Childcare reform: what about parents not on benefits?

[justwren]

So universal credit claimants will be entitled to more help with childcare costs as announced by the govt this week.
What about those who aren't on benefits?
We're the ones who have to be finding 14k a year for one child in nursery. I'm not entitled to any benefits because my husband earns £34k a year. That's hardly millions!

Why is there no support being offered to the families who are having to pay for it in its entirety?

I live with DP and we are both taxed separately, I pay the same amount of tax as I would if I was single 🤷🏼‍♀️

I do think it would actually disadvantage women though. What you’re saying effectively is that all single households get the double allowance, then when two people form a two income household they lose their own tax allowance and get one shared between them. I would feel very uncomfortable with that as a woman.

I also don’t actually think that’s fair and all people should be treated as individuals for income. Why should my tax allowance be cut in half just because there’s two people earning in my household?

But whatever your household income is, if I earn the same for my household, our households will still have vastly differerent incomes after tax in the current system: mine being far lower.

So you benefit from cheaper living costs by living together. You have 48 hours per day to spend on earning money/ career progression/ spending time with your children and reducing childcare costs by doing so (if you have children). A single parent has only 24 hours per day to do these things so will have higher costs than you and then even if they earn the same as your household will be taxed more than you are.

Anybody who thinks that is ok is mad, frankly.

And as a PP said, it's very depressing that people would rather scrap over division of crumbs than recognise the basic unfairnesses of the system (even those that, if rectified, would not benefit them personally) and campaign to get these things changed, for everyone's benefit. I highlighted many other issues not just about single parents but tax reform in general earlier in the thread. So many people's refusal to accept basic logic and fairness about an issue just because it doesn't affect you personally is, in my opinion, a large contributor to how we've ended up in such a mess as a country. Scrabbling over selfish personal gain and no willingness at all to look at the wider picture and what has been proven to work in other countries and take a long-term view in terms of productivity and what will benefit everyone in the longer term.

I should not have been wasting time trying to argue it, I know nobody cares about single mothers and this thread has shown it so plainly, with one or two exceptions. Same old attitudes, same old prejudices, same old "but it would be so unfair to me if we stopped penalising them and making them pay more than me and my husband do!". 🙄🤯

Wowzers, I wasn’t arguing just saying that we are taxed the same

I also don’t actually think that’s fair and all people should be treated as individuals for income. Why should my tax allowance be cut in half just because there’s two people earning in my household?

Because that's basic logic? Because households are economic units, because that's how tax functions in the majority of sensible economies, because it's fair, because household expenses are per household not per person and obviously are lower per adult if there are two adults... how does this need explaining?! Is your mortgage or childcare bill twice as much if you live with your partner? Or your gas and electricity bill? No? Then why should you get to earn twice as much tax free as somebody paying for all of that from one salary? Why do you think benefits are calculated on the basis of household incomes not individuals? The only reason why taxes aren't is because that wouldn't benefit the Government, and because as your comments have shown nobody cares about the impact because it is women and children who are the ones who are penalised.

Am not underestimating the difficulty in claiming child support ,but I do think a much better rate of recovery could be achieved

The main issue here where I live is actually finding childcare. Lots of places (including my childminder) closed during the lockdowns and never reopened. The remaining places are now packed out. Anywhere worth going has a waiting list. There is no one collecting from DS3's school now and no after school club provision. Moving school is not an option as a) other than lack of after school care the school is brilliant and I don't want to move him and (b) the morning routine is really well worked out due to breakfast club being available. I have to work around school pick ups in the afternoons and I'm lucky that the nature of my job and my employer allows me to. For people who can't this would be a serious barrier to work.

You can defo get 30 hours with certain disability benefits. You need to look into it further because if you're affected by health issues bad enough you can't look after your children you will be entitled to the 30 hours childcare:

@ScruffyGiraffe I think the point you're missing is that the vast majority of single parent households are not ones where the absent parent is dead or (as in your case) has committed horrendous crimes which prevent them from earning or having any future contact with their children. And legislation has to be made to work for the 'majority' scenarios, not the extreme ones like yours.

Most absent parents are perfectly able to continue working. They absolutely should (along with the 'present' (for want of a better word!) pay for their children. The main problem here is that many don't. And many actually go on to have more kids in a new household as if it's some god given right.

You say the single parent only has 24 hours for working/ caring etc and a dual household has 48. But your proposal ignores the fact that unless the absent parent is dead (or in prison etc) they have the other 24 hours. There are still 2 parents who between them have 48 hours. The fact they choose not to live together any more is their business. They are still parents - you don't divorce your children! And many couples work in this way quite successfully- they accept that they still have responsibility for funding the children they chose to have.

I don't see why parents should be taxed more favourably if they split up. And as many of us have pointed out, there are probably more negative impacts on women as a whole if you start going down this route.

You have to pay for support services. I can't look after my son due to health problems. I'd love to, and I'd love to be working and contributing.

Other points raised: there is no '30 free hours' at 3? unless you're on low income or various benefits. It's fifteen hours if you're not in those categories.

I don't have anything about people on benefits. Good for you, get what you can.
I'm just saying that lots of people who do not qualify for benefits are left having to fund all childcare themselves.
We have one income - husband earns £34k.
The £14k I referenced is the childcare bill for a year for our ONE child.

I can hopefully get PIP. We're not entitled to anything else.

Exactly

No it's not. It's fifteen unless you're low income or on benefit

Other points raised: there is no '30 free hours' at 3? unless you're on low income or various benefits. It's fifteen hours if you're not in those categories.

It's 30 hours if both parents work. I think that's what people are referring to.

Not entitled to anything apart from lower rate PIP. This idea that if you have a disability you're entitled to 'benefits' is a myth. It's through UC. If you don't qualify for that, you can't access almost anything else.

You’re wrong. My daughter gets 30 hours free and my husband earns almost £100k. If both parents work (or if single I think just one parent) it’s 30, within certain income amounts. Not sure of the minimum but the max is £100k.

Nope. I don't qualify for anything apart from lower rate PIP.

You have to pay for support services. I can't look after my son due to health problems. I'd love to, and I'd love to be working and contributing.

Other point : there is no '30 free hours' at 3 unless you're on low income or various benefits. It's fifteen hours if you're not in those categories.

I don't have anything against people on benefits. Good for you, get what you can.
I'm just saying that lots of people who do not qualify for benefits are left having to fund all childcare themselves.
We have one income - husband earns £34k.
The £14k I referenced is the childcare bill for a year for our ONE child.

Exactly

I do agree with you OP though, that there needs to be more help for families not on benefits before children turn 3. £14k per year is ridiculous. It also needs reforming do it is funded properly and nurseries don’t have to have these ridiculous policies where it costs £100s a month to actually use the ‘free hours’.

@EmilyGilmoresSass No need to be so aggressive. Christ.
I can't look after my son due to health problems. I'd love to, and I'd love to be working and contributing.

Other point : there is no '30 free hours' at 3 unless you're on low income or various benefits. It's fifteen hours if you're not in those categories.

I don't have anything about people on benefits. Good for you, get what you can.
I'm just saying that lots of people who do not qualify for benefits are left having to fund all childcare themselves.
We have one income - husband earns £34k.
The £14k I referenced is the childcare bill for a year for our ONE child.

Why are you copying and pasting the same (incorrect) point over and over?

Yup. We're just overlooked for all sorts of stupid reasons.

It's been said before on this thread but you will be entitled to 30 hours. (In England, can't speak for elsewhere)

All children age 3 are eligible for 15 hours. This raises to 30 hours if both parents are either working 16 hours or more or are earning the equivalent of 16 hours. Once someone earns over £100000 they no longer qualify however, both parents can be earning £99000 a year each and they would still qualify as each of them earn less than the threshold.