Childcare costs up to £15000 a year

No. I thought we were talking about childcare fro pre-schoolers, which is now so expensive that many parents struggle to go to work.

I don’t understand Doodledog at all. Nursery school is free in the UK from the age of 3 as is education all the way up to 18 years.

Are you saying there’s to be no free state education?

Well yes, but if she can't afford to pay for something she wants for her child she can get a job and earn some money, same as other parents do. If there is a reason why she can't, then there should be provision, but if someone chooses not to work she can't choose to make someone else who does work pay to make up the cost of things she can't afford.

Doodledog You are making lots of assumptions about sahm. Some mothers might want to be with their young children and might be making huge financial sacrifices to do so! Just because a mother chooses not to work, doesn’t mean she can afford to pay for a nursery. Seems a bit pointless to force mothers to work just to pay nursery fees.

👍 Doodledog

Joseanne

^The yummy mummies wouldn't get it, as that part of the CB would only be paid to those who worked.^
Precisely, I think you understood what I meant Doodledog. It shouldn't be paid to parents who don't need to work but spend their day going to the gym, lunching out etc.

Yes. I agree with this.

I also think that parents of children with special needs should have paid respite care (and I don't care whether they use it to go for lunch or to do Good Works ) but TBH I can't understand why SAHPs should get paid babysitters if they are not working. If they can afford to choose not to work they could choose to pay to send their children to nursery.

For working parents it is basically a tax break, as the money would come from the fact that the economy benefits from the fact that they are paying two lots of contributions. If one parent is not paying tax they can't really have a tax break.

There would be exceptions to all of this, I know (eg the one about children with special needs). I am not making policy or putting forward a manifesto - I am just chatting on a discussion board about a way to make life easier for working parents .

ronib

I don’t agree that free nursery provision should only be given to working mothers. This is too prescriptive and overlooks the need of children to be in nursery school as a learning and social experience . Some parents will have children with special needs who place extra demands on a mother and her ability to work. There are many reasons for being a stay at home mum and I can’t understand why all children can’t have good nursery provision as part of their development.

Agreed. SAHM children have needs just as other children.

Basically people choose to have children. Money paid for childcare by way of CB, should be for all children. Parents on work, benefits, sahp, or not.

What is to pay for more childcare/ social experience nursery?

I don’t agree that free nursery provision should only be given to working mothers. This is too prescriptive and overlooks the need of children to be in nursery school as a learning and social experience . Some parents will have children with special needs who place extra demands on a mother and her ability to work. There are many reasons for being a stay at home mum and I can’t understand why all children can’t have good nursery provision as part of their development.

The yummy mummies wouldn't get it, as that part of the CB would only be paid to those who worked.
Precisely, I think you understood what I meant Doodledog. It shouldn't be paid to parents who don't need to work but spend their day going to the gym, lunching out etc.

Basically so it goes to everyone who works, and nobody gets caught in the trap where because their partner earns they get no help with childcare, or in a situation where they have got promoted or worked overtime but they lose out.

Many women get trapped into situations where they can't work full time without losing money, so they work 20 hours a week and get benefits for the other 20 and never progress in their career, whilst others have to work 40 hours for the same money, and resent the mothers. It's madness. If childcare were free (or made up a part of CB and went to everyone) it would mean that those who worked more got paid more and could keep what they earned. The yummy mummies wouldn't get it, as that part of the CB would only be paid to those who worked. If they do work and choose to spend money on nails or whatever else, that is up to them.

Joseanne I had my nails done with shellac btw brilliant job, but took about 4O minutes. It was the perfect chilled experience.
Do you remember/know how exhausting children can be and it’s 24 hours when very small.
Also good for young mums to take pride in their appearances. Also true for the yummy grandmothers!

If it forms part of the child benefit payment, then why give it to the yummy mummies who send their children to nursery but then spend the day getting their nails done? It should only be for those who are working.
(No offence to yummy mummies by the way. They're lucky).

ronib

I read that Jeremy Hunt will have some childcare provision in the budget but only for families on benefits.

For families who are scraping by with parents in professional jobs and receiving top up payments for childcare from grandparents, I think these amounts should be excluded from inheritance tax when it becomes payable. Grandparents are subsidising childcare in some cases. Or maybe the current laws on giving money to adult children already take this into account?

Interesting approach.

Giving rules apart from the 7 yr rule re care and minimum 7 yr inheritance rules - are a mystery. We note everything we give currently, apart from cash and pressies, for future look as needed when we pass.

I read that Jeremy Hunt will have some childcare provision in the budget but only for families on benefits.

I'm not at all saying that people on benefits shouldn't get help, but this sort of means-testing is deigned to keep people in 'their place'. If as soon as someone earns more (whether that means they come off benefits or that they move out of a category where they get help in the form of vouchers or free hours, or anything) they lose out, there is no incentive to put the work in. It seems to me to make sense to give free/subsidised childcare to everyone, so that nobody can't afford to work, and nobody is made worse off by working more hours or at a higher level. It could form part of child benefit payments, which I also think should be taken off means-testing. That way, everyone would be encouraged to work, and nobody would be worse off for doing so.

I read that Jeremy Hunt will have some childcare provision in the budget but only for families on benefits.

For families who are scraping by with parents in professional jobs and receiving top up payments for childcare from grandparents, I think these amounts should be excluded from inheritance tax when it becomes payable. Grandparents are subsidising childcare in some cases. Or maybe the current laws on giving money to adult children already take this into account?

Luckygirl3

Just to chip in .... being at home caring for children IS a job. No money of course, but it is an important and worthwhile job. This fact must not be lost in all the political hype about childcare.

Thank you.

I had to stay at home as I was unable to teach in the Netherlands. Also the children were home from school for 2 hours in the middle of the day and Wednesday afternoons. I was very lucky to be able to be with my own children.

I volunteered to set up a wraparound service when my children were at school. The committee was made up of working parents (99% mothers) and we did everything except staff the childcare, as we were all working, and anyway most of us weren't qualified to do so.

As it was a regulated service (registered and subject to all kinds of legislation that we had to learn and comply with) it was another shift on top of working at our paid jobs, running our homes, bringing up our children and living what was left of our lives - all of which could be categorised as 'jobs', and done by working mums as well as SAH ones.

Just to chip in .... being at home caring for children IS a job. No money of course, but it is an important and worthwhile job. This fact must not be lost in all the political hype about childcare.

Lucky proprietor at your children's nursery growstuff and lucky pupils, it sounds idyllic.
My school was equally happy and a bit of a hobby for me but I had nightmares about paying the hefty mortgage, staff salaries and bills, running holiday clubs, trips abroad etc --and even cleaning the school toilets at 9pm when the school cleaner didn't show up^!

Yes, admin is a pain and time consuming for many nurseries growstuff and additional help is often needed here. (My DH did mine for me, sometimes at midnight on top of his own busy job. It was impossible to fit it in around a full teaching timetable). That's where these big private nursery groups score, as admin is usually centralised and the setting itself doesn't need to worry too much. The downside is that these big companies often want their staff to work for peanuts and they ddo not value them in the sane way.

We used to bring in volunteers occasionally, especially for the holiday clubs, to run dance, drama, sport and some specialised craft sessions. However, as you say, we still needed the qualified staff ratio.

Also volunteers can just say no it's the nature of volunteering, they could be there as an addition (even that I am not convinced by because of the points mentioned by Joseanne and growstuff) but it wouldnt impact number of qualified staff needed.

I used to volunteer at an after-school club, but on the admin side. All the committee was made up of volunteers (most of us were users of the service) but all the hands-on staff were paid. I wouldn't have been happy to leave my children with unqualified staff, especially in an all-day nursery setting.

I was relatively lucky with the nursery I chose for my children. It was by far the best in the area (places were like gold dust) and it was also the cheapest. The reason was that the proprietor owned the property (a beautiful house with extensive gardens) outright, so didn't have a mortgage or rent to pay. He had inherited loads of money and ran the nursery almost as a hobby in memory of his late wife. He still did all the cooking and seemed to keep the staff happy because there was a low turnover.

^Is there anywhere which has volunteer help along with paid staff to help ratios?
I'm thinking along the lines of after-school and breakfast clubs?^
Any additional help is certainly welcome Grammaretto. The problem is that most nurseries have such a long day, many run from 6.30 am to 6.30 pm, but they still require the same ratio of qualified staff during ALL these hours. The settings probably need to employ 2 full time level 3s in order to cover the period, and I think 50% of staff must be level 2s.
The other issue is that a lot of the staff are made up of young "girls" who after a couple of years decide to leave because they can earn better money elsewhere.