childcare is expensive. However, if you look at the lifetime tax paid by the (usually female) parent who ends up staying at home, I suspect the additional tax paid over their working life (if they continued at work and used a nursery place) would more than cover any tax subsidies for childcare.

When people drop out of the workforce to look after young children they are not paying any tax or NI, and they are often not making pension contributions either. They also then lose out on promotion possibilities, and when they re-enter the workforce they will often be in a lower paid job, or earning less than before as they are considered less employable without recent experience. So they will then pay a lot less tax over their lifetime on their income and pension, and may even need benefits later on in life to top up income/pension (especially if they end up divorced/separated).

So in the long term, subsidising childcare would most likely provide a net financial benefit for the country. But people don't see that and just complain that it's subsidising people having children (those children that will eventually pay for their pensions!). And the tax free childcare account doesn't go anywhere close to properly helping as it doesn't reflect the actual cost of childcare.

I do find it interesting that the consensus in this country is:

childcare expensive- well you shouldnt have had kids
social care for the elderly, how dare you ask people to pay for their own care with their homes

TBH I think we have a long way to go but the 30hrs free care from 3years old, if both parents working is a step in the right direction

An interesting point onlyfools!

I just think we need a sensible and informed policy discussion on this issue. So take into account the costs of providing subsidy before 3, the costs of not doing, what level of quality we could realistically fund, impact on finances, achievement, wellbeing, ability to fill skilled roles etc. All of that. And consider all models available. In some ways I care more that we have a properly reasoned and evidenced decision process than I do about the outcome, as I think there are good arguments for many options. You should've thought about this before having kids is not one of them.

I agree that is an interesting point OnlyFools. I personally have no problem with my home being used in future to fund any social care.

I would be very happy with a scheme where an interest-free loan (or very low interest loan) is attached against the property for all social care provided, which can then be redeemed by the government when the home is sold after all owners have died or moved permanently into a home. So a government scheme rather than the private equity release firms that often charge a fortune in interest. There would need to be exemptions in the case of dependent children etc.

I have always said its unfair on working parents who have to pay nurseries/childminders.

Is it "unfair" that the nursery or childminder cares for your child for under minimum wage?

the way it works at the minute is fucking stupid.

you get 15 hours at age 2 if one of you doesn't work (I think there's an income limit - I don't know what it is)

most people who get it don't need it because one parent doesn't work

but if you both work, and therefore do need childcare you don't get any funded hours until they turn 3!

I mean who came up with that ffs!

I would quite happily pay more income tax if it meant more funding for childcare, because its one massive reason why women aren't equal with men.

Its nearly always the woman who gives up work or goes part time etc etc, if childcare was better funded there would be no need for that.

riper who's working for less than minimum wage?

No I think it’s already good as it is with the 20%. I don’t think the government owes me anything. Child benefit is also very generous in my opinion.

@holidayhelpppp that’s true but it’s mainly for the benefit of the children not because the parents need it.

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 agree, as there is so much help now with tax free vouchers from workplaces, tax credits.
Just like anyone else workers need to consider if they can afford childcare before having children.
The pre school from 3 enables them to prepare for school and is necessary, whereas childcare isn't.
Maybe look at both being pt and covering childcare yourselves.

I think realistically you have to just look at what's being offered and make family planning decisions based on that. So really you either have:

• multiple children close together so your overall time spent P/T or off work is decreased to as few years as possible
• have a larger gap between children so you're only funding nursery for one child at a time
• have one child

I think at some point you do need to take personal responsibility and work with the system, rather than complaining about it. I'm lucky in that my partner has just got a promotion and with me going back to work between 20 and 30h p/w, we can jiggle shifts and such enough that we won't need childcare very much. However, I've made a personal decision to try for my second child quite soon after my first, partially because I want to be back at work FT quicker and progressing, rather than dragging out PT work for years longer than I need to. Obviously, I made that decision based on us wanting two kids close together in age and it feeling right, but money does come into it. For our situation, there isn't a point in waiting years between children.

You just have to make the best of what's available.

Its nearly always the woman who gives up work or goes part time etc etc, if childcare was better funded there would be no need for that.

That is the couples responsibility to sort out, not the state. Find a man/woman who earns enough for you to afford to work.

Actually there isn't so much help. We get no tax credits, no universal credits either. We get 20% childcare. That's it.

Yes, one of us going PT is what financially makes most sense, but only because THEN we get more subsidies.

I personally have no problem with my home being used in future to fund any social care.

In the future that might be difficult with less and less people being able to afford to buy their own homes...

What this country needs is a complete radical overhaul and the end to austerity and the mindset that goes with it.

Again that isn't an accurate description of how the system works holidayhelppp. Its based on income, not SAHPs at all. There are families with no SAHP who receive free hours at 2.

I think its inevitable that people who could really use the free hours at 2 will sometimes resent those who get them, especially if one or both adults in the home aren't working, but let's be accurate.

Find a man/woman who earns enough for you to afford to work.

Charming!

who's working for less than minimum wage?

I am. (Childminder)

I mean who came up with that ffs!

The people who realised that giving children from low income families access to education will help the children try and bridge the gap that their family situation may cause.

It's not childcare. It's not for the benefit of the adults, it's for the children.

Subsidised childcare has grown and grown over the years. How on earth have folk managed in eg 70s,80s and 90s. It's like wanting a mansion and a Ferrari, if you can't afford it, you can't have it. Think before you produce children, can you afford to house, feed, clothe them. It's basic common sense. Fed up with all this 'entitlement' people have these days.

Op, who do you think should fund all this extra childcare?

Taxes. I paid my fair bit before I was made redundant and then ended up in this MW job.

I've never claimed any help, nor subsidies, I dont have a student loan (my parents paid for my university in full).

Over the seven years I had my highly paid job I paid almost £90k in taxes. Even then I was happy to pay more taxes so other working parents could benefit.

I see it as today it's for me, tomorrow it will be your turn.

its totally flawed though peony a child with 2 parents working for min wage, would be over the threshold to get the 15 hours, but that child could be just as deprived theoretically as the child who has one parent working and one at home. They may spend all week with a grandparent or other relation who doesn't do much with them etc

The cost of living, in particular housing, is higher in real terms now than in recent decades. People are also less likely to live near family who are well and free enough to help.

There are families with no SAHP who receive free hours at 2

earning less than 16k between them so not working FT?

Hopefully one day I'll get back on my feet and my taxes will help someone else.