"Childcare In The UK 'Most Expensive In World'" Sky news report

[LittlePickleHead]

news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16064005

The cost of childcare is forcing women to turn down jobs or give up work because they can't afford the cost of childcare.

This is true personally, DH and I are holding off on trying for DC2 until DD is in school as putting two into childcare would cost more than I can earn. Much tougher is on those who already have children who have no lost tax credits or subsidised childcare and are now being forced into poverty.

My cycnical side thinks that taking mothers out of the workplace has many benefits for the government...

I think VoluptuaGoodshag makes a good point. No it isn't selfish to work or want to work but kids have to come first and if that means you HAVE to give up your job then that is what you have to do.

I disagree that the Scandanavian countries are so great. I have read quite abit about it and it isn't all rosy.

I also agree with the poster who said that if you want to use childcare you have to pay for it and at a reasonable wage. Why should childcarers get crappy pay? It should be subsidised but only to a certain extent otherwise some of the childless would be up in arms about 'having children you cannot afford'.

My personal belief is that Child Benefit should be increased so that it can pay some towards EITHER SAH or childcare. I don't believe working ALWAYS gives more to the economy than SAH. Lots of p/t jobs don't involve paying tax at all, cost more in childcare or tax credits than a person earns etc etc. SAH saves families money in many cases that will go on to be spent and help the economy. And of course many SAHP help in schools etc etc. (Yes I know some working parents do as well but on the whole at my kid's school it was the SAHP).

I am a happy SAHM (previously a WOHM so see both sides as perfectly acceptable) but I don't see why I am constanly under pressure to 'get a paid job' from successive goverments when I am 'doing a job' (in my own opinion) already. I would not leave my kids in an 'extended school' for example. Luckily, I am thick skinned and like going against the grain. So I don't see why a move to universal systems (not that we will ever afford it) would help since many parents do SAH.

It is not such a bad thing for some parents who want to stay home and who is to say that this isn't the case for many opting out. Many studies and surveys say that most women do not want to work full time. So it is a good thing, then, if more of them can stay home. Of course it isn't good if the family cannot manage financially, or the woman wants/needs to work. But it may be good for some people.

VoluptuaGoodshag I agree about materialism etc. but I didn't see the joy in SAH until I did it. I left school in the expectation of getting a career and being equal etc. And i was a working mum at first and didn't think anything of it as it has always been drummed into me that you are defined by your career (well that and looks but that is another debate!!) I think many people just go along with what is expected as a default. But I think more people are like me in that once they stay home they see through society more and see the joy in being home. Of course there may be some people that hate it too! I think people are realising you cannot have it all all the time. many people instead are 'doing it all'. For me, equality isn't just being 'the same' as a man. It can be different but equally important.

One of the reasons I returned to work after both children to keep my foot in the door for when they are both at school. I am happy with the company I work for & don't want to have to start from scratch somewhere else in 4/5 years time. I don't believe this is selfish of me as I am thinking of my whole family's future. I'm left with very little to spend after childcare fees but the very little I do get is needed to keep our heads above water!

Nursery fees are too high IMO and do not reflect staff wages. Nursery staff are normally paid very little & the cost of 1 full time child would still be more than a full time staff member is paid..times this by the amount of children to staff & the 'company' are making quite a profit even after their other bills.
I wouldn't mind so much if I thought the staff were well paid.

I think the fact that it is such a 'decision for the women' issue it what annoys me. And it's not just the lower earners (as the article suggests) that are affected.
If two people are on what should be a decent salary, but having children would wipe out one salary completely and put the couple in the predicament of either one of them working for nothing for a few years (and only being able to afford one child every 4/5 years) or one of them (majority of times the woman) having to give up work completely, then to me there does seem to be a problem. As a pp said, we do need people to continue having children, and value needs to be placed on the upbringing and care of those children. Having a system which means that those who do not work can continue to have children and be no worse off (and therefore be more and more unlikely to be able to renter work) yet those on middle incomes struggle to afford even one child just seems to be a recipe for even more social problems in the future.
I know it's not a right to have a child, but neither do I think it should be a clear choice between a career ( usually the womans) and starting a family. Not everyone is cut out to be a SAHM, so it is sad to think that some women are feeling under pressure to quit their jobs and have their career affected because there is no affordable provision for childcare

Oh, and no I don't think the solution is to pay childcarers less. I think it should be subsidised by the government more, and the whole 'your child, you pay for it' attitude is so shortsighted. Surely it's in the whole country's benefit to give a little help to families when they need it, so they can carry on contributing to the country's economy for the long term?

After I had DS1 I returned to work 3 days a week we paid £468 a month of my take-home salary on childcare. We had a pretty decent living with a summer holiday, a bit of money for emergencies and no overdraft.

Fast forward 4 years & the only difference being 1 extra child & childcare is £1,014pm of my take-home salary (& DS1 is at school most of the day)! Factor in inflation & VAT increase, loss of tax credits, lack of salary increase and we are skint. Losing child benefit next year may well finish us off.

The rising costs of childcare may well force more parents to reconsider returning to work (which IMO isn't all bad), but what about the majority for whom going to work is a necessity to pay the bills?

I suppose the answer will be 'don't afford kids if you can't have them'
The amount of people that encompases is set to grow though, and if everyone took that literally it would be interesting to see what the future demographic of the country is likely to be (I'd imagine predominently very rich/poor with less in the middle)

Niceguy2, you have completely the wrong view of childcarers if you think we charge more because of the tax credits helping people - who the hell do you think pays the high taxes to pay for these tax credits the government gives out to help - yes my and many others paying higher rate taxes that's who, yet we as a family get NO HELP so this is why I am a childminder AND a dinner lady trying to scrape a living.

We have two older dependants (I'll call them that because they aren't children anymore) the eldest is 20 and at University and gets some help with tuition fees and the daughter who is 18 and doing a pre-university course and gets the child benefit till Sept next year. The youngest is 9 and still in primary and they are thinking of taking away Child benefit in 2013, the year he starts senior school!!!!! The year I will need it most to help pay for the uniform. [angry).

So don't bleat about childcare costs, I am trying to earn a living that's all and I have no choice but to work as a childminder at the moment.

Jellybeans, thank you. You get my point exactly. The kids come first.

I'm not a lay-about, malingerer on benefits. If someone want to work then great, do it, if someone want to stay at home great then do it. But the kids come first and if someone goes to work and runs up child care debts knowing that they wouldn't by not working then that is plain daft!

I have lots of family in France and they only pay around £500 a month for childcare, both in state run and private establishments. The care is high quality and very similar to the care we have here (my SIL is a nursery manager so I know how they work).
As in Sweden the reason it is workable is government subsidies and generally high taxes. The government consider it is important for a woman to have the opportunity to work if she wants to and value her contribution to society in terms of productivity and taxes.
There is a very high proportion of women who go back to work in France, something that leaves me envious as I had to give up my career as my salary only just covered the nursery costs and we decided it wasn't worth it. I know so many women in the same situation, educated women who have had to give up successful jobs because childcare was so expensive. What a shame.

And the value placed on rearing your own children whether you are a father or a mother?

I disagree with "kids coming first" means that every mother (or father) in this country should give up work. Kids coming first can mean a lot of different things to different people, like working hard to have the money to educate them privately, or setting an example for them that both women and men can have fulfilling and successful careers, or that work is something to be proud of and strive to do.

That debate aside, it is also clearly in the interest of the government and public as a whole for people to be having children. Otherwise our pensions won't get paid. The demographics are already poor in this country and we really need to tip the balance back toward youth. So it could well be in taxpayers' interest to subsidise childcare further - I'm sure there are plenty of academics and boffins who have worked out the sums. I'm just making an assumption.

It might also benefit employers who shy away from hiring fertile women because of the extra costs. If childcare were affordable and readily available, the investment in those employees and likelihood they would return to work after maternity leave could only increase.

If we considered childcare as a parenting expense rather than an expense that is usually is considered solely against the mother's income it would be better.

In the scheme of your working life, say 44 years if you worked from graduation at 21 until 65, you don't need to pay for full time childcare for many years if at all (one or both parents may work pt or condensed hours). Too many mothers seem to think if I don't make X amount of money after paying for childcare in the child's early years they will give up their career but that is an incredibly shortsighted way of looking at things and many of them stay unemployed or underemployed for the rest of their lives.

IMO people should have less children, having 0 or 1 children should be the norm, not having 2, 3 or even 4. We need to reduce the population of this country and government policy should reflect this.

I'd just like to point out that for some it's not a case of wanting to work or wanting to SAH. I don't have a choice, we can't afford childcare but I can't afford not to work. So I work from home and have the worst of both worlds (or that's how it feels right now).

And of course DS always comes first, but he also needs a warm home & to be clothed & fed.

As a lone parent I don't have a choice. I have to work to keep us fed and a roof over our heads.

Since the reduction of Child care tax credits in the spring I've been cutting it fine financially. We've just about managed it but my savings are gone since it went down from 80% to 70%. I'll hopefully get back on an even keel now DS has started school. Still got 2 years of childcare to pay for for DD though.

FWIW the nursery are brilliant and worth every penny, I'm not suprised it's so expensive.

Childcare costs can easily eat up a salary, especially when you are paying for more than one child. Anyone with a bit of a clue should know this, and if they need to work and can't afford to put 2 DCs in childcare, then they should have a bigger gap between children (parents with twins have an excuse !).

There are 2.5y between my DCs, and we worked out that we would only be paying for 2xchildcare for about 6 months (which was do-able). There is no way we could have afforded to have DCs 1.5y apart, so we waited a bit. If finances had been worse we would have waited longer.

For those in careers with good employers, pension etc, who WANT to work, giving up work for 5y just because most money is going in childcare is a false economy.

Plus the figures for childcare costs on the BBC this morning seemed particularly low. I can only assume that they included playgroup fees - our local playgroup charges £7 per morning (I pay £23 per morning at a private nursery) but is mostly used by SAHP as it is of little use to WOHP as it is only open 9.15 - 12.15. I would imagine that the average childcare cost at private nurseries is considerably more than the c.£90 for 25h stated.

Can i just add that my comments were in relation to two parent families. Hats off to LPs. How in Gods name they make the finances work, even with 70% cc paid, is a mystery to me.

Chandellina - I'm not saying don't work and I resent this continual implication that by not doing so I'm not setting a good example to my kids. I do work, I look after them. I also do voluntary work. I teach them that any job is worth doing well whether it's cleaning a toilet or making the books balance. The issue is that if more money comes into a household by a parent staying at home then that will provide more for kids surely.

Freddy G - I'm not sure that what you are saying is correct though. We have an aging population as people are living longer, not a growing population due to birth rate. All that will happen if birth rates go down will mean there are more people needing a state pension and less people paying national insurance to pay for it. And to get into the position where future generations do that, we need less families that grow up reliant on state handouts and benefits, and more that are able to consistently work and if they want to are able to stay in work during the early years of childhood.

If this is policy to try and dissuade people from having kids, it's very short sighted as those who don't work, claim benefits and continue to have children won't be dissuaded in any way. Who will be dissuaded are middle income earners who are not entitled to any help but whose wages mean they will really struggle with the cost of childcare (especially in london)

VoluptuaGoodshag can you really imagine what would happen in this country if the majority of women gave up work for 5 years or so? Women provide many low income positions. The country would fall apart.

I used to think (or more brain washed by my mother) that a mother should stay at home but I have to say I ended up no better than my counterparts, actually I would say I'm lazyer and not so focused - I didnt have to think for myself.

Not all children love being at home either DS1 at 5 would rather go to play scheme/after school club than be at home. Children do thrive on variation and a good mix of home/clubs/nursery/family can only benefit a child.

Many of us have stopped at 2 children as we have assessed that this is within our means.

We dont have a pension here but many sensible people have to put in £200 plus per month to achieve a decent outcome and we all have to think beyond these child rearing years.

I totally agree that we are materialistic - that is a fact but many people work to keep the basics not just the expensive car and flash holidays. However, the tables have turned and peoples priorities have changed. Leisure time seems to go before quality food for instance.

I do think that if you contribute towards the country and get on with life then you should be taxed less. This country seems to spend too much time feeling sorry for those who cant be bothered.

I wonder if part of the answer would be to give tax breaks to employers who run their own on-site nursery/creche. For me this seems to be a good solution (at least for office workers). Empoyers could run the nursery at cost (or outsource it), parents get to see their children at lunchtime/breaks and return to work levels for women would probably be better. Yes, it would take some time to set up and not every company would have the space/facilities to do this, but I think it would be a good way of attracting and retaining staff with families.
Modern, private nurseries are profitable businesses! I know in my daughter's nursery for example (which costs us £55 per day) the owners are raking it in, they have 4 brand new cars, with private numberplates whereas the staff are paid just above the minimum wage.

I am surprised that is has taken so long for it it to become an issue. Childcare is a shocking price. We ended up educately privately because it wasnt much more than a childminder!

Wasnt there a policy (someone please correct me if I am wrong!) where they gave single young mothers 2.5 days of free child care to encourage them to work. Of course I suspect it ended up being used as free babysitting and there arent too many 2.5 day a week roles!

I would like to see childcare being subsided but only for people who are working.

The cost of childcare is one of the many things that needs to be factored into our decisions to have children. I am currently PG with number 3 and have worked out that if I go back to work I will end up earning only £2 per hour after childcare costs, I can live with that or choose not to go back to work, but I knew that before I got pregnant. My children are worth every penny I would lose.

Denmark has been mentioned and as Jigglebum says it comes with strings attached. I didn't know about the allocation of places - that's useful info, thanks Jigglebum... pity they don't do it so that children from the same family are kept together, though I suppose that could complicate things.

They have a childcare system for children 0-6 where parents pay no more than 28%. Problem though, their tax system looks quite complex with a national tax (3.76%), a municipal tax (23-28%), a health care contribution (8%). They also have a church tax (0.4-1.5%) for those who are members of Evangelical Lutheran Church (is that the main religion in Denmark?). There is also Social Security 8%. Max total is 51.5% after Gross Tax (what does that mean?), giving max 57% of income going in taxes.

Anyone understand Danish tax law? Can you explain how it works? Am I right in thinking that taxation is higher in Denmark than in the UK, for someone of earnings of say DKK 150,000 (about £17,500 I think).
£17,500 sees deduction of £3200 tax&NI in the UK (about 18.2%)
I think DKK 150,000 sees deduction of DKK 44500 (29.7%)

So if I am reading it right (which may well not be the case), taxation in Denmark is higher. State funds at least 72% of childcare cost for everyone with a child under age 6 attending a registered childcare facility - but they allocate the place for each child.