Government's "new" great childcare plan....

[duende]

I know there was a thread about it here a few weeks ago, but now a bit more detail is available:

parents to get 20% of childcare cost back

Now, I can't help but see it as a bit of a con. First of all, annoyed by how they sell it - our childcare bill is closer to 10-12k, so £1200 per year is NOT 20%.
Also, at the moment, both me and DP get the full amount available in childcare vouchers, which they will abolish. I get £243 per month, DP gets £220, and I am a higher tax payer.
Surely we will not be better off with this great new deal they have come up with?

Also, this will only be available to families where both parents work, current childcare voucher scheme is not restricted this way.

Am I missing something here, or are they about to screw people over again whilst dressing it as a positive move??

Not sure where Anamoly lives either. It's over £12k for my DD alone. It's £45 a day FYI Anamoly.

£70-£85 per day per child round here!! Hence one of the reasons we have a nanny!

I'm not for one minute saying that childcare costs aren't high. I think £45 a day sounds about right for where I live. What I'm saying is that a lot of people I know don't end up paying that because they simply can't afford to. What they end up doing is sorting their hours so they minimise the amount of time they have to pay for childcare. So I know a couple of families where Mum is a nurse and they always work either weekends or night shift to help do that. Other families have parents working condensed hours so pay for three days of childcare rather than five. I've friends who use a mixture of grandparents and nursery.

This new measure is good for those who don't currently get childcare vouchers and meet the criteria. It's good if you have childcare costs in excess of £9300 and more than one child.

But there are plenty of people who have significant childcare costs for whom this measure is not as good as vouchers and I don't see why the government couldn't have introduced something as good as vouchers for everyone. On paper it looks generous but in actual fact it isn't.

I think that the vouchers are unpopular with business because you have to pay them at cost while women are on maternity leave. I also think vouchers are unpopular with the government because you can use them to reduce your taxable pay. So they've given a bit but then taken more.

It's £77 per day at DD's nursery here in Kent!

That is absolutely crazy, stuffing! It's twice the price of down here (Devon)- £38/day for 3.6 yo DD. Was £40 when she was in the baby room. Everything's included- nappies and food.

Oh and there's a discount if they go full-time, equivalent to a day's fees off a week.

Nappies INCLUDED? It's not the cheapest in town, but not the most expensive either, middle to top I guess. Cheapest was £55 per day but only had a garden for the 2yo+. All of them need you to supply nappies/wipes and change of clothes though!

OMG I have just realised that there are people paying in childcare more than our family income per annum. Bloody hell there are some rich people wanting help to work ffs.

Have you considered, morethan that these may be families working at or near a loss for those nursery years, so that their skills don't go to waste? Just because a family "can afford" nursery fees don't mean they're rolling in it. Some people also like to save up in advance of having children as they realise how expensive the whole business is. Just sayin'

I agree with Duchesse. Morethan - when I went back to work after dd3 was born it was only the savings that the vouchers made for us that meant I wasn't worse off for working. For many families they are paying the same or more in childcare than they do in rent or mortgage and that's why they'd like some help. Not because they're too 'rich' to notice it.

Two things bother me 1 - when it will start i.e. after the next election and 2 - the 300k figure which does not strike me as being "for simplicity" sake as the child minister said.

Yes, it's big divide between Se and elsewhere but it isn't really so that if you're in the SE spending 100% of your net income on childcare (as one of us did) you are rolling in it. Instead you are paying more for most things. Someone today said I must have added a nought to the stamp duty bill for my daughter's one bed flat she just bought (£10k stamp duty, tiny one bed home in London). We pay a high price in London to subsidise the regions and we tend to pay about £25k to £30k for two nursery places or a daily nanny cost. Working two full time jobs does not leave many open to sharing childcare with their spouse. Ify ou are both working all day Monday to Friday and probably if you are in a first job in London a good few evenings you cannot just rely on only working nights or weekends.

Anyway my school fees bill now is about the same as the full time nanny was and will probably be the same as the university costs in due course so it ends up feeling relatively painless as you move from fulltime nanny, to full time school to funding them at university. Long term it virtually always pays off for women to develop good careers over several decades even if the early years are a financial struggle with childcare costs.

£1200 per child under 5 is better than nothing although I prefer no tax breaks or complications and just very low taxes and simplicity.

why are people acting like its bad for people where only one parent works to not get moey towards childcare?why would they need it?do people really expect to be paid for staying and looking after their ow kids at home?

Single parents? Just one example. And truly how many people with a stay at home parent also make extensive use of childcare?

single parents will get it though if they work,why would someone who is a sahm need to use childcare?

Amber socks, no people don't expect that.

However, many (usually women but not always) take career breaks or make changes when they have children.

Many of them retrain or do volunteer work to get the extra skills and experiences necessary to re-enter the workforce.

At the moment, their partner can claim £243 tax vouchers a month.

Under new system, they will not. This, plus fees etc means education will be out of reach for lots of people.

I just hadn't realised that childcare was so expensive as I have only ever 1 x 15 hours for pre school. It completely took me by surprise that you would have to be quite rich to be able to afford it full time and that some pay for several. Surely for some who don't make a profit it becomes a lifestyle choice rather than necessity. Like some people who choose to be a sahp.
20+ years ago childcare was scarce and unaffordable for most, so the choice to work wasn't there. I am pleased that childcare is subsidised but think its fair to have cuts when everything else is being cut. It is a shame that some people will be forced into the same situation as we were 20 years ago.

i didnt know your partner can claim vouchers for childcare if you dont work,never heard of anyone doing that.

morethanpotatoprints - many women (and occasionally men) take the option to work for a loss or just a few pounds a month (like myself) to cover childhood because a) a career break will ruin your career b) a career break will decrease your future earning potential or even c) those few pounds a month you do manage to take home make all the difference to whether you can actually pay the bills or not. Hardly "rich".

I also needed to take an 18 month career break because we couldn't afford childcare for two.

It should never be the case that people can't afford to work, it's madness!

morethan in many professional jobs, you have to stay in the field. If you quit for a few years, there isn't much of a chance getting back in. It is not as simple as a lifestyle choice. Obviously if you want to stay at home forever then it's ok. Otherwise, it's taking the hit for the preschool years for the future. And we need my money because 1) I earn half the household income 2) we need to move into catchment for secondary. If I give up now, it means not doing the best I could for DD schooling too.

And not everyone wants to do further education and then go back. I have a PhD already so frankly don't see what the OU can offer me. A practical qualification that another field, maybe.

I am sorry but if it is not necessary i.e you are not financially better off, no you shouldn't have subsidised childcare when a sahp seeking work won't be entitled.
Working for nothing is not necessary and hence a lifestyle choice.

OneLittleToddle. It is not you taking the hit for childcare though it is other tax payers. Some who don't have children. I think it is very selfish and entitled to expect this subsidy when the really poor are feeling cuts to benefits.
Fair enough if you have to work to pays bills and buy necessities then you should receive help, but just to keep a career going beggars belief I'm afraid.

Morethan, did you actually read any of those posts?

If you're a doctor or a nurse and you take more than a few months out (can't remember how many) you have to take a whole year re-training before you're allowed to work again. Are you saying that doctors and nurses who've had babies shouldn't go back to work?

What annoys me about this whole issue is that I think we are fundamentally talking about the wrong things. The problems with recessions is that everyone gets pitted against eachother. Old vs young, SAHM, vs WOHM. It's like squabbling over a loaf of bread thrown into the village square.

The fact that people say that we shouldn't help families because they are paying so much in childcare, they may as well not bother working, is such skewed thinking.

We have a situation where we spend hundred of thousands of pounds educating women (and men), train them in jobs and professions, invest in them. Then, as soon as they have children we say they must part with over half their salary if they want to keep their job, or not bother. So we throw billions of pounds worth of investment down the drain.

What would help the situation would never actually happen as there are far too many vested interests at stake.

We would all be better off if house prices were lower. All rising prices do is take money from the young to give to the old in the form of equity, and banks in the form of interest rates. Houses are no more valuable that they were 50 years ago, just more expensive.

A positive encouragement for flexible working to be considered for men and women would mean couples would have a genuine choice about how to organise their family, rather than women bearing the majority of the burden.

And lower childcare costs.

And do you know what .... yes, those people who don't have children to subsidise those who do.

Because it's my children who are going to be their doctors, nurses and teachers. It's my children who are going to be paying taxes to fund their pensions and NHS.

This whole 'everybody for themselves' doesn't work. Never has, never will.