Your views on the government's plans to extend childcare support, please!

[HelenMumsnet]

Morning all. We need your help - and your opinions please!

You may have seen/heard today's news that the government has just announced an extra £300m to help with childcare costs when the universal credit starts in 2013.

According to the reports, parents on low incomes who are working less than 16 hours a week will be eligible for this childcare support - which, it's thought, is going to be worth up to £175 a week for one child and £300 for two or more, and will benefit 80,000 families receiving universal credit.

You can read more about it all here and here.

We have been asked what Mumsnet thinks about these new plans - so we'd love to know. Do please tell...

Thanks, MNHQ

[WidowWadman]

dreaming bohemian Yeah, for example the idea of needing help with childcare costs whilst temping fills me with dread - as soon as the placement ends your entitlement to help ends, but obviously it doesn't mean you can stop or start childcare arrangements without notice periods.

[MrsHeffley]

For a start they could not penalise 1 income families with the CB changes ie 2 familes of 80K get it but not 1 on 43K.

I'm no expert but couldn't they give a tax break to all those families with kids under 5,then you get to choose.

I see the positive for those on low incomes getting the help which this provides but the "whole contributing to society" thing stinks.

I also think this whole economic crisis is forcing yet more stress onto families. It's forcing both parents to work even though neither may not want it and in many cases it doesn't suit some of the young babies and children involved. Yet again the crisis is making children and families suffer and the gov don't care.

Years from now I worry many women(and men) are going to be resentful at being forced to miss those early years and for many children it could prove not to have been the best choice(even though there often isn't one).

The lack of concern for young children and families that this gov has I find quite scary and shocking.

[dreamingbohemian]

widow Exactly, I would be worried too, sorry you have to deal with that. Do you think you can negotiate something with the childcare people?

Also where we lived, anytime you have any adjustments to your work situation they have to suspend payments while they re-assess, if you don't have a savings cushion then you're in real trouble.

We once went four months without HB while they worked out a mistake they had made, it was okay because we weren't getting a huge amount but what if we had depended on it for our rent?

What if this happens with childcare payments and people lose their childcare and have to quit their job, thereby needing loads more benefits?

The whole benefits system is based on a rotten and wobby foundation and adding anything else to it is madness, I think.

[PlayingItSafe]

I completely agree with you mrsheffley :)

[RogerMelly]

"MrsHeffley Fri 07-Oct-11 11:49:00
For a start they could not penalise 1 income families with the CB changes ie 2 familes of 80K get it but not 1 on 43K.
"

Quite

[dreamingbohemian]

mrsheffley I agree with you about the CB thing, that's very unfair.

I do sympathise with what you're saying but the real problem is the way that society is set up. The default position is that everyone works, parents included. If you want to stay home, then you need to make some sacrifices to afford it. No, it's not family friendly, but that attitude is probably not going to change. Is it best for the kids? Maybe, maybe not. But we're probably stuck with it for now.

I say this as someone who has done both SAHM and working. We are always skint either way

I do like the idea of a family subsidy that can be spent either on childcare or as replacement salary for a SAHP. I just don't think politically it would succeed, because it does not support the system that everyone is tied to right now, which is WORK WORK WORK.

[edam]

Unimpressed. Yes, it offers some very small help to people who were excluded under the 16 hour rule (I never understood why that applied anyway) but what about far bigger issue of cuts in tax credits for childcare? What about the extortionate cost of childcare? Would be better to directly subsidise childcare so it didn't cost so much in the first place OR regulate the market so providers can't charge so much. Ridiculous that nurseries are paying staff minimum wage when a 1:3 ratio in the baby room means each of those assistants are pulling in £36k or more a year - in many other industries, their wage would be relative to the amount their work earns for the company.

[HelenMumsnet]

Thanks all. V interesting comments - do keep em coming.

Katie from MNHQ is on the Daily Politics show now (BBC2) - and she's all prepped with the comments from this thread. Thanks v much!

[dreamingbohemian]

MNHQ I realise we're not talking too directly about this particular proposal, but I think that probably speaks volumes about how much we think it will help the bigger problems we are all dealing with.

Yes, it's nice, but we can do better. Come on Dave! Women aren't stupid.

[WidowWadman]

Mrs Heffley please excuse me that I struggle shedding a tear for a family with an income of £43K without any childcare costs. What do you want - subsidy so that you've got the same income as a double-earner 80k family who pays a huge chunk on childcare?

dreaming bohemian - Thank you. We're not in that situation yet and I haven't given up hope that my husband finds a permanent job again (redundancy just before I gave birth to No 2) before my ML is over, but that doesn't stop me from worrying about the possible problems if he doesn't. Currently it's just a pain to keep having TC adjusted - or trying to explain to the housing benefits people that the salary I've been earning before ML does not mean that SMP stretches to pay all our bills.

[dreamingbohemian]

oh sorry x-post

glad it's helpful!

[MrsHeffley]

The problem is Dave,George and Nick don't live in the real world so are clueless as to how stressful both parents working is for Joe public.

Those of us that can afford a top notch nanny,a cleaner,a driver,a millionaire lifestyle to chill out with etc have a very different experience to those of who live with the realities of working lifeX 2.

Their kids get to stay in their own home,they have the security of 1 to 1,the best in childcare,they aren't constantly hurtled from pillar to post with stressed/burnt out parents,a pig sty house,lack of money etc.

Dave and Co will never,ever know the realities of real family life which is proving to be a massive problem-for kids basically.

[HappyMummyOfOne]

I'd definately be against money being used to enable a parent to stay at home. That is a lifestyle choice, if you can afford to do so without assistance great but if not then you either choose to delay having children until you can or decide to have a family and work around each other or use childcare.

[working9while5]

Christ these discussions rile me. Everyone defending their own tiny patch, "struggling to shed a tear for people on £43K".

What is the economic benefit to this policy, in objective terms? What is the social benefit? I can't quite work out the angle here.

I suspect it will drive up childcare costs as this is what seems to happen whenever these subsidies come into play.

[WidowWadman]

working9while5 - you missed the "without childcare costs" part. A family with two full time working parents bringing in a total of £43k are in a heftily different situation to a family with a single earner bringing in £43K without associated childcare costs, because the other parent is at home, and I believe that this is a comfortable income to have without needing extra help to prop you up.

[WidowWadman]

And, no i don't think the family with a combined income of 80K does need CB either - but I think the problem is not the income levels at which the means testing thresholds are set, but that they don't take into account how the income is made up, so the calculations actually don't take into account the actual disposable income. Maybe if they changed the calculations to assess income after childcare (and possibly travel) costs it would be fairer

[MrsHeffley]

Happy well then being a working parent is a lifestyle choice and not a right so no need for public money for childcare costs either.

[Ticklemonster2]

The money would be more wisely spent tacking the problem of holiday care for over 12s.
I watched my parents struggle to pay bills and keep us. They received no help and were proud people. We are much luckier today. I am grateful to get the help we do, but I know I have and will continue to pay back into the pot.
Personally, working less than 15 hours a week will not bring in the tax revenue to offset the credits. There has to be some financial sense in a rescession. I agree that middle income families are suffering and doing the most to boost the economy. They are more tax efficient and are taken for granted in the current system.
Holiday care is a nightmare and children over 12 should not be left day after day alone during those breaks. The government could focus this money to help fund holiday clubs, possibly attached to schools of provide vouchers for supervised activity days. Anything would help to ease the burden on parents and grandparents who juggle annual leave and other commitments to provide holiday cover.
When the time comes, my husband and I will stagger our working week. The village we live in is a good community and I am happy to set up a reciprocal care arrangement fair to all. However, are we all as lucky?

[WidowWadman]

MrsHeffley - with the difference that the working parent pays tax and NI - so it's a "lifestyle choice" which directly increases the money which goes into the pot out of which the benefits are paid. And by using childcare also creates work for people, who in return pay tax and NI.

[FrillyMilly]

I think this money would be better spent by funding childcare providers. I currently have a child in full time nursery and will soon have a second. We earn just over the tax credit threshold so no longer get that help. Over half my wage will go in childcare, add to that enormous rent, ever increasing utilities, car insurance and petrol and there's not much left over. On our payslips alone we may look comfortable but we aren't and childcare is a big expenditure (more than our rent). I also worry about what we will do once they are at school. I can't afford to, and doubt I would be allowed to, work 9.30 - 3.00 and take 12 weeks off. Many schools seem to be dropping their before and after school clubs and holiday clubs. Why can't all those that work get a little help?

[MrsHeffley]

You can pay NI even if you don't work.I earn very little,I forget to count my salary half the time,I don't pay tax.This new measure will help many not paying tax.

[MamaMary]

I suspect it will drive up childcare costs as this is what seems to happen whenever these subsidies come into play. This is a very good point. What is being done to address this?

Also, it pains me to know just how little nursery staff are paid. A friend of mine works incredibly long hours in a nursery looking after other people's babies and children and she is paid a pittance. Yet parents fork out an absolute fortune to that nursery. Where is the money going?

[tranquilitygardens]

I don't really understand NI very well, this is what I have gleened.

I think there are 3 classes, and one of them is paid if you are claming child benefit, if staying at home caring for children.

There seems to be another one for those in employment.

The another seems to be for voluntary payments of those on what was incapicity benefit to contribute to.

[MrsHeffley]

I'm in the situation of having done it all ie v stressful fulltime career,full time SAHM,now v part time on a v low wage. I've always paid NI as scared of the impact on future pension(hollow laugh)I think you don't get as much if not enough in the pot.Can't rem the ins and outs but dp highly recommended we pay it for my future security.

[jellybeans]

I am beginning to really hate this government now. They are very anti SAHP. They are hinting that SAHP are a drain on the economy and that only paying someone else to watch your kids is better, whether you want to or not, and even if you won't be contributing or paying tax or are doing alot of voluntary work. I think they would win more mums votes if they gave a real choice. I know lots of other mums who feel this way too. Childcare help great for those who need/want it but also VALUE SAHM/D otherwise you will lose lots of votes (on top of those already lost).