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??

Xenia.

Why would a feminist take away the choice to be a sahm, its a contradiction in terms. Surely, its a fight for choice and the right to do as we please?

Hi Annie - im sorry i dont understand why you would lose the benefit if DH changes job - dont you qualify for the new scheme? you probably have already stated why in a post above but i cant reread to see who said what!
I personally dont stand to beneift as all kids over 5 by 2015 - but i really see the benefit in helping more with ridiculous costs of pre school childcare per child, and my partner is self employed which has always been an annoyance of the current scheme.

I think this helps me. I work full time and my wife part time (3.5 days a week) Both employers take part in voucher scheme. We have 1 child who is 18 months old and thinking about having another. Both are basic rate tax payers.

We currently save £933 each (figure from child voucher website) via the voucher scheme. This means we save £1866 between us.

Under the new plans this will drop to £1200. However we are planning to have another child which would start child care around the time this would come in. This means we would get £2400 (£1200 x 2)a year vs.. the £1866 on the old system which did nothing to allow for more than one child.

I know the current plan is that this stops as 5 years old but with plans to extend to 12 years old.

Would we be the only ones that seem to benefit or am I missing something?
shortridge1980

spickles Annie is currently in education. If you change jobs, you normally change childcare voucher providers. I think we assume this means we are exiting and re-entering the scheme. Employers usually only pay their vouchers to one provider. The new scheme is only available to those with two incomes, both over £10k.

shortridge I think you will benefit from the new system. Another difference is that that while your wife is on maternity, both you and your wife can still get childcare vouchers. This amount can be built up for future childcare costs. I don't believe you can do that under the new scheme.

Have a bit of an issue when the government state both parents working in the same household I am working and always have worked full time and pay all the chiildcare whilst my soon to be ex husband earns 5 times more than me but is obviously working..... does the fact I am technically a "single" mother exclude me from this government deal???

I have a more basic problem with all this:

Surely getting people (women) back to work is currently limited by the number of jobs, not childcare costs?

Last time I checked we have unemployment at 8% so we don't have a labour shortage?

zizi - no, single parents who are working WILL qualify, it's just households with two parents where both have to be working (because sahp don't need childcare in the same way). I am interested to know what happens with one parent in f/t education though??

Yes I agree ICBINEG. I would have thought it would make more sense to not pay people in tax breaks for both parents to work, particularly when there are families where no one works and are desperately seeking employment. Why pay someone a few extra grand in tax breaks when they are already earning 100k+? Doesn't make sense to me either.

Sorry, should have added, it's just another tax break for the rich.

There are skills shortages in certain sectors. Just because you have vacancies doesn't mean you can filled them with the currently unemployed.

And yes, I'm basically saying it's something for the rich. Most of the unemployed won't have the qualification or experience with those £100k jobs. That seems to be what osborne and friends see. Doesn't our new head of england earning over £800k a year? They have to find someone from Canada to fill that position. We should open some that he's not entitled to the new childcare tax saving scheme /sarcasm

more, I won't debate it on this thread but in essence the more women who work part time whilst their husbands earn the big bucks the worse the position of women. The personal is political.

As childcare for 3 (or 5 in our case in the past) children is about £30k if you both work full time £1200 per child is a bit of joke and hardly worth all this effort and cost to the nation. As apparently only 8% of women earn over £40k anyway Radio 4 said this morning hardly any women on high sums are affected and it was simply simplicity which meant the rules have a high cap. They could just as well not have had a cap for all the difference it would have made but some kind of cap was thought desirable (although gosh those couples on £300k a year pay so very much tax to this nation and obtain no child benefit giving them a tiny tax break like this and making it universal if you have childcare costs on a child under 5 and work would not have done much harm,.

Oh! I am in the 8% of women...how nice for me.

Won't get anything from this scheme as my husband is SAHP.

The thing stopping him from working is certainly not childcare costs and in fact for 'skilled labour' it hardly ever will be. Surely it is people going in to lower paid jobs that would find childcare costs prohibitive?

So I ask again, how is this helping people get back to work when the real problem is 8% unemployment?

It doesn't help people get back to work at all. It's a pretty transparent bribe to middle earners which is unlikely to work.

8% surprised me (it even includes my 20 something daughters) as 60% of graduates now are women and until 30 women out earn men and more women are millionaires in the Uk than men etc etc. I am not sure how many men earn over £40k.

I'm not the 8%

No I don't think this government is interested in helping people to get back to work.

helping people, or helping women?

all of their policies so far have affected women in a negative capacity

well then selling it as 'getting women back into work' is bullshit then.

Just checking....in case I had gone mad.

As you say if I find a job I could cover childcare. (Thank god I am employes atm). Sounds like your DH is in the same category. It's finding the jobs that is the problem. The government solution seems to be firing more austerity.

It is helps struggling people then i can see the good side to it although not sure who it will help as yet and why those on 150K need help. It will probably also annoy those who say if you choose the lifestyle choice of a child you should pay for your own childcare (not my view but some people thing that way).

As a SAHP it just makes me further dislike the government trying to push both parents into full time work and kids into childcare. Many people have their own systems that work well; a SAHP, working around each other etc etc. Why not just increase CB so people can use it to EITHER SAH or towards nursery fees. OH YEAH because they only want you to make one choice-to both work f/t! (Especially as studies often show many families want a parent at home full or part time the first few years)

It is hardly progression going from it only being acceptable to be a housewife/mother at one time to being only acceptable to work full time. Just as restrictive as in the 1950s! We are not just talking women but SAHD also!

But there are very few SAHD and many many women at home so this is a nudge from the state to women to say if possible get a job and contribute to the nation by paying taxes (although there are few jobs to be had) and it doesn't come into force until 2015. I prefer fiscally neutral and simple measures - low flat taxes for all and then it's up to you if you want to keep 2 horses, 6 cats, have an expensive hobby or children.

It sounds a total waste of time. They take away the child benefit and give this. It will hardly make a dent in most people's childcare bill. It doesn't affect me but I can see what a complete waste of time it is for most people. And what on earth is the point of announcing it now. It doesn't even come into effect till after the next election.

spickles, as OneLittleToddleTerror said, because I'm in full-time education, I count as "not working", in the same class as a SAHP so apparently don't need childcare. Since only DH is actually employed, as a couple we won't qualify for the new scheme. They seem to have Not Noticed that students are actually out of the house and need childcare. I'm in the lab 9-5:30 daily.

It's a simple equation: more children equals more future tax revenue, both parents working equals more tax revenue. Sadly, anyone who thinks the government, any government devises new policies for any other reason, altruism perhaps, is niaive.

I think everyone should pay a percentage of their income for childcare. That way those on high salaries would pay more, making good quality childcare accessible for everyone.

It is ridiculous that couples earning £150K should get a rebate at the same rate as someone earning £15K a year. They don't need it.

Single parents should probably pay a smaller percentage as they only have one wage coming in.

If everyone paid (for example) 15% - 20% would that work?

I know it took me a couple of years to actually keep more than about 20% of my salary, but I kept going because I needed to keep my job/career.