To think we should be protesting

[Jessieabs]

For affordable childcare.

Why are we letting the government get away with the absolute joke that is childcare in the U.K.

Over 2k per month to send 2 kids to nursery seems like madness! There should absolutely be reform to this crazy state that we’re in. Surely a huge majority of the voting population have children/have grandchildren or plan to have children, but this issue is rarely talked about at election time!

@forinborin funnily enough many on 20k also work hard and in sometimes poor conditions
If you choose to have a 50hr a week job and want the money then you know the childcare will cost and its not forever the fulltime costs
I think a nurse in the nhs works just as hard as a city banker

but what did hgv drivers have to do with this discussion? Its ok for you to bring what you like to a discussion but not for others
Ok then

I was replying to a post that said robots would be doing all the jobs re caring for the ageing population. I just asked since we had a labour shortage why those robots weren't in use. It was a facetious comment.

also why did you mention I was falling to grasp the 30 hrs
I have no issue with the 30 hrs from age 3 we currently have for all

Because your posts didn't make it clear that you understood that the 30 hours aren't free & that they exist as an incentive to take in more tax. It's not a subsidy, it's just dressed up as one.

I have observed quite a few pregnant women. or those just about to give birth, searching around for childcare immediately. I was wondering what the little babies are for.

@dongke I apologise as i mixed your comment up re : rich pensioners
But i still stand by not having subsidised childcare for those over 100 k in excess to what we have now

think a nurse in the nhs works just as hard as a city banker

@forinborin isn't making a judgement on what job is harder.

@dongke well not how the post comes off

[quote worriedatthemoment]@forinborin funnily enough many on 20k also work hard and in sometimes poor conditions
If you choose to have a 50hr a week job and want the money then you know the childcare will cost and its not forever the fulltime costs
I think a nurse in the nhs works just as hard as a city banker
[/quote]
And some others have better conditions that those earning 50k. My sil in benefits has a far much better life than mine

We can’t say all 50k -100k have an excellent life and work super hard. Those on 20k have a crap life and don’t work hard. Don’t think anyone is saying that. But if a 100k person doesn’t get any of the benefits of earning 100k then most likely will give up their job for a less stressful and less paid job. Some of them will be business people that will close their company and maybe make their workers redundant.

Last year I did for over a month extra hours as my job needed it so that we could get the project finished , when I saw how much the tax people took of my extra hours I decided not to do extra hours anymore. It’s not worth it for me not seeing my son for over a month so that I end up paying that many taxes. And this was only for a month. There will be some 100k people that barely enjoy from their kids. If they don’t get any benefits from having a 100k role then which is the point? They can’t have childcare subsidise but shouldn’t be going on holiday or have an expensive car because others can’t neither

@Kpo58

I think that the government should properly subsidise childcare. Think how much better the economy would be and amount of tax the government would get if most people could be in employment rather than a large amount being priced out of it due to childcare costs.

In addition, families would not be plunged into poverty which benefits all of society.

But i still stand by not having subsidised childcare for those over 100 k in excess to what we have now

Someone who earns 100k doesn't receive any subsidy. No child benefit, no tax free childcare & no extra 15 hours.

well not how the post comes off

But there is a law of diminishing returns. Stating that doesn't mean a banker works harder then a nurse.

@dongke why are you telling me something I know ?
Many are saying childcare should be subsidised for all regardless of wages , I am saying i don't agree with that not that it is now

In addition, families would not be plunged into poverty which benefits all of society.

100%

[quote worriedatthemoment]@forinborin funnily enough many on 20k also work hard and in sometimes poor conditions
If you choose to have a 50hr a week job and want the money then you know the childcare will cost and its not forever the fulltime costs
I think a nurse in the nhs works just as hard as a city banker
[/quote]
Are you sure you are addressing the right person? I have never claimed that nurses don't work hard. Or that bankers are more important than people on £20K. In fact, your power couple of rich fat cats earning £100K between them could easily be a lead / specialist nurse and a senior teacher in outer London.

why are you telling me something I know

If you know that why say well not how the post comes off. It doesn't make sense!

@forinborin @worriedatthemoment knows that though 🤔

@1forAll74

I have observed quite a few pregnant women. or those just about to give birth, searching around for childcare immediately. I was wondering what the little babies are for.

This is because waiting lists in nurseries can easily be 18 months and more. Not necessarily because they plan to return to the office directly from the labour ward.

@EasterIssland you would of paid 40% on your extra hrs not more
No people who earn £100k plus is the figure I have used I don't think need extra subsidy other than the 30 hrs they get at 3 , im not saying take this away
They will still hugely benefit from their 6 figure salary as the higher childcare costs are short term
Even families who get some help will have to make sacrifices in the short term as well
For years people have had to make sacrifices when having children and that will always be the way
For me personally no I don't see the point if having kids and then working 60 hrs a week as when can you enjoy them ?

@dongke no you don't make sense
My reply was to this

Someone who earns 100k doesn't receive any subsidy. No child benefit, no tax free childcare & no extra 15 hours.
Which was your post

No, I'm not in favour.

As a single mum, I managed to pay full time childcare. It was a real struggle but I managed by going without a new car, holidays, nights out etc. It means I only have one child, but let's face it, the world needs fewer children.

Improving funding for the existing 15/30 hours should happen but expecting tax payers to fund your lifestyle choices is unreasonable.

For me personally no I don't see the point if having kids and then working 60 hrs a week as when can you enjoy them ?
My bingo card is full now.

@forinborin because you implied that to earn 100 k you have to work hard for it which is obvious , I was stating that a nurse on say £20 k also has to work hard as well
So again someone bringing home £6000 paying £2000 in childcare fees I don't think should be subsidised by tax payers more than already offered.
Thats my opinion , lets face it that person on a £100 k will have a better lifestyle longterm than the one on £20 k even if taking a hit on childcare for a couple of years

So if you know someone who earns 100k gets zero help why say the below, it's not clear what you think those people actually get.

But i still stand by not having subsidised childcare for those over 100 k in excess to what we have now

[quote worriedatthemoment]@EasterIssland you would of paid 40% on your extra hrs not more
No people who earn £100k plus is the figure I have used I don't think need extra subsidy other than the 30 hrs they get at 3 , im not saying take this away
They will still hugely benefit from their 6 figure salary as the higher childcare costs are short term
Even families who get some help will have to make sacrifices in the short term as well
For years people have had to make sacrifices when having children and that will always be the way
For me personally no I don't see the point if having kids and then working 60 hrs a week as when can you enjoy them ?[/quote]
I earned around 1.8k and took home around 1k. So basically tax payer cut nearly half of my extra hours. I was lucky my husband took the burden of taking care of my son as I was only seeing him in the morning before nursery and a bed time and on Sunday’s. I did it because it was a month. I won’t do it again. So I don’t blame if someone earning 100k is fed up of only paying into the pot for them not to get any benefit back at all

@MintJulia

No, I'm not in favour.

As a single mum, I managed to pay full time childcare. It was a real struggle but I managed by going without a new car, holidays, nights out etc. It means I only have one child, but let's face it, the world needs fewer children.

Improving funding for the existing 15/30 hours should happen but expecting tax payers to fund your lifestyle choices is unreasonable.

So because you didn’t have it you don’t want others in the same position as you to be able to have it ? Maybe if you have had it you’d have been able to afford a car or a holiday …