Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

271 replies

Rainbowhairdontcare · 26/09/2019 08:17

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.

OP posts:
silveryleaf · 26/09/2019 13:04

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.

Isn't that a good thing? To me it sounds like sheer nastiness! Women used to end up in mother and baby homes if they were single where it was made very difficult for them to keep their babies. Widows often became destitute. Children of parents who could not afford to work were highly disadvantaged. Women had no choice but to give up their careers after having children. Countries that pay higher taxes and where money is invested in their welfare state have some of the happiest people in the world living there.

Drabarni · 26/09/2019 13:04

manic

I think I love you.
There are many people who would like to have continued to work after having dc, but they couldn't afford it, there is so much help available now.
It must be hard for them to hear all this moaning and entitlement to work, when they were denied the chance.
It's great that financial assistance is there now, I know some who would have loved this.
Stop moaning ffs and if you can't afford childcare look after the kids you produced, it's your job Grin They come with free childcare straight from the womb.

hsegfiugseskufh · 26/09/2019 13:07

silvery maybe we should bring back workhouses, that would please MNers.

silveryleaf · 26/09/2019 13:12

It's sounding like it, holidayhelpppp!Shock

BathroomWindow · 26/09/2019 13:18

Many people would have loved to have more children but didn’t because they couldn’t afford them.
Same with cars, holidays, houses etc etc. If you can’t afford it you cant have it.
Why should the rest of society suffer (pay more taxes) to fund your choices? And where does it end?

hsegfiugseskufh · 26/09/2019 13:20

Why should the rest of society suffer (pay more taxes) to fund your choices? And where does it end?

we all pay for other peoples bad choices. Your tax also goes to the NHS, schools etc. Things that can be abused and things that you personally might not benefit from.

That's how tax works..

Earslaps · 26/09/2019 13:24

I really don't get the argument that we shouldn't strive for better childcare subsidies now because people didn't have them in the past- shouldn't we want to progress?! I'm starting to understand why people are more likely to vote Tory the older they get! I'm alright Jack! Yes, people coped in the past, but housing costs were a lower proportion of household income.

Other countries subsidise childcare because it provides benefits for the whole of society, not because they want to be nice to parents! This is a Canadian study, but it found that the benefits of subsidised childcare were greater than the cost of subsidies- www.childcarecanada.org/sites/default/files/BNgoodinvestment_0.pdf

And there seems to be a misunderstanding of the free childcare for 2yos- it is for the benefit of the children (and society) and not the parents. Studies showed that, on average, in the socio-economic groups that are eligible for the free hours for 2yos, children do better educationally and socially in a childcare setting than in the home, leading to better educational benefits for those children and therefore a better outcome for society.

silveryleaf · 26/09/2019 13:24

Why should the rest of society suffer (pay more taxes) to fund your choices? And where does it end?

Jeremy Corbyn is talking about extra tax only for the highest of earners. People who can very easily afford it. The rest of society won't suffer. It's most people need who need state healthcare, education and some form of help in their old age. Our taxes are being spent at the moment on Brexit. An economic nightmare dreamt up by the privileged wanting to line their own pockets and offshore bank accounts. Our taxes quite rightly should be spent on helping the people, on public services which includes education and helping people into work.

BathroomWindow · 26/09/2019 13:28

Yes that is how tax works. But Op isn’t satisfied with what is currently on offer and now wants even more tax from me to pay ‘universal childcare’.
Where is the incentive to persuade people to plan for only what they can afford when the state would be encouraging them otherwise?
‘Want more kids? Have as many as you like. The poor taxpayer will pick up the tab for all your childcare needs’

Original poster
Rainbowhairdontcare · 26/09/2019 13:28

@BathroomWindow I think you're missing the point. At least in my case anyways.

I know I'm an abnormality/aberration in the system. Up to a couple of years ago I lived a very privileged life. I didn't cost the system any of my schooling (was privately educated and didn't take a loan).

I also had a fairly paid job for many, many years. I paid in taxes £90k over seven years, plus what I've paid this year and and previously. Never been on benefits, tax credits, anything.

Led a very career driven life, made some money, bought a house, etc, all the things that you'd find would be "the right thing to do". But then I was made redundant, cant move for personal reasons and now I find myself in a MW job with decent career prospects thus why I won't leave it. It's like my life was flipped upside down order wise.

I know I'll get back to my career and pay my fair amount of taxes once again. Not even once would it be a pin for me to pay more of it needs it keeps more people in paid work.

OP posts:
hsegfiugseskufh · 26/09/2019 13:29

And there seems to be a misunderstanding of the free childcare for 2yos- it is for the benefit of the children (and society) and not the parents. Studies showed that, on average, in the socio-economic groups that are eligible for the free hours for 2yos, children do better educationally and socially in a childcare setting than in the home, leading to better educational benefits for those children and therefore a better outcome for society

like I said though, this is flawed because children with 2 working parents can also be deprived, and not attend nursery. Its a really basic way of thinking "they need it, but they earn over 16k so they don't"

there is so much more to it than that.

the fact that some people are financially better off claiming UC than working and paying for childcare says it all really.

hsegfiugseskufh · 26/09/2019 13:31

bathroom you say it like you're single handedly funding it all yourself.

Like someone else said, it benefits society as a whole. Not just parents.

Drabarni · 26/09/2019 13:32

I don't think higher earners should pay more tax to fund others choices. We are low income too, so not like it would affect us.
They have worked for their money and every generation has it's ups and downs. I remember paying massive interest on our mortgage and having to go part self sufficient to afford the roof over our head when others were being repossessed.
It wa sa struggle on one wage, no nurseries or funded childcare so we could add to our income with both working.
Every generation suffers in some respect.

Earslaps · 26/09/2019 13:33

Why should the rest of society suffer (pay more taxes) to fund your choices? And where does it end?

Perhaps we should only pay for schooling and healthcare for the first two children to stop all the poor and feckless reproducing beyond what we deem acceptable?! Through the rest of them in the poorhouse and let them fight over scraps. Why should we pay for police when people chose to commit crimes, the rich can live in gated communities and pay private security guards if they want...

We pay for many things in society because they are merit goods- the benefits of providing them are deemed to be greater than the cost. Police, hospitals, roads, schools etc- all part of a civilised society. I consider childcare a merit good too.

hsegfiugseskufh · 26/09/2019 13:34

I hate the whole "other generations managed"

they did, but we're supposed to be going forwards, not backwards.

Other generations managed through 2 world wars, but I wouldn't fancy it myself.

silveryleaf · 26/09/2019 13:34

Where is the incentive to persuade people to plan for only what they can afford when the state would be encouraging them otherwise?

Most people don't want huge families. Even with childcare it's still a huge amount of work!Grin not to mention the toll it takes on your body! A lot of people are also very environmentally aware and will limit their families purely for this reason.

Earslaps · 26/09/2019 13:35

Throw

OnlyFoolsnMothers · 26/09/2019 13:35

The people (I assume mainly the generation who already have adult children) who say you cant afford kids dont have them, I can safely assume are oblivious to in-work poverty and the cost of living.

BathroomWindow · 26/09/2019 13:35

Apologies Op, I didn’t mean to have a go at you personally and I acknowledge that in the past you’ve paid your fair share. But that doesn’t mean you should now expect other taxpayers to pay more because of the situation you are currently in.

silveryleaf · 26/09/2019 13:35

They have worked for their money and every generation has it's ups and downs.

More likely reaped great profits from exploiting others...

OnlyFoolsnMothers · 26/09/2019 13:37

More likely reaped great profits from exploiting other

Totally THIS

silveryleaf · 26/09/2019 13:37

Apologies Op, I didn’t mean to have a go at you personally and I acknowledge that in the past you’ve paid your fair share. But that doesn’t mean you should now expect other taxpayers to pay more because of the situation you are currently in.

I wonder if you would say the same to an elderly person who couldn't afford their care or even heating...

Basecamp65 · 26/09/2019 13:37

I would prefer to pay more tax to subsidise people to remain at home and enable children to be raised by their parent/s - but hey ho that's just me - I like things to be natural.

Earslaps · 26/09/2019 13:37

holidayhelppp, I agree that the delivery of the funded hours for 2yos is flawed, but the concept is good. A good idea poorly executed, like a lot of government policies!

Drabarni · 26/09/2019 13:38

Parents chasing round like headless chickens because they are sold the story it's better to work, work, work, until you drop, is not moving forward Grin
People taking a stand and living how they want rather than being dictated to is moving forward. Making the choices with what you have is moving forward, not expecting others to pay for your choices is moving forward.
Taking responsibility for your own children, is moving forward.