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

[jellybeans]

'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.'

Well said mrsHeffley

[MissTinaTeaspoon]

I agree that this doesn't really address the wider issues at play here. I am very lucky that I am able to work nights, so when dd was in nursery we only had to find the money for 2 mornings a week, which allowed me to work 25 hours a week. Had I been in a 9-5 job the childcare costs would have been crippling, but I earn a fairly good wage so wouldn't qualify for any help. What was a help to us was that dh works in a university with a subsidised nursery - but how many people have that option?

The free childcare for over 3s is a joke too. Dd was 3 in February, none of our local schools would take her until September. The council here do not allow people to send their child to a private nursery for their free hours, and she's now is school from 8:50 until 11:40, which doesn't add up to 15 hours a week!

I agree with previous posters about needing better wraparound care and holiday club options too. Throwing extra benefits (and paperwork) and people surely costs more than simply providing subsidised, good quality, available childcare? Where's the incentive for people to work more than 16 hours a week if they think that would work for their family? Ludicrous. Another badly thought out policy made in a vain attempt to win votes.

[Katastrofee]

I understand it good if this would help people on low income to make a few hours of work pay. I am sure they calculated that it?s cheaper to pay those childcare benefits than to pay unemployment benefits for a longer time. But what life is it to scramble for a couple of occasional hours of work.

What about aspirations? The women in the squeezed middle?

The only thing that would help is universal subsidized childcare so every woman can afford to work regardless of her husband. Good free nurseries and afterschool care in every school.

I can't afford to work. I am trapped by the current mix of policies. I am chained to the kitchen think. The best I can aspire to be baking cakes for school fundraising and transfer my tax allowance to my husband. I want to do the job I trained for, I want a career. I want to be self supportive, but I actually totally depend on my husband and my employability and earning prospects are melting every year I can't afford to go back to work.

I agree that the conservative view is that women are best where they are the cheapest - at home - a free addition to their husbands. Especially when "times are hard". It's a man's world luv.

[MissTinaTeaspoon]

at people

[RogerMelly]

Child benefit has always been traditionally paid to the Mother and in most cases a single earning household with two parents present with 43k income it will be in a lot of cases the mother who is staying at home, therefore the cut in CB affects the Mothers income and historically it was paid to the Mother because a lot of husbands did not pass any wages onto their wives and money is often used in abusive way.

Lets not forget too, that the child benefit will be cut for carers who are unable to work but may have a partner earning over 43k and carers are very likely group of people to live in poverty within this country. Blanket policies affect ALOT of pockets of our society accross all social classes and they really are unhelpful. The example of the single parent earning 43k and having to pay childcare etc too and losing CB is another example of how unfair it is but I do get the impression fair isn't very important to them.

[jellybeans]

'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.'

Agree again with MrsHeffley

Also what about dual income parents earning 80K who have free childcare? (relatives etc)

[jellybeans]

'The only thing that would help is universal subsidized childcare'

But that would cost too much and not be good for everyone. SAHP don't need it. The childless don't need it. What if they say; why should they pay for your lifestyle choice to have kids?

[Katastrofee]

Jelly, the childless were children too. You can't keep dividing society into fractions to fight each-other- Families versus childless; Young versus Old. We are all in this together.

Will cost too much to whom? I am a taxpayer and I want a real influence about how my taxes are spent.
How much the Libya war cost? What about those unmanned drones? Why can't we pay the industry to make automatic domestic servants instead of killing machines?
My point is that currently women?s priorities don't seem to be reflected in the debate about money.

[edam]

Having children isn't a lifestyle choice, it's an essential contribution to society. Where do you think the next generation of workers and taxpayers will come from? Who do you think is going to wipe your bum when you get too old to do it yourself?

[WidowWadman]

Katastrofee - I think it is poorly thought out, but not neccessarily aimed to keep women at home, it just leads to the lower earning parent to stay at home, or struggling to get back into employment if they lost their job.

RogerMelly The single parent on 43K I guess is in the same grouping as the family with two earning parents with the combined income of 43K. Both unarguably worse of than the two parent family with one SAHP and an income of 43K.

With regards to child benefit making up for the earning parent not supporting their family enough and keeping the SAHP in relative poverty - I don't doubt that there are family set ups like that, but then is it really "child benefit" or "your partner is a cunt" benefit? And is this type of benefit really a solution to this problem? Mind I've no idea how to best tackle this, but my gut feeling is that CB does not really solve this.

To be honest I don't think it is the case that the government doesn't care, just that there aren't easy solutions to a wide range of problems. And it isn't helped by the fact that if one group is helped another sees it as attack on themselves.

It is just very clear that there is a lot of work to be done before the system is entirely workable and fair. So personally I welcome the changes which mean that people will be enabled to work who previously weren't, but just hope that they won't stop there, but see that there are other groups who struggle as much and need and deserve help too. I think a universal credit is not the best method to administer help and echo that subsidy at point of service would probably be better. So maybe it's just a case of going back to the drawing board and looking at more scenarios and how to find a solution which helps the largest proportion of people.

That it's not a clear cut case of "they hate women" and "they want them tied to the house" is shown by the fact that WOHPs and SAHPs seem to be equally offended by the proposals.

[dreamingofsun]

won't this just mean that all the mothers who work 16 hours a week, but refuse to work any more, will just lower the amount of work they do?

the only way this is likely to affect me is that more of my tax goes towards paying this. my children are older and the thing that really grates for me is the 9k a year tuition fees.

[LaWeasel]

I think this particular credit is a good idea, it's vastly preferable IMO to make it "pay to work" and keep adults in jobs that will eventually offer better hours and pay and more of a contribution to the countries economy.

It's hardly enough though is it compared to everything else?

[Sweetpea5]

Where is the incentive to work here? Work more then 16 hours and you don't get the money. Work 16 hours and you get free childcare and nothing else. What's the point working?

[LaWeasel]

I may well have missed this but where does it say that if you work more than 16hrs you don't get any money?

[WinnieMac]

"Not enough support for mums who wish to stay at home to do so.Not all mums want to go out to work,not all kids suit childcare.The needs of many kids and SAHP just aren't important to this gov in fact they seem to be very anti SAHP inferring that if you stay at home you contribute nothing to society.

I personally feel the money would be better spent on enabling all mums to make a choice which suits their family.

Quite clearly being a SAHP is only something you're entitled to do if you're rich and something the rest of us just aren't worthy enough to consider."

MrsHeffley, sorry to quote you at length - but you just say it for me!

[Sweetpea5]

LaWeasel it says in the OP "According to the reports, parents on low incomes who are working less than 16 hours a week will be eligible for this childcare support" so presumably if you work more than 16 hours you don't get it?

[dreamingofsun]

laweasel - don't think it says that anywhere - but a number of the mums i know decline to work more than 16 hours as this number qualifies them for certain benefits.

winnie - i could never afford to stay at home and any incentive the gov would give would not enable me to, as i can't see them giving 25k + as a handout each year. where would the money come from for such schemes - i would object to paying more tax so someone could stay at home, whilst i still have to slog away working.

[HappyWanderer]

I agree with the subsidized childcare for all argument. I live in a city with very high cost of living. My income is less than my husband's, but not by much. Both of our paychecks are supporting us.

Splitting the cost of DSD's wraparound childcare with the ex-wife costs us £100+/month, and DH and I want to have more kids in the near future. If we put a baby full-time into childcare, the cost at best is ~£700/month. If DH and I decide we would like to have more than one child together within my childbearing years, then our costs potentially go up to ~£1500/month.

As temporary as that arrangement may be, taking a few years off work to look after children will make me less competitive when I am able to go back and it will set me back in terms of salary (and therefore tax contribution). I would also like to ensure that I have some money to retire on when I am too old to be employed, which will be a lot less (and therefore cost much more in state benefit claims) if I can't work and save towards my own pension. I suppose DH and I could make payments towards a personal savings fund for me if I stayed at home, but that will be a lot harder to justify if our household income is effectively cut in half.

[MrsVidic]

I will be really if it's ANOTHER benefit going to just the poorest on paper famalies. What about the squeezed middle? Who is on our side?

[LaWeasel]

It doesn't imply that at all. I know lots of people who get the childcare element currently who work more than £16hrs pw - anyone on a low wage will get it, it doesn't say anywhere that this will change. However currently if you work less than 16hrs a week you aren't entitled to it (I have no idea what they think you're going to do with your children for those hours) so I'm glad that they've filled in that odd hole.

[RogerMelly]

so if you work 16hrs will it just be based on your wage alone or will it be means tested with your partners wage included?

[Sweetpea5]

Ok so this money is just for people who work less than 16 hours as they don't get help with childcare currently. Thanks LaWeasel I hadnt understood that properly at all.

[LaWeasel]

I have no idea. I expect if you have a partner their income would be taken into account anyway - so if you have a couple where person A works fulltime and earns 80k a year, and person B works 15hrs a week at minimum wage, theoretically they would be entitled to the additional childcare element, but in reality it would be chopped off because partner A earns too much.

But it would help single parents, and families with two low earning partners, or one who is unable to work through disability etc and needs their partner to be a part time carer.

[jellybeans]

'Having children isn't a lifestyle choice, it's an essential contribution to society'

and so is caring for them, whether that is a parent or childcarer. I am fed up of it only being acceptable or worthwhile to look after children only if they ar not your own!

[jellybeans]

'If DH and I decide we would like to have more than one child together within my childbearing years, then our costs potentially go up to ~£1500/month.'

But everyone has to take on board if they can afford the costs of additional children.