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.

the thing is, people have always had children they cant afford, and I think they always will - at least until there are 100% reliable contraception options for both men and women.

I don't think providing subsidised childcare would make people any more likely to keep having more and more children, but it would certainly mean that those children were less likely to grow up in poverty than they are now.

For me that's worth paying a few extra quid a month.

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.

That would be good too. Maybe there could be a choice.

drabani most people on the breadline don't have a lot of choice, that's the whole fucking problem.

Well I don't even know what the answer is. It's seems like the biggest contradiction in terms that you're better off not working!

Working fewer hours is how you get subsidised. I find that extremely bizarre.

In fact even a loan similar to a student loan would be OK by me, your choice if you want to take it or not.

earslaps yes, agreed!

People taking a stand and living how they want rather than being dictated to is moving forward.

That and wanting certain sectors of society (high earners) to pay a fair amount of tax is not mutually exclusive.

I have one child. Am married. Don't live on benefits or handouts. My D.C. only had the free childcare hours at aged 3. We don't rely on relatives for childcare. We own our own house.

holiday
Family income 17k, always been low income. I have as many choices as anyone else. I can do what I want.
It's a very narrow view that choices are only available to those with money.

Op, I’m coming across as a real harridan aren’t I?
But the student loan thing made me giggle - most student loans will never be paid off and the total student debt is a timebomb waiting to explode. Although l understand the reasoning, not a great example.
Apologies once again, this time for derailing.

Op you are not an aberration or an abnormality. Viewing society in this way that you are special to be down on your luck is not nice. Maybe it's not quite what you meant.

Lots of people work hard and pay taxes and don't get the breaks at every point in their life. Some get no breaks at all. Their is nothing abnormal about that. Lots of people study hard and work hard and never get the economic compensation.

Lots of people make the right choices but get ill, get divorced, have a disabled child or get made redundant.

By you saying you are an abberation and abnormality you are continuing to feed the narrative of the deserving poor and of deserving benefit recipients.

You had some privileges, so whilst I agree more can and should be done by the government with regards to childcare, social care and education. When you earned well you should also have saved more. All people at all levels should do so. And yes it's is hard now but op you sound very driven and well educated and from a background that will help you succeed. This is hopefully your short-term normal. Having children has always been and will always be harder than not having children.

So continue to push for better and more affordable childcare and better availability but don't think that you are somehow not the norm for having a low income and struggling with your background. That is a government led narrative.

Just like the amount of people commenting on this thread about low income sahm receiving 15 and 30 hours per week. The outcomes for these children is still crap because of inequality and I personally don't think the early years education is good for the child. What's the point when the next 12 years of education are also crap as the budgets get cut year after year. And because they live in a deprived area where parks and playing fields were sold off, local business closed or moved and community centres and libraries were closed.

The government could reverse and improve on all this to add inequality and put money into subsidising childcare for those who want and need to use it. Not all/every low income family wants to or needs to use childcare/education. Just like not every low income family is part of the proletariat.

Some families getting free hours at 2 only have one parent holidayhelpppp. Could be FT, as 35 hours per week NMW is below 16k.

I think it's fine to be critical of the system, though a cut off is always going to produce hard cases, but let's be clear about the parameters.

@flirtygirl thank you! I know this narrative of "them" Vs "us" regardless of the band is doing nothing for society. There's too much social segregation something that has surprised me and given me more empathy over the years.

Deprivation is not only monetary, in that way I'll always consider myself a lucky one. Education is one of the biggest gifts and I have to give to my children, I know they already have a better start in life as they'll see university education as the norm and with the example at home hopefully some gender equality too! (As DH will be the SAHP).

wellbutter yes that's true, I hadn't considered single parents.

Many are better working less hours because of the low wages that are paid and the cost of housing and childcare. All this can be fixed if there was political will.

Universal credit and the taper where you lose help for working more thus making your family poorer is an example of this. I UC is far less generous and it was designed to be, but it keeps people working hard and poorer as they don't want to be seen to be a benefit scrounger, and they have fallen for the government narrative.

Unless you are independent wealthy we are all subsidised in some area as not many people are net tax payers. We all need to stop falling for the divide and conquer rhetoric.

Just like some on this thread who made comments pitching sahm vs working mums, just not needed. But these divisions keep those with wealth and power in their place.

drabani well I personally feel I have less choice than someone with a family income of a lot more than me.

I wouldn't feel I had many choices at all on an income of 17k a year to be honest.

The government is broke op. I don't think they should have to pay for your childcare. That are your dc after all.

We as a society seem to be more alert to the cost of funding things than the cost of not. Because providing childcare subsidy and not providing it both have cost implications. We need to know what both are before deciding which cost we prefer.

Imagine if all the Brexit money had gone into public services.. sigh

MilkTrayLimeBarrel you echo'd my thoughts.

@conderellainyellakissedafella well in the end they will, as going into UC is the only way childcare is affordable.

@MilkTrayLimeBarrel because working parents with smaller working gaps have better career trajectory, and then pay more taxes. It creates a wealthier society as a whole this is the responsibility of society to encourage this.

holiday

I guess it depends on your viewpoint. I'd be very miserable if I felt like I had no choices.
We just looked at our situation at various points in time and chose how to live accordingly.
Our choices weren't the same as someone who was rich, leading a different lifestyle to us, they were/ are different and in keeping with the type of lifestyle we want.
Hence, starting a business at 53 and mainly travelling rather than living at home all the time.

drabani im glad that works for you, but most people on 17k probably do not feel the same. Most people also cannot mainly travel, I would imagine.

17k when you have kids and mortgage or rent to pay, and then childcare on top is absolute hell.

Working fewer hours is how you get subsidised. I find that extremely bizarre

Working fewer hours is better for your kids than you hardly seeing them, surely. Why is it bizarre to expect parents to look after their own children.
We have become a nation of childcare workers.

Working fewer hours is better for your kids than you hardly seeing them, surely

nice little dig at FT working parents there.

its bizarre nowadays because most people need to have 2 wages coming in to afford to run their home.

it wasn't like that years ago, one "ok" wage would run a nice 3 bed semi. It doesn't any more for a lot of people.

@drabami i had working parents and a nanny. It never crossed my mind I would be better off with my mum. I had a very happy childhood and my mom had a fulfilling career.