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!

I think it’s subsidised enough given the lack of funding for other areas. 30 hours free from 3 (2 if you’re on a low income), and 20% off at any age. I think in general people need to plan the affordability a bit more sensibly before they plan a second DC. I think there is room for a more generous scheme/support for parents of twins/triplets.

@cutietooties

I would protest but can't afford the childcare to attend

That's the irony - those who have the time to do it are the ones who don't care

@AlfonsoTheDinosaur mixed up quoting there? Your comment and bolded statement was nothing to do with me?

@RoseRedRoseBlue I don’t disagree with you, this isn’t a ‘this or that’ situation

I would like to think OP that if anyone would be eligible for subsidised childcare it would not be a high tax band payer. There are so many more people in far more need.

Surely a nanny or au pair would be cheaper?

The responses on this thread have further reinforced my sneaking suspicion that the vast majority of posters, despite claiming their huge salaries, in stressful professional roles are actual fantasists who’ve never worked a day in their lives, so divorced from the reality of being a working parent are they that this is the only reasonable explanation

@Hollyhead absolutely agree.

Scotland here, but primary school hours are less than 30 hours in the locality I'm based. What with a half day Friday. So the early childcare is fairly reasonable from age two or three.

@cutietooties

Why don't the government do a tax option, everyone pays the standard but can opt to pay higher and choose a number of different benefits eg. You can opt for 40% if not required and select your benefits at the beginning of the tax year if needed such as childcare or increase your state pension. Wouldn't make them any money but would boost the economy and take the pressure off some households

Figures are quite old, but 2012 the estimate was under half of people were net contributors.

If people who don’t need* certain benefits opt out, that includes lots of net contributors. So you no longer have the money to fund this, and the people who do need it aren’t going to be happy about paying for it.

*I say don’t need it… my own children are older so I could opt out of being taxed for it. But actually, I benefit from the economic advantage of people - especially women - being able to choose to work. And I need the services that some of them work in. So 🤷🏻‍♀️ You can’t really say who “needs” childcare.

www.poverty.ac.uk/report-benefits-tax-welfare-system/‘most-households’-now-net-recipients-state-money

Of course it's a this or that situation, there isn't an endless pot of money so if more is spent in one area, less is available for another. There is plenty of subsidy available for those less well off, the rest of us have to save, plan and suck it up!

[quote Jessieabs]@RoseRedRoseBlue I don’t disagree with you, this isn’t a ‘this or that’ situation[/quote]
Well, it is actually, as everyone will have a view as to what should be funded at the expense of something else!

I totally agree with you, OP. I couldn't give a shit either if that puts me in a minority on here.

I see the sanctimonious "don't have children if you can't afford them" claptrappers are out in force.

I don't use the local library but I don't mind that my taxes go towards this...

However, the government can't sort out the funding they currently provide, to make it viable to provide. If they decided to cover more age groups or more hours, but did it to the same dreadful level they currently do, more provisions will close and childcare will be in even more of a mess.

I'm a paramedic. We can't access childcare that covers our shift length, work pattern or frequent late finishes. The ambulance service (and presumably police and other parts of the NHS) is entirely propped up by unpaid childcare, mostly in the form of grandparents, and if you don't have that option then tough, consider your career over. I don't have any family support so have had to go onto very limited part time hours, this means an end to career progression (although I am a fan of working part time!!).

There is rarely any recognition of this army of free childcare, that keeps 24 hours services in operation. The government really don't care if women are able to work or not after having children.

@cutietooties

I would protest but can't afford the childcare to attend

are we supposed to be subsidising childcare so parents can work or go off on jollies to London/wherever for non essential days out?

where would that end?

What probably saddens me is that the layer of women who are priced out of careers due to motherhood are more likely to be professionals who have invested heavily (both professionally and financially) into education and training. As in, why bother at all.
As someone pointed out, on low incomes childcare costs are heavily subsidised, up to 85%. Which is only right and proper, and how it should be.

But there's also that perfect storm of:

• limited fertility window. If you were studying and building your career up to say 35, you will have to have children with a small age gap if you want more than one, biology's a bitch;
• income level at which already no help exists but childcare costs for more than one child still look like a complete financial suicide, and you're still likely to be paying off your student debt;
• that sweet mid-career spot where you already can't fit your work in the contracted hours, but don't have enough seniority yet to determine your own timetable and leave at 5pm on the spot every day without fail;

Add literally anything to that cocktail - mild SEN or health issues of a child, relationship problems or breakdown, one job loss that sends everything spiralling down - and that professional is no more.

There is a lot more things that I think we should start protesting over like the housing problem at the minute. Childcare is at the bottom of the protest list for me.

@Topseyt

I totally agree with you, OP. I couldn't give a shit either if that puts me in a minority on here.

I see the sanctimonious "don't have children if you can't afford them" claptrappers are out in force.

along with the 'pay for my kids" clap trappers eh?

@Handsnotwands

The responses on this thread have further reinforced my sneaking suspicion that the vast majority of posters, despite claiming their huge salaries, in stressful professional roles are actual fantasists who’ve never worked a day in their lives, so divorced from the reality of being a working parent are they that this is the only reasonable explanation

So, you're telling me not every mumsnet user earns £150,000,000 per annum whilst working per time?! Shooketh.

Only the rich can have children.

Said no one on this thread.

The responses on this thread have further reinforced my sneaking suspicion that the vast majority of posters, despite claiming their huge salaries, in stressful professional roles are actual fantasists who’ve never worked a day in their lives, so divorced from the reality of being a working parent are they that this is the only reasonable explanation

Spot on. I honestly despair reading some of these utterly bonkers replies 🤯

@Cyw2018

I'm a paramedic. We can't access childcare that covers our shift length, work pattern or frequent late finishes. The ambulance service (and presumably police and other parts of the NHS) is entirely propped up by unpaid childcare, mostly in the form of grandparents, and if you don't have that option then tough, consider your career over. I don't have any family support so have had to go onto very limited part time hours, this means an end to career progression (although I am a fan of working part time!!).

There is rarely any recognition of this army of free childcare, that keeps 24 hours services in operation. The government really don't care if women are able to work or not after having children.

Police staff here. Couldn't have put it better myself 👏

@Jessieabs

Sorry, hang on a minute to everyone who is saying ‘why should I pay for your choices’. You don’t, I pay for my choices by paying 40% income tax.

Ok so from your tax you pay van you tell what you pay for me as a single childless person? What tax break or freebie am I given that you pay towards that only single childless peolle get that parents don't?

Can't wait to hear about it...

@Jessieabs

UNICEF rank the U.K.s childcare policies as one of the worst in the world...FYI.

At the top of the list are countries that aren’t hugely affluent.

I’m not sure if you mean those below us: Ireland, Australia, Cyprus, USA, Switzerland, Slovakia Or those at the top of the table: Luxembourg, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Germany.?? But not ‘hugely affluent’ doesn’t appear to apply to either set?

The thing about high nursery costs is that they are pretty temporary as children start full time school at 4 in the Uk, and they now get 30 funded hours at 3. That’s double the amount provided a few years ago and there’s an additional 3 months maternity pay.

@fishonabicycle

I think you are forgetting that countries that have heavily subsidised childcare tend to pay higher taxes. There is a fair proportion of the population in the UK that can't seem to understand that you cat have great free healthcare, schools and other state funded entities without paying higher taxes. It's not really that hard to understand.

This - voters in England at least have decided they would prefer to pay less tax. I don’t earn a great deal. I’d be prepared for my parents to pay more tax and I inherit less.

It’s all inextricably linked though Flowerlane

Good, affordable childcare would relive housing problems by freeing up funds for our extortionate housing costs

Or allowing those who require social housing to have full time jobs meaning they were less reliant on the state to provide