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??

Independent taxation was undermined when the child benefit changes came in as one parent can claim CB but the other can have it clawed back.

why why why didn't they just increase the amount of vouchers each parent could claim? That would really help working parents.

I can see why they didn't increase the vouchers as there is a real gap in self employed people not being able to claim them. I guess they also don't want to fund them where there is a SAHP - but I am sure there are many circumstances where a SAHP does need their child to be in childcare.

Hmm well I isn't think it's fair families on £150k having any help whilst those on a lot less lose CB. Familes on £100k keep their CB,have 2 tax allowances and help towards childcare.

Families on 50-60k lose CB and have only one tax allowance.

Nobody on £150k should get anything when those on a lot less are being screwed.

Kazoo - I had completely overlooked that bit! I suppose the thinking is that if they encourage high earning women into work with childcare work then they'll be rolling in all their lovely taxes?

ok, well make all childcare a tax-deductible expense. That would help all working parents inc self-employed ones

Apologies for my many typos but you get my drift.

£1200 would cover just less than 3 weeks of my childcare bill for 16 mo twins, and that's for 3 days a week. £80 per day per child for nursery round here (SW London) so we have a nanny instead which will no doubt not be covered by this scheme.

Where are they getting these figures from? Even in my hometown which is one of the least prosperous parts of the country, it costs £10k for 1 child under 3 in FT nursery.

Please tell me single parents won't be excluded from this? There's a lot of "both work" in that article. Also what about where one is studying full time?

What is unfair is that parents on benefits get 15 hours of free care from 2 years old, but a family with a SAHP cannot use the vouchers to pay for their chidlren to have pre school eduation from 2. If the governant thinks that nursery care from the age of two is good for children then surely they should encourage all parents to access pre school education.

Right, DH is a higher rate tax payer, I'm a full-time student. We currently claim the max childcare vouchers. Under the new plan, we won't be able to because I'm not "employed".

Presumably a single working parent could claim the vouchers under the new plan, so are they suggesting DH and I should split up?

Also, on what planet is the AVERAGE annual full-time childcare cost £6000???

Koppar - families like yours are screwed I'm afraid.

Koppar, is that definite? Or are you assuming that students won't get it?

And what abt working single parents? Do they count as "both"?

Isn't this per child? So people like ceeveebee will get back 1200 x 3 per year, and single child families will lose out.

I assume nannies will still be eligible if they're registered, as is the case at the moment.

It seems monumentally unfair that studying isn't classed as working. Here's hoping they'll consult on it....

I suspect that like so many of the coalition's policies, this will be scrapped or substantially changed later when lots and lots of groups lobby

I believe it's being touted as per household not per child.

Christ, I missed this entirely, will read the papers tomorrow, but if it is based on a) per household rather than per child and b) an annual average of 6k it is so far from being reasonable and equitable that I really really hope it'll get sunk without trace or u-turned. Its the 6k that gets me - where on earth do they think you can get a full time place for that? Also, what is "full time"? DH and I drop the DCs off at 7.45 and pick them up at 6, 4 days a week. That's nearly 10 hrs a day x2 (DCs) x 4. Hourly rate varies a bit with sibling discount etc but averages £8-9 so that's nearly £360 a week. I don't necessarily expect help, I chose to have children and that's fine, but if they are going to do something, I'd like them to base it on reality, not some random figure plucked out of the air.

Scotland better go independent in the near future...no more effing Tories! If there's one reason for independence then this is it. It is just going to get worse, as they've no idea how people in the real world live and survive.

Yet again we've pulled apart one of their plans in an hour. Do they just fling half-baked ideas out and let everyone else figure out the details then they have another look at it .

IrnBru the articles are saying this is just England and Wales. Not sure what we will get?

bigkid that's a relief.

they seem to think we only ever need 25 hrs a week
child care costs 2013

so, full time workers requirements are diluted by those who use family for some of the time, work part time or just put the kids into nursery for a couple of sessions for socialisation.

Since both parents need to work, its another kick in the teeth for most households - those with one earner will loose the lot, those with 2 earners both claiming vouchers will loose out. Seems to me the only possible benefits will be familys where both work, but one is SE, so can't access vouchers.

Per household is nuts. I thought I read ages ago that they were looking at per child schemes? Per household it's LESS!