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?

30 hours is defo not for those only on low income or benefits. It's almost the opposite. For that you must be working (you may qualify because you can't work). People who don't work don't get it at all, only the 15 hours

Anyone else on a modest household income who thinks that our families are being ignored by this new budget?
It further helps those on UC with their already significantly subsidised childcare costs. Good.

Now what about everyone else?

You are wrong about the 30 hours. Both parents need to be working and earn over £152 a week to be entitled unless you are a single parent. You dont need to be on benefits. Can I suggest you check childcarechoices.co.uk for accurate details

Or on certain benefits

@justwren why are you not claiming ESA?

www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/money-legal/benefits-entitlements/employment-and-support-allowance/

You have to have made a certain amount of NI contributions from working before you qualify for ESA. Not enough contributions - no ESA.

Have you put your details into entitled to?

I did it as if your DH, caring for someone on low rate pip who doesn't have limited capacity to work but is T employed. I used £34k a year gross as earned income. And paying £1k a month childcare.

I used my postcode and child turning 2 this year.

Owning a property with council tax band C.

It said you would be entitled to UC and CB through UC too.

So unless I'm missing something obvious I don't understand why you can't get UC? The amount it gave me would cover a good proportion of childcare costs.

You're wrong about this.
Parents in work (single or couple) only get 30 free hours if they earn above a certain amount. Those very low income, won't get it.

@freyamay74 I'm not proposing parents be "taxed more favourably if they split up". The current system taxes single people less favourably than couples. I'm suggesting that all household units should be taxed on the same basis - the same tax levied on the same household income - as in the case in most decent tax systems in advanced economies. Nobody is asking for special treatment. Single parents will still be at a huge disadvantage, don't worry, having to juggle work and childcare in just 24 hours per day while couples have 24 to do so. You just wouldn't get single parents subsidising you paying less tax than them on the same earnings, there would be a level playing field where households with the same income paid the same amount of tax. The fact you want to continue disadvantaging people who are already at a significant disadvantage to you by expecting them to pay a higher proportion of household income as tax than you do on top of that is shameful.

No. It's 22 hours per week, at the term after they turn three, if all adults in the household work and don't earn too little or too much to meet the thresholds. It would only be 30 hours if you met those thresholds AND only need childcare during school term times. Which hardly anybody does.

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.

No, 15 hours under 3 is for very low income families.

15 hours over 3 is for all families. An additional 15 hours over 3 is for families where all adults work and their earnings are above and below certain thresholds. Again, these are set by individual incomes per adult not by total household income so grossly unfair.

And the 15 hours in the slogans is actually 11. 30 is actually 22. Because the amounts quoted would be if you only had term-time only childcare, which is the case for a vanishingly small proportion of working parents.

And these "funded" hours aren't even properly funded anyway so you usually have to pay top up fees for them, as well as paying in full for any additional hours you would need to actually make a job viable.

So all in all, fairly pointless. 🤣

Yep. Just like with the removal of child benefit, and the tax free personal allowance, and the threshold for higher rate tax... if there are two of you to do all the work/ childcare apparently you should also get much more free childcare/ lower tax than those who have to do it on their own. 🙄🤦🏼‍♀️

I think you are wrong, both parents need to be working for the 30 hours (or on certain benefits).

*couples have 48 hours.

Obviously.

Uurgh just too tired from yet another night of no sleep but I guess I should be happy that all those couples paying less tax than me on the same income probably had a nice lazy weekend. Maybe even some time to themselves or alternating lie ins. Still, of course it makes sense that I should pay more tax than them on the same earnings so that I can't afford to pay for any respite care at all, ever.

@ScruffyGiraffe ok I'll ignore the fact that you're calling my views shameful, and getting personal rather than engaging in intelligent debate.

The problem with your proposal is that you're actually arguing for the opposite of people being taxed the same for the same income.

Let's suppose dh and I decide to split. I'm still doing the same job, earning the same income. So is he. He'll continue to support our children financially, as will I. By your logic, I should suddenly start paying less tax. And that shortfall has to be made up somewhere. But I'm still doing the same job as I did previously. Meanwhile what about my single, childless colleague who is doing the same job as I am? S/he pays more tax than me? While earning the same?

Seriously, it sounds like a retrograde step for women everywhere

@ScruffyGiraffe

What? I was responding to the op repeatedly declaring that 30 hours is only available to those on a low income, which is wrong.

@ScruffyGiraffe tbh that recent post of yours sounds like you're the one who has a problem with couples, rather than couples having a problem with single parents.

You're now complaining about couples perhaps having a nice lazy weekend with alternating lie-ins. Would it help if all couples forced themselves to both get up at the crack of dawn to deal with the kids?!

No it’s 30 hours for something like 39 weeks of the year. Some places let you spread it over the year and do 22 hours, some don’t. Not sure why you were correcting this poster really.

@ScruffyGiraffe ok I'll ignore the fact that you're calling my views shameful, and getting personal rather than engaging in intelligent debate.

The views you've expressed are something I'd be ashamed of: that you think lone parent households should continue to be forced to subsidise two parent households like yours.

The problem with your proposal is that you're actually arguing for the opposite of people being taxed the same for the same income.

Errr, no. I'm saying each household should pay the same tax on the same level of income. This is the basic principle of taxation in the majority of developed countries and is absolutely fair. To argue otherwise is bonkers.

Let's suppose dh and I decide to split. I'm still doing the same job, earning the same income. So is he. He'll continue to support our children financially, as will I. By your logic, I should suddenly start paying less tax. And that shortfall has to be made up somewhere. But I'm still doing the same job as I did previously. Meanwhile what about my single, childless colleague who is doing the same job as I am? S/he pays more tax than me? While earning the same?

That might happen. Based on the data, unlikey. And even if he did behave responsibly like that, you are then two households. You have two mortgages to pay, two gas bills, two electricity bills, etc. And each of you having to pay for that from one salary. Of course you shouldn't each then be taxed more on your household income than another household with the same income. You'd both fall down tax brackets in a fair system, because your costs would be higher because you're not splitting all of the costs between two people. Surely this is obvious?!

Seriously, it sounds like a retrograde step for women everywhere

Not sure why you think ending the tax system penalising single parents - 90% of whom are women - would be a "retrograde step". Do explain. A large proportion of child poverty happens in those households, in no small part because they are so much more heavily penalised through the tax system on every pound of household income. Rectifying this would massively benefit women and children, as well as improving tax revenues and productivity generally and meaning fewer households in the longer-term that end up reliant on state support. For anybody with a grip of economics it is a no-brainer. Hence this being how most decent economies operate already.

It is quite simply because in this country, and I’ve seen it myself, you get far more for not working and taking from your fellow subjects and the economy than you do for working hard, being responsible and independent plus useful by contributing to society.
That is just totally wrong and unacceptable in my opinion.

Exactly. 👏👏👏👏

There's so much misinformation on this thread. Working families are entitled to 30 hours term time funding (22 hours if you spread it over a full year) for their children as long as they work at least 16 hours at minimum wage (or at earn at least that equivalent) so all low earners will be entitled if they work at least 16 hours.

Eh? This thread is LITERALLY about a benefit that only people who work and pay taxes qualify for.

But only from the term after their child turns 3.

Maternity leave is 1 year if you can afford the unpaid portion which leaves 2 years of footing the full cost (less the 20% tax free child care). The cost of my eldest for the 2 years without finding was £870 (that we actually paid), for my second it was £1140.

Yes 30 free hours once 3 not for low income or benefits!! On benefits you get 15 hours from age 2 not 3 to encourage people to get a job.