Mega survey of UK parents shows unaffordability of childcare

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

Over the past month or so we've been assailing you all with links to a huge survey of parents in the UK asking about their experiences of using childcare. Now the results are in - 20,000 responses from parents on MN as well as Pregnant then Screwed, Gingerbread, the TUC, the Fawcett Society, the Women's Budget Group, the Fatherhood Institute, Black Mums Upfront, Mother Pukka and a few others - and they show:

96% of British parents say the government isn’t supporting them enough with childcare

97% said that UK childcare is too expensive (83% said that it is ‘much’ too expensive)

One third (33%) of parents using childcare say their childcare payments are bigger than their rent or mortgage

40% (and 53% of parents under 30) say childcare costs mean they don’t spend as much time together as a family as they’d like, because of the need to work longer hours or do shift work

28% (and 40% of single parents) say they’ve had to use credit cards or credit arrangements to pay for essential items, as a direct result of childcare costs, and 12% (34% of those with a household income of less than £20,000) say they’ve had to cut back on essential items, including food and housing

82% of mothers (and 56% of fathers) say ‘I think I would have attained more seniority in my work, or earned more, if I had not had childcare considerations’

16% of mothers, and 42% of fathers, say childcare responsibilities have not affected their seniority at work

Unsurprisingly, parents are willing to consider radical alternatives to the current mess:

94% of all parents believe that subsidised childcare should start from the end of paid maternity leave, and 90% think there should be taxpayer-funded subsidised childcare from when a child is 9 months old

90% of all parents support at least three months of ‘use-it-or-lose-it’ parental leave for fathers, paid at at least minimum wage level

84% support a duty on large employers to provide subsidised childcare

83% support universal free childcare (covering the full working day, for all pre-school children and all children with ongoing Health and Social Care needs), funded by the taxpayer

82% support tax-funded subsidised childcare covering the full working day, for all pre-school children, with subsidy levels dependent on household income

59% support a Universal Basic Income for all UK adults.

You can find out more here and read the Guardian's coverage today here.

Let us know what you think!

Thanks
MNHQ

@stuarttipo

For the record I have no kids, yes I like them to put that straight but I dont want to pay more tax for others to have loads of kids while I struggle to pay my bills as it is, no one pays for my doggy day care

Absolutely having children is a choice but so is having pets. As someone with both having a child is very different to having a pet. And I say that as someone who recently lost my very beloved dog and I'm absolutely heartbroken by it. I still dont think costs related to children and pets is a fair comparison.

I think the government really need to research other nations that are doing a much better job in offering subsidised childcare/education. There are other and better options than the current ones.

Nursery workers and childminders probably earn less than the parents but nursery owners are profiteering from childcare.

@vickyc90

I wouldn't mind a small tax rise to pay for universal childcare for 1st children however I think that should be the limits. We have one child because that's what we can afford why should everyone else subsidies someone choice to have multiple

Would infertile men and women be able to opt out of this tax rise?

@MrsSkylerWhite

WineInTheBlood

I've never really understood why you get 15 hours free childcare from 2 if neither parent is working. Wouldn't that money be better spent supporting people in work who need the childcare? Or am I missing something obvious? Have only just put my first child in childcare so new to it all. I claim my 20% tax free but my childcare is still more than my mortgage.“

Because it benefits the children in many ways. Parents’ employment status is irrelevant.
Some people can only consider returning to work once they have the free hours.

Genuine question - if they start working, won't the free hours stop? If you're working you only get free hours when the child turns 3. That's really what I don't get, but maybe I've got it totally wrong - like I said it's all very new to me. I guess I don't get why if you're not working you get free childcare at 2, but if you are working you don't get it until the child is 3.

My childcare bill is £1450 per month for one child and 4 days. My take home pay is £2100. I am a single mum, my rent is £1300. I have to claim UC to make ends meet which it doesn't. I am surviving on credit for daily essentials.

I cannot choose to not work as I have EU pre-settlement and have to be employed to claim (even though it would be for my British DC, though their British father could make that choice if he were a single parent).

It is a miserable existence, If I knew what I knew now about childcare costs, I wouldn't have children at all, unless my income were in the six figures, and I could comfortably cover childcare and rent on my own, as you never know if a relationship will last.

I don’t understand the dog analogy. No one’s dog is going to help me go to the loo when I am elderly and in a care home. My children might help them though.

And I love the “taxes should cover childcare for the exact number of children I have but no more!”

FWIW i agree that this isn’t about childcare in isolation and we won’t ever solve this if we view it that way

@Phineyj

Regarding the hospital example, it is ridiculous considering the cost of training and employing an NHS consultant, that their employer the hospital is not expected to take a leading role in helping find or provide childcare. Apart from providing or improving an onsite nursery, they must have to organise visas for HCP so could help with au pair situation, and then there's the fact that even part time consultants have hit the pension contributions ceiling, so they're over saving for retirement while being unable to pay for suitable childcare right now. That one is solvable with a little action.

Let me get this straight:

1. You expect posters on here to feel sorry for people with final salary pension pots of over £1 million.

1. You suggest that some of these highly-paid people with huge pension pots, who choose to work part time, “are unable to pay for…childcare” and that it is terribly unfair.

The lowest paid NHS consultants are earning £82k FTE and anyone who has managed to amass a £1m pension pot is likely to be near the top of the consultant scale, at £110k FTEer year before merit awards and private work.

Do you expect some of the poorly-paid women on this thread, including single mothers, to weep over their plight?

1. Not only that, you think that hospitals should arrange childcare for these highly-paid professionals, including applying for au pair visas for them? Seriously?

When do you think the hospitals should fit in the less important stuff like, er, caring for sick people? After they have prioritised au pair visas? Christ.

I find it sad that people are so narrow minded and cannot see that having better funded services benefits us all as a country. Invest in education and childcare and we will end up with a stronger economy.

Tax rises are a good thing - the problem is that the government is too busy listening to those who don’t earn the bulk of their money through salaries nor have to deal with business owners (the Tories court a lot of investment bankers and those types instead). As a result they make choices which suit those groups - and we end up with NI rises.

It’s appalling.

No, I'd like the UK population to be able to access free at the point of use healthcare from consultants whose training was mostly paid for by the taxpayer and not have them drop out because of intolerable work life pressures. You know where those fed up consultants mentioned by the previous poster will go, don't you? Private practice.

It's not about feeling 'sorry for people'. It's about keeping skills in the workforce. Last time I checked, NHS consultants were caring for people? What do you think they do, golf?!

@Phineyj

No, I'd like the UK population to be able to access free at the point of use healthcare from consultants whose training was mostly paid for by the taxpayer and not have them drop out because of intolerable work life pressures. You know where those fed up consultants mentioned by the previous poster will go, don't you? Private practice.

It's not about feeling 'sorry for people'. It's about keeping skills in the workforce. Last time I checked, NHS consultants were caring for people? What do you think they do, golf?!

If you think that “not being able to afford childcare” is the only thing preventing NHS consultants at your local hospital going to work, then you are deluded.

More likely, if they have hit the £1m pension cap, they are sulking and refusing shifts. They could always leave the NHS pension scheme, but they won’t do that will they? Oh no. They want the equivalent of the employer’s pension contribution paid to them, tax free. That”s what is really happening when you hear BMA representatives whining about “paying to go to work”. Leave the pension scheme then. Problem solved.

If they have convinced you that it’s all about childcare and au pair visas, they have done a great PR job on you. Unless you are an NHS consultant yourself, which explains your passionate arguments in favour of facilitating everything this group of highly paid people want.

Would you argue as passionately for hospitals to arrange childcare for nurses? How about hospital porters? Cleaners? Their work is just as important.

Would you be prepared to pay extra tax to fund crèches in hospitals plus the army of extra staff needed to arrange childcare and au pair visas for clinicians and support staff? How much?

@forinborin

I'd probably prefer to see more options for mothers / parents to stay at home when their children are small rather than subsidising childcare. And I did pay close to £3K/month at the peak with two at nursery.

As an employer, it baffles me that other employers don't see the benefits of offering flexibility.

If someone came to me asking to go part time for whatever reason, I'd consult with them about their role, and have a think about how I'd fill the gap in hours. And each and every time, I saved money or acquired talent for the business.

Someone wants to work part time, ditches half their responsibilities. I hire a cheaper new hire to fill the gap in service provision. That person brings a good skill set, including something we didn't have before. Later I promote them because they too have added value to the company.

And the person on PT hours? Grateful, loyal, less stressed and very enthusiastically delivering value for the company. Maybe put them on a specific project that doesn't need 37h a week, but does need someone's full attention. Later, when the kids are older, they return to full time hours - if they want to.

I ONLY experienced benefits from offering staff complete flexibility. It never struck me as anything but an opportunity when someone wanted to change their hours.

If you think that “not being able to afford childcare” is the only thing preventing NHS consultants at your local hospital going to work, then you are deluded

Are you an NHS consultant or do you have a view inside the majority of NHS consultants? Or are you guessing?

If someone came to me asking to go part time for whatever reason, I'd consult with them about their role, and have a think about how I'd fill the gap in hours. And each and every time, I saved money or acquired talent for the business.
This is a very healthy attitude. My own experience with part-time work is not as positive (both own and other people). It has been alwayd granted, but the expectation has always, always been that a person will just magically squeeze 5 working days into 3, and that they will still answer emails and pick up calls on their "off" days. I can't remember a single case where there actually has been a new hire following someone switching to part time.
Even now, when I negotiate new contracts and ask if a part time arrangement is feasible, the answer is always "if you will be able to do this job in 3 days, then yes". But there's still no intention to pay a full salary in such a case.

Remember the government doesn't have any money itself. Subsidies come from taxpayers. Should low income (and most of us are) be helping those on better incomes with childcare? There's already a subsidy for most from 3, and for low incomes before that

Are you an NHS consultant or do you have a view inside the majority of NHS consultants? Or are you guessing?

It’s almost as if I’d done some very senior NHS finance roles, isn’t it?

@forinborin

If someone came to me asking to go part time for whatever reason, I'd consult with them about their role, and have a think about how I'd fill the gap in hours. And each and every time, I saved money or acquired talent for the business. This is a very healthy attitude. My own experience with part-time work is not as positive (both own and other people). It has been alwayd granted, but the expectation has always, always been that a person will just magically squeeze 5 working days into 3, and that they will still answer emails and pick up calls on their "off" days. I can't remember a single case where there actually has been a new hire following someone switching to part time. Even now, when I negotiate new contracts and ask if a part time arrangement is feasible, the answer is always "if you will be able to do this job in 3 days, then yes". But there's still no intention to pay a full salary in such a case.

See, I'm fairly biased against overworkers who are chained to their desks, personally.

I find that it tends to correlate with unoriginality, and inability to bring fresh perspectives and an inability to improve systems.

The worst performers were those with the biggest obsessions with perfection, and very worst of all, the "100h weekers". The guy obsessed with his vision of perfection demanded high spends on stuff that wasn't adding income or value for the customer. The guy who worked through his holidays had no perspective on normal for thinking about users. There was a guy happy to plough away at the same admin process year on year, where I said fuck that, and designed a way to halve the process time.

Honestly, it was so very satisfying to take power from these idiots and force changes to the company and change it from one where everyone was MISERABLE to one that functioned really well.

@KeflavikAirport

I live in mainland Europe. My son was at state nursery with fees on a sliding scale. We paid top whack, 600 euros a month all in. The nursery had its own chef who made fresh organic food every day and baked cakes for the kids' birthdays 😍 absolutely no reason you can't have the same in the UK if you vote the right people in.

I also live in mainland Europe and childcare here is subsidised quite a lot. It's means tested, for my son (before and after school care, 3 days a week and 3 days a week during school holidays) is around 700 euros a month, and that's before the tax break. We get about a third of that back every month from our tax office. When I was at uni and we only had one income, we got a lot more back, over half of our nursery fees. I think we paid about 300 euros a month for 3 days of nursery. Child care hours are 7am till school starts and school pick to 6.30pm.

So, it's doable, maybe the UK should look at other countries how to make this work.

So, it's doable, maybe the UK should look at other countries how to make this work.

We all know how other countries make it work. It’s a short word beginning with ‘T’ and rhyming with ‘sacks’.

Look at the outpourings of woe this week after NI was raised by 1.5% from next April, plus tax on dividends. You can’t move for people crying that they won’t be able to afford to live or pay the private school fees (I am not joking) because they’ll lose £70 a month (for which, actually, you’d need to be pretty well paid).

What government is going to risk further tax rises, having seen that?

Sorry, 1.25%, slip of keyboard!

This country has the childcare it voted for.

We were starting to implement the Scandinavian model here, with subsidised childcare, training bursaries and heavy investment in Early Years.

People didn't want that. They voted for the 30 free hours bribe instead. They complained that Labour spent money.

Well yes, but those of us who didn’t vote for it are allowed to discuss it still?

Of course. The tax and voting posts were in response to a PP suggesting that the U.K. should be able to make better childcare provision work because other countries manage it.

The reason we don’t is obvious: British people tend to vote for low taxes.

All my money went towards nursery.. i think I earnt maybe £3-4 for the day...kinda why I left my NHS job and went private...

I am not an NHS consultant, no, but it would be deluded to suggest that work life balance issues (including childcare) don't affect them.

However, the vitriol heaped on anyone who posits that the system doesn't work for any (women), high paid or low paid, suggests it will be extremely hard to find a solution because it's those high payers who would need to put in the additional tax to make a change.

The Norwegian system, for example, was based explicitly on generous support for parents in the expectation that it would be more than paid back in additional tax.

But you need social cohesion for that kind of policy, not competitive misery.

@Phineyj

I am not an NHS consultant, no, but it would be deluded to suggest that work life balance issues (including childcare) don't affect them.

However, the vitriol heaped on anyone who posits that the system doesn't work for any (women), high paid or low paid, suggests it will be extremely hard to find a solution because it's those high payers who would need to put in the additional tax to make a change.

The Norwegian system, for example, was based explicitly on generous support for parents in the expectation that it would be more than paid back in additional tax.

But you need social cohesion for that kind of policy, not competitive misery.

If you’re not a consultant then not sure why you’re making such statements.

We should stop fighting with each other and turn our anger to those in charge I.e the government. They’ve had over a decade to fix this and have done sweet fuck all about it.