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

[Want2bSupermum]

What a joke of a policy. First of all taxes should be paid on household income so the income of the parents is taxed not of the individuals. Working 16 hours a week is less than part time and due to the high cost of transportation would need to be worked over one or two days. If you are working 2 days a week, why not work over the weekend or nights when the other parent can look after the children. If the parent is single with no support they should be able to get a break and put the child in daycare for one day a week just to keep their sanity/run errands.

The problem with this proposal is that the people crafting are not in the real world. How many of them are married with children? How many of them are single parents? It stinks of a policy that is calculated on no one using it. If you want to help families then fully cover the cost of childcare up to 50 hours per week (available 7 days per week) or give a tax credit equal to the same amount to allow parents the choice of staying home. I would then scrap maternity leave pay as this is a huge burden to small businesses.

[blondieminx]

So many of the current govt's policies are just not joined up. If they want to support families then cutting services like libraries and sure start schemes etc and then offering the sop of paltry credits to parents wanting to work just a few hours a week (and that most likely won't work in practice because of transport costs etc!) is likely to get this response from most working parents

They had a comphrensive spending review. Now there is IDS's make work pay/single universal credit benefits review BUT has anyone in the coalition actually sat down and reviewed how the average family has been affected recently and worked out in a sensible way (preferably by policy wonks who are working parents themselves!) how best to support family life in Britain and which benefits to adjust and how?

Rising inflation in food/petrol/transport/utility costs added to government cuts is making us ALL squeezed, not just the middle.

[dreamingofsun]

want2be - just hope they don't take on board some of your suggestions. I've spent most of my adult life working full-time. the highlight was being able to spend 6 months off with my children during maternity leave. Scrapping maternity pay would have scuppered this.

I had to read your comment about single parents having a day off for a break twice!!!! If they want a rest they really shouldn't have had children. More should be done to ensure the fathers do their bit - both in terms of workload and money.

[MrsLadywoman]

Ultimately, what you think of this depends on what your politics are. I agree with the many posters who say that this issue is just window dressing on a system in need of a complete overhaul.

There is a huge wage discrepency in this country and the chasm is growing by the day. If you believe that people on low incomes don't deserve to be subsidised by those on a higher income, then you're not going to be happy about any increase in benefits as they are a measure toward equalising incomes (though they fall far short of this, of course).

I personally don't accept that those with an income of £100K work 10 times (literally, 10 times. Think about it) harder than those on the minimum wage. And therefore believe that luck and privelege also play a part in what you earn. I would just put taxes up a bit for those who earn more. Seems fair to me!

[aliceliddell]

Means testing by income or hours worked is highly bureaucratic and potentially stigmatising. Universal provision of subsidised childcare is far preferable. The SAHM/F is problematic because it is economically but not financially recognised work. The Coalition's plans for 'Universal Credit' have seriously bad implications for SN dc's

[Want2bSupermum]

dreamingofsun You would get paid the cost of childcare for the year instead of maternity pay - 12k a year. Much more than what is currently paid to the majority of those taking maternity leave.

MrsLw Those that earn 100k are more than paying their fair share of taxes. There is little luck that comes to earning a large salary but lots of hard work, risk and responsibilities. DH earns around that and trust me when I say there is little luck involved. He has sleepless nights worrying about those working under him, how he is going to meet objectives set for him by those working above him, get to see his family and how he is going to keep his job as there are hundreds of people knocking at the door wanting his job. He is also doing an MBA part time in addition to working a 60-70 hour week, often travelling which leaves me at home on my own in a foreign country with a 3 month old. So prestigous it is not.

[BoffinMum]

TBH this makes my heart sink, as every time an initiative is announced, it skews the market in my area and my own costs spiral up and up. I have always been just on the cusp of any income category that is entitled to help, so invariably fall between all the stools, and end up working for a loss even though I try hard not to.

I think either the Government should leave well enough alone and stop interfering in the market, or make any help universal, as these half-baked measures just mess up supply and demand mechanisms, and only act as a sticking plaster in the short term, without addressing the main problem of large scale societal change.

[HappyMummyOfOne]

I agree re means testing costing a lot, it also involves a lot of admin and is open to fraud.

It would be far better to amend the voucher scheme through employers and scrap any other form of childcare help. Very little fraud and issued in voucher form rather than cash. No wage limit so available to everyone who works.

"i would object to paying more tax so someone could stay at home, whilst i still have to slog away working." - Dreaming, I totally agree. I suspect very few tax payers like their money being spent on allowing others to not work.

I thought the Tories would get tougher on people choosing not to work or work very few hours and letting other tax payers top up the difference yet this proposed policy will just see many of those on 16 hours reduce their hours due to the new criteria.

[BoffinMum]

Childcare vouchers only work for people in larger companies, not those in small to medium sized businesses or the self-employed.

Why not go the whole hog and make childcare tax-deductible, with the benefit being divided equally by both parents if they are both in work?

[MrsLadywoman]

W2bSupermum
I am not for a second saying that your husband doesn't work hard for the money he earns. I am just saying that there are people working just as hard as he is for significantly less money.

[BoffinMum]

Another point - high earners and many professionals with young children tend to need very flexible and very extensive childcare - no 9-5 there. So that comes at a premium, sometimes 2x or even 3x the cost of basic nursery places in urban areas. The price for not supporting that is losing key workers and professionals as they become really highly trained, able and competent, and just when they are starting to make a really useful contribution to society. That is what we do with many women's talents every day in the UK. And then we wonder why productivity and economic growth are rather iffy.

[Want2bSupermum]

MrsLW There are also people working just as hard as DH earning much more than him too (his boss plays golf everyday and appears to have a rather cushy number). I worry that if you take away the reward then people are not going to take the risk and you end up with a society which isn't able to afford helping those who have less.

Boffin or just pay for childcare as I suggest through either paying a parent the cost of raising their children or covering the cost of a nursery place.

[MrsLadywoman]

Want2bSupermum The pie doesn't get any bigger, it's just the slices that get divided up differently.

Our views are opposite and irreconcilable. What seems like a fair system to you seems completely unfair to me. And I understand my views will seem ridiculous to you.

I just wish we had a society where a roof over ones head and adequate childcare were a priority. Rather than high-speed broadband and bankers' bonuses.

[WidowWadman]

And you can't do every job part time - if I wanted something with reduced hours I would have to change careers, which wouldn't be only grating for me, as I like my job and worked hard to progress in it, but a loss for my employer who has invested in training me.

[NormanTebbit]

I can read the details as am busy but I think subsidised childcare is an excellent idea would like a far more radical package in which we are all entitled to so many hours subsidised after the first year or whatever.

I've managed to obtain a subsidised place in our local children's centre and it has enabled me to work in a fairly low paid job but also study so that I can get more highly paid job in the future.

That nursery has been swamped with enquiries and many from SAHP/part time/shift workers wanting lower cost, flexible childcare.

1. I think lack of childcare is a huge barrier for parents returning to work and the more the government can do to remove it the better.
   
   2)_ But it will have to be subsidised - and parents need to know how much it will cost, no child tax credit means testing, bureaucratic nonsense. One flat rate, place given to working parents, on a scale of need.
   
   I would be del;ighted for my taxes to be spent on this. I would hope that my daughters would benefit from it in 20 years time.
   
   (goes back to cloud cuckoo land)

[NormanTebbit]

"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."


This is a drop in the ocean, isn't it.

[Katastrofee]

"high earners and many professionals with young children tend to need very flexible and very extensive childcare - no 9-5 there. So that comes at a premium". "And you can't do every job part time " I totally agree. Even high earners need a little help to make work pay.

The benefit system is about solidarity. It should be universal.

[NormanTebbit]

I agree it should be universal, but nursery places are finite, even with more investment, so there should be some hierarchy of need.

[Katastrofee]

"no child tax credit means testing, bureaucratic nonsense. One flat rate, place given to working parents, on a scale of need.

I would be del;ighted for my taxes to be spent on this. I would hope that my daughters would benefit from it in 20 years time."

Totally agree.

[MarginallyNarkyPuffin]

They give with one hand and take with the other.

[dreamingofsun]

i can understand that (the comments you are making about universal cheap childcare) this is attractive to all those with younger children, but if yours are 12+ its not going to make you suddenly feel good about the coalition. If they want to attract this group they are going to have to come up with something else and all they have come up with so far is putting my kids into massive levels of debt post uni.

[LaWeasel]

Up to £300 pw in credits would be a huge amount to give out without means testing, so I can't see that that is a viable option - how many high earners would decide not to claim on the basis that they could manage without, and how many would file the extra money into trust funds and high interest accounts and unfairly advantage their children? ...If I was a high earner I would certainly be tempted to do this, so it's no judgement, but not great for our widening social divide. At least when people do this with CB the amounts of money are (relatively) small.

Just to emphasise again that childcare vouchers are useless to anyone on minimum wage. They can't use them as it would take their earnings below the minimum and is therefore illegal. Which is another major problem which needs dealing with in my eyes.

[BoffinMum]

Soooo, someone earning £1000 ish gross a month (minimum wage) in a local 9-5 job gets £1200 a month towards childcare. Leaving them with about £900 a month income after tax and childcare is taken into account.

Someone earning £3500 ish gross a month like me (top of lecturer pay scale), which involves a long commute and extended hours in order to earn that much, gets no help with childcare costs, and ends up with about £600 a month income after tax and childcare is taken into account.

[BoffinMum]

I forgot, they also keep their child benefit which for us is currently £188 a month, whereas I am about to lose mine, so they in fact are almost £1100 a month up on the deal compared to my £600. And my income is about to go down further because of taking down the threshold for the 40% tax band.

[WidowWadman]

Boffinmum - That teaches you to have aspirations. ;-)