Why doesn’t the country support having children?

[NameChangeAsICouldBeOverReacting]

Just seen an article on The Guardian about the 15 free hours for childcare for under 2’s and how the whole system is a mess.

I’m just starting to lose hope that this country doesn’t support working families anymore?

AIBU and need to think more positively, or have we screwed up massively by not supporting families?

The Guardian article which I read.

Agreed.

When a full-time worker gets benefits to top-up wages, it's their employer who is being subsidised. If the employer paid a decent wage, the benefits wouldn't be needed.

Old people are more likely to vote than conservative than younger people. Hence the governments priorities.

Its not childcare thats expensive its wages are to low

in 1980 my relative was earning £12000 per annum in a factory, average house price was £20,897

NMW this coming April goes to £23k a year, so not even double the wage of a factory worker in 1980 average wage is only £35k so 3 x that of a factory worker in 1980

House prices average £291k which is 8 x the average wage at £35k

if we keep ignoring the fact that wages are so low and concentrate on everything else, it'll never change

I am also q interested to know how many nurseries will even offer these ‘free’ hours, given the rate the government is offering is so low - and the competition for nursery places.

I think our local nurseries could fill the places on a paid basis, such is the competition (waiting lists are very long).

And - will nurseries start charging more for paid hours, to subsidise the ‘free’ hours? Possibly it more expensive for some parents than today.

Our nursery fees are over £2k per month for just one child and I'm currently expecting twins.

We will take the financial hit because we can but many, many people can't. People, usually women, shouldn't be priced out of working due to nursery fees.

FFS you are really out of touch. Nowhere in the country could you get a Nanny for £16,667 per year 😂 Even if the Nanny did a 40 hour week (that’s low, they have to work longer due to covering the parents full-time hours plus their commuting time) then they would be earning £8ph which is ILLEGAL at well below minimum wage. The average pay for a Nanny where I live (not London) is £15-20ph!!
Plus the 30 hours free only come once the child turns 3 years old. Most families in 2024 cannot afford for one parent to stay home for 3 years. The astronomical living costs right now mean that both parents have to work full-time just to survive. Several years of full time childcare is crippling for most families.

Land Value Tax would make land ownership cost the owner money each year, making land undesirable as a speculative investment and encouraging its efficient use. A consequence would be a fall in land purchase value.

Kids are important because we need to maintain the population so there are working adults to pay our state pensions in the decades to come! So yes, we should be "investing" in them now.

I think the real problem is everything becoming so expensive that both parents have to work. Childcare is only expensive if you are working to earn the exact same money you hand to childcare.. you are basically then only working to "tread water" at your job rather than earn anything for yourself! Companies should let us take sabbatical for a few years and go back in at the same position and we get more time with our kids as well

Can you explain how we can rehome our child now living costs have increased 10x? Or what families are meant or do when nursery suddenly increases the monthly fees by £200 a month with 1 months notice?
Circumstances change and even with preplanning, people can lose their jobs etc.

However, it still doesn’t answer why we have the highest childcare costs in the world and when we try to address that, the government falls at the first hurdle.

For as an FYI, we only have one child and would love a second but can’t due to nursery fees. We pay £1.5k a month for a full time place, that’s the cheapest in our area and we can’t move away due to our jobs etc.

The UK is better than some places like the US (most states don't face any statutory paid Mat leave AT ALL) but worse than places like Scandinavia. While we were paying £1000+ per month for full time childcare in London, friend in Stockholm had to pay less than £200, made me want to cry!

So it could be worse... but I guarantee it will be much worse if the Tories get in again (which by today's headlines is fortunately looking unlikely) as I'm 100% sure they will come after parental leave under the guise of 'improving productivity' if given half a chance.

If you don't think parents are supported, try being a non-parent! Last in the queue for everything whilst still paying for it, working full time with no legally protected time off for family issues, no safety net if we lose our jobs, due to benefit means testing and points systems that award more to people with kids, even if they've never worked. How much more could some parents possibly want us to pay for???

Or maybe people who choose to have children, as we did by the way, should take responsibility for them? As a pp has said there is help there. Maybe the free hours should only go to working families, if you're not working you don't need free child care, if you want your children to learn to socialise then get together with other stay at home parents as people did before free child care hours.

That’s a very shortsighted point of view. We have a skills shortage and an ageing population. We simply cannot let women (and it is usually women) of working age drop out of the workplace because they cannot afford childcare. Which means that we then have to import more people to do the jobs that others could do if they had affordable childcare (and we then have to find housing, healthcare provision and schools for the people we import and their children). Also nursery has gone up far more than salaries. The nursery that I used has increased its fees by 40% in the last seven years but my salary only went up by 19%. Many nurseries don’t even accept the 30 free hours.

Children are future voters. They aren't less important because they can't vote just yet.

I think the frustrating thing at the moment is that the funding doesn't kick in until age 3 so you have your mat leave until age 1 but then 2 years where you have to pay and if you're on a low or even middling wage this isn't always possible since childcare costs are often the same as or more than your take home pay. Therefore (usually) mothers leave the workforce to take care of the child until they can qualify for free childcare but then have to try to get back into the workforce with 2 years off.

This new funding for 9 months plus would really help with this but sadly I don't see how this will work since providers are already on their knees with so called funded places.

I agree with the idea that we should fund our own families and consider the cost before having children rather than assuming the state will pay but there is a big slice of the population who earn decent wages but still can't cover the childcare costs. It does have a disproportionate impact on women in the workplace climbing the ladder and getting the higher wages as it takes that much longer to get there.

Generally, the people in charge want lots of rich kids, not lot of poor kids.*

If you asked a halfway decent AI engine to explain the UKs tax and benefits system, that's what it would deduce.

*This may be the same genius that wanted 100% of children to be of above average intelligence,

German mothers tend to give up work and look after their children themselves, so I'm not sure that's the best comparison.

In response to some questions -

@SheFliesLikeABirdInTheSky"BINGO! Where's my prize!"

Hiding where your question mark should be. Such an original comment, not in the least predictable.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow "What kind of shit society that you promote doesn’t invest in its children?"

One where parents take responsibility for their children. Have you heard about the feral teens running amok in towns and cities?

@MidnightPatrol "The issue here is, that with the high cost of childcare / cost of living, hardly anyone would be able to afford children."

I disagree. That's just not true. People afforded it for centuries.

This is exactly what we did @JudgeJ
Many families simply couldn’t afford childcare so we would get together for activities.
Our children were then prepared for school and already had local friends that went to the same school.
They learnt to swim, play sports and even speak a bit of German as one of the stay at home mums was a German teacher ( when she could afford to work that us ).

We had to Make Do.

I have one 2 year old and my fees are £1460 per month. When she turns 3 we will qualify for the 30 funded hours, and then our fees will reduce to £954 a month. You think parents are getting more support now than you did, but we are actually not.

For three year olds, yes.

I'm about to return to work after a year of maternity leave and will struggle with paying for my baby. It's £105 per day for nursery round here. I'm a single parent now and the father pays maintenance but not half of childcare costs. It would make sense for me to stay home and claim UC. I'm not going to do this because of the long game, but I certainly don't feel supported.

A large part of the reason why childcare costs are so high here is that ratios of staff to children are higher than in most other countries. Trade-offs, innit? Are British people OK with the idea of allowing a couple more children per worker and letting parents choose whether they want to pay more for a higher-ratio setting or not as the case may be? I actually think this would be fine, but most Brits react with horror if this is suggested.

On the other hand, school starts earlier here than in many countries, so British parents do save in that respect.

You are missing the point

So on one hand this is true.
I make over £100k... yes we can cope.

But on the other hand society is not fine and long term society is going to struggle to cope...

Birth rate is plummeting.

For financial reasons, we are sticking at 2... We were actually even on the fence about a 2nd due to costs. If childcare provision was different/better we'd be going for 3.

From an economic POV the government is lurching toward disaster. Propped only only by immigrants/immigration.
That withstanding, the UK birth rate is HUGELY problematic and is heading for an economic catastrophe. they need more workers and more taxable income (this comes from young people).

People having children supports the aging population

The fees I quoted were 20 years ago
We didn’t get any free childcare either, or free school meals.
We got nothing.