Why do people complain about childcare costs?

[Teawithsugar40]

I’m a working mother and 65% (was previously near 100%) of my salary goes on childcare, we get by but holidays etc are out of the question. We’re not rich and have small children, it’s just how it is. I don’t resent what we pay and feel quite lucky that we’re a few hundred better off than if I was doing the equally important job of caring for my children full time.
Maybe because when I had my first child there was absolutely no childcare help and scant provision but I really don’t understand so many people these days complaining about childcare costs, especially when it still leaves them better off working? Totally understand single parents needing help and thankfully they have had generous help for years but why are couples who are definitely not on the breadline complaining? Did they seriously think they could have children without making any sacrifices and why do they expect people often worse off them themselves to pay for maintaining their previous lifestyle?

[quote Newmum738]@Tillsforthrills completely. I think it's a bigger issue than that. Society needs children and people are choosing not to have them because of the cost. The impact of care affects women in particular in an adverse way. In Wales, the Government are heavily subsidising care and it's still expensive because it's private sector and therefore profit-making. [/quote]
Where is the evidence that the uk actually has a problem with the birth rate, especially when we have had rising birth rates and significant immigration? Unless it’s just a problem with the birth rate of white middle class women as why else would the benefits cap be introduced for families who have more than 2 children? Personally I’d rather support a low income family who really wanted a 3rd child but just needed to have enough for the basics than a professional couple who only want children if it doesn’t affect their lifestyle

@Newmum738

Plus what about women who want to care for their own children, are SAHM just to be thrown on the scrap heap as they didn’t tow the ideology that mother mustn’t miss a beat. Not all jobs offer a decent work life balance, not all mums happy with putting their children in nursery, what if your a mother whose child never settles, has health issues etc, has a teenager who needs extra support. There are a hundred and one reasons why a mother may decide to take a career break besides the cost of childcare. Do they suddenly become vegetables after 4 years out of the workplace or do you think they still have a multitude of skills and talent to offer which if they were actually given the opportunity and support for there perhaps wouldn’t be such a gender pay gap

Plus what about women who want to care for their own children, are SAHM just to be thrown on the scrap heap as they didn’t tow the ideology that mother mustn’t miss a beat

Well they stay at home . It seems an odd way round that rather than being for having access to affordable childcare so women can make choices that aren't based solely on financial situation, being against women having that freedom in case those who chose to stay at home get 'left behind' because of an expectation that already exists. Realistically whatever the reason anyone who takes a break from the workplace however noble the cause will face challenges of sorts when returning, but it depends on the sector, the experience that person has, and whether they have kept up any actual transferable skills eg running a baby group, school governor etc.

@Pugroll

Plus what about women who want to care for their own children, are SAHM just to be thrown on the scrap heap as they didn’t tow the ideology that mother mustn’t miss a beat

Well they stay at home . It seems an odd way round that rather than being for having access to affordable childcare so women can make choices that aren't based solely on financial situation, being against women having that freedom in case those who chose to stay at home get 'left behind' because of an expectation that already exists. Realistically whatever the reason anyone who takes a break from the workplace however noble the cause will face challenges of sorts when returning, but it depends on the sector, the experience that person has, and whether they have kept up any actual transferable skills eg running a baby group, school governor etc.

Low income families get it paid anyway and women paying 100% (but not eligible due to a high earning partner) have the option of their partner financially contributing or him reducing his hours to undertake the childcare if she’s really that desperate to work.

There have been examples of women being given the opportunities to re skill and return to the workplace following time out to care for children or even offered career breaks but sadly this seems less so nowadays, especially with so much attention has been directed at the idea of funded childcare being the best option

If we can supposedly consider spend billions on funded childcare for families that don’t need it to help them out of poverty. Then how can you say society can’t take the much cheaper and smaller initiative of giving women who have an awful lot to offer the opportunity of decent employment. An initiative that would both do much to close the gender pay gap on top of giving families a real choice to decide what is best for their families.

Mothers who want to be SAHMs still can be and often are in countries with subsidised/ free childcare.

We have free education for all children, regardless of parental income, from 4 to 18. There are still private schools and you are still entitled to home educate your child. The only bit that's compulsory is to ensure your child is receiving some sort of education, you don't have to use the state provided option, but that is available to everyone, even those who could easily afford private or already have a SAHP who could home ed.

We could have state funding towards this expensive part of child rearing. We have close examples of it working and that leading to fairer more equal societies. It would fit in easily with the framework we already have for early years education. Its just so many seem wedded to the idea that a good mother is one who gives up everything for her child. (Dads obviously can be great parents before and after work and on weekends.)

@cafedesreves

Isn't it potential future earnings by staying in work, though, rather than the earnings that year?

If mothers were not so discriminated for taking time out to care for their children, then there wouldn’t be such an earnings discrepancy

@pixie5121

Where I live plenty of people are still having babies on lower family incomes than 25k and seem to be managing fine, their children seem quite happy. Those friends have never been to New York in their lives let alone expect to afford it as parents of young children. Many have actually moved up from down south, just seemed an obvious decision for them. I still know people in London that had children on a much lower income than that, myself included. It wasn’t impossible but obviously was much better when we decided to move

@pixie5121

Yes friends on 25k in London are either in council flats or receiving help with housing costs via the housing element of us as they are entitled to and that’s how they manage. I don’t see anything wrong with people getting means tested support, London would not have many of its key worker if this did not exist as it wouldn’t be viable for them to stay as many people would move if it meant they couldn’t afford children if it’s that important to them

@pixie5121

P.s. I never said they were not getting any benefits so please do not call me a liar. I’ve said all through this thread that I support help for the poor/ anyone who hasn’t got enough to meet their basic needs, which includes many families on 25k in London unless they already own their own house

My second child was twins. Natural not ivf. I love them with all my heart my man it was so tough paying for childcare x3. It took ALL of my take home pay. For years.
For me it was difficult doing a job you hate, allowing other people to spend time with those you love the most, and getting them only when tired or ill.
I genuinely hope that this changes in the future. Women have so much to offer the world of work. My girls, and my son, deserve better.

@MargosKaftan

Mothers who want to be SAHMs still can be and often are in countries with subsidised/ free childcare.

We have free education for all children, regardless of parental income, from 4 to 18. There are still private schools and you are still entitled to home educate your child. The only bit that's compulsory is to ensure your child is receiving some sort of education, you don't have to use the state provided option, but that is available to everyone, even those who could easily afford private or already have a SAHP who could home ed.

We could have state funding towards this expensive part of child rearing. We have close examples of it working and that leading to fairer more equal societies. It would fit in easily with the framework we already have for early years education. Its just so many seem wedded to the idea that a good mother is one who gives up everything for her child. (Dads obviously can be great parents before and after work and on weekends.)

I don’t think you’ll find being an SAHM is considered acceptable let alone now viable in many in such countries. For a start the tax rates and cost of living in many such countries are so high to fund e.g heavily subsidised childcare that it makes supporting a family on one income look like a price of cake in this country. We do have state funding towards childcare, it’s just mainly targeted at the poor and the rest is not as much as some people would like. SAHP families are massively discriminated against in the tax and benefits system as it is. This I’m saying all as a working mother, I’m fortunate enough to really love my job and have great childcare but I’d absolutely resent being even more rail roaded down that path by social policy if I was in a position where it wasn’t suiting me or my family. I’ve been in that position in the past so I very much value the freedom to choose.

@coronafiona

My second child was twins. Natural not ivf. I love them with all my heart my man it was so tough paying for childcare x3. It took ALL of my take home pay. For years. For me it was difficult doing a job you hate, allowing other people to spend time with those you love the most, and getting them only when tired or ill. I genuinely hope that this changes in the future. Women have so much to offer the world of work. My girls, and my son, deserve better.

I do think parents of twins should get a generous twin supplement, whether they choose to spend it on childcare or have a parent at home, SAHM shouldn’t be discriminated against. I can only imagine what it must be like to have all the extra expenses you couldn’t have possibly planned for. Gosh even if it’s for a much better off parent to just get some help so we get can get a break even if they don’t need it for extra childcare costs, compensate for parent at home or the larger housing costs. I do have a lot of sympathy with you

Because we go to work to pay for our children to be cared and looked after while we are working all the years not spending the time with our kids . SOME folks would rather sit at home having x about of kids and getting thousands out of tax payers money and they get free childcare .. its a joke

@Newmum738

Yes agree, private sector childcare is profit making, the nurseries and childminders would not be able to survive if they did not make a profit. Any work is profit making, that’s the point of it.

The cost of childcare isn’t the problem as pointed out the hourly rate is cheap in comparison to what the users of the services make along with the bad conditions and long hours.

You didn’t answer my question to your previous post, what do you think childcarers should be paid per hour to look after children?

@Conspiracyornotr

Because we go to work to pay for our children to be cared and looked after while we are working all the years not spending the time with our kids . SOME folks would rather sit at home having x about of kids and getting thousands out of tax payers money and they get free childcare .. its a joke

My husband and I go to work and don’t receive anything beyond child benefit. I’m not jealous that someone is given x amount in benefits because they couldn’t eat otherwise, if they can have the odd treat then even better. I’ve been that single mother and I’m in a far happier place now. I’m sure they too would like to have found a nice partner or doing a job they enjoy too. If the funding for their 2 year old to have 15 funded hours of childcare gives a them a break then I’m happy for them, even happier for their child. My husband and family give me breaks, my child has a garden, books etc so probably a lot of things these children don’t have. I’ve worked hard to get where I am but I’ve also been incredibly fortunate and I’m grateful everyday for that. There would be people who’d wear my shoes and not think my life was not so great because we can’t afford holidays etc but then I suppose they’ve never known worse

I don't live in the UK but childcare is insanely expensive here. When DC were younger it was 90% of my (teacher) salary and once I had DC3, I stopped as it was not worth my while.

Now, I pay 50% of my salary for lunch times and after school (kids come home for lunch here).

I do not begrudge it at all. In fact, I make sure our provider is taken care of. She enables me to continue working in a job I love, by taking care of my DC in my absence. She is worth every penny.

It's very different across generations though - my Mum took 7 years out in 1970s/1980s to be a SAHM. She worked for NHS. When she wanted to go back to work she just wrote to the hospital, asked for some shifts and got them! That wouldn't happen now. She also went back extremely part-time, but still had final salary pension etc, and my Dad had job for life, final salary pension - he died not long into retirement but spousal pension also good.

Meanwhile, I'm mid-career, on my fifth(!!) pension scheme, none of them particularly good. I have the sort of role where if I left to be a SAHM I would stand no chance of getting back in at anything like a similar level. Maybe if I'd gone into something like nursing or teaching where there are shortages it would be easier to return but you still (rightly!) now have to update your training etc before returning.

Plus, my Mum was a terrible SAHM. She had zero patience, shouted, smacked, didn't do anything child-focused but dragged us off to see multiple elderly relatives where we had to sit in silence whilst they chatted. This left me with anxiety and lacking confidence which has taken years and a lovely DH to build up. DB and I would have been far better off in childcare.

We've spent £35k over 3.75 years on childcare). That was for an excellent nursery where staff were paid the living wage, had great training and career development (they ran it with an apprentice per room which is cheaper but I also saw the development offered to those apprentices- one was a room leader by the time we left). They did work long days (it was open 7am - 6.30pm) but tended to work 3-4 days per week.

I'd like to see the funding to be at a realistic level for the costs and spread more evenly over the preschool years. At the moment there's a cliff edge between the end of paid maternity leave and the start of the funded hours at 3. So 2-2.5 years when it's incredibly expensive. Families on some benefits get the 15 free hours from 2 so clearly there's something beneficial about it?! I'd far rather see universal 15 free (properly funded) hours from end of paid maternity leave until school starting age than the 30 hours that isn't properly funded and isn't universal. That still means paying for the rest of the childcare you need but it would make it more affordable and perhaps stop people (esp. women) having to leave work if they don't want to.

What is the cost to the taxpayer to providing everyone with free childcare, regardless of income, from age 1. Vs the cost to the taxpayer of women choosing to/being forced to stay out of work because the cost of childcare just doesn't make it viable (both in terms of lost tax and benefits claimed).

Many people fall through the cracks, where they wouldn't be entitled to any help if working but would spend most of their money on childcare so it isn't worth it.

Also, it's not just as simple as paying for someone to look after you're child while you work. When that child is sick you still have to pay, but might not get paid yourself - that has to be factored in when making decisions.

[quote Teawithsugar40]@RandomCatGenerator

In fact I’ve just looked it up and only 1 in 15 women who work full time earn over 50k, not even the 60k income needed to make up for the cost of childcare just for one child. Most mothers with dependant children don’t even work full time so you are actually in a tiny percentage of working mothers. Not to mention that just because you’d be quite happy effectively paying zero tax on 60k, another woman wouldn’t have been quite happy having the privilege of a 60k a year job and been quite happy to contribute 13k for the NHS, supporting the poor and range of other things taxes go on. 60k a year jobs are clearly not 10 a penny so your not doing anyone but yourself a favour by filling it[/quote]
Not really - I pay tax every year….

@Sofiegiraffe

What I feel is also unfair is the massive discrepancy between costs in the north and south of the country. I have friends in London who are paying more than double what I pay in the north of England for the same number of hours of childcare. FT childminder for my dd is around £700 pm (£35 per day). This is by no means an insignificant chunk of our monthly family income. I can't imagine it being double that.

The cost vetoes due to the cost of living. House prices in London, for example, are far far higher than they are somewhere like Middlesbrough or Rotherham. If the cost of childcare wasn't higher then the provider simply wouldn't be able to pay rent or a mortgage

Childcare is expensive, the settings are catering for your most precious person in the world. Yes, private nurseries and childminders are profit making, if they weren't they wouldn't be doing the job. The profit is a whole lot less than people realise though and many are barely scraping by. When people see the hourly rate it's easy to forget all the overheads and costs involved that eat into that apparent 'profit'

The government isn't going to make big changes. Let's face it, they brought in the 30 hours but underfunded it so terribly that many providers have closed their doors for good. There's also the issue that to fund more means more taxes and that won't be welcomed. nurseries, preschools, nannies and childminders will also be taxed more to pay towards the serious underfunding they already receive to care for someone's most precious person 🤷🏼‍♀️

Lots of people also don't seem to think of childminders as an option and think they have to pay £70/80 a day at a nursery, my childminder is amazing and is around £40 per day once you take into account the 20% for government and unpaid holidays!

Her rate is £5.50 per hour (before taking off the 20% and holidays) and worth every penny!