Childcare costs up to £15000 a year

Mamardoit

There is a scandal now. Those of us born in the 50s have been badly treated. I can't remember the exact year but it was in the 1990s. I was at home looking after my dc. Dh was sorting his pension and wanted to arrange one for me. Because I didn't 'work' I couldn't have a pension. I know now things have changed and some well off grandparents are paying into pension pots for DGC It is unfair that women still suffer financially just because they are mothers. I doubt that will change.

This sort of thing is why I find it so unreasonable when people claim that women campaigning (or complaining) about pensions should accept that 'equalisation' of the pension age is fair. It isn't. If women had been paid the same as men through their working lives, if they had had equal access to pensions, if they didn't usually take more than an equal share of childcare responsibilities when both parents 'chose' to start a family then equalising the pension age might be fair. It is interesting that when the question about why women should be the ones needing childcare the answer is that women choose to have children, when for decades now family planning has existed and it has been a joint decision.

We are left with a lottery - if you can afford not to work the state will pay your pension contributions. If you can afford childcare or have parents who are willing and able to care for your children you can hang onto a career and keep your skills relevant. If you can't afford not to work and have no willing parents nearby you have to muddle through, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to do so. Without up to date skills and a track record of work experience it is less likely that women will get well-paid work after taking what they may have thought would be a temporary break, so the pattern is likely to continue when subsequent children come along.

We got no vouchers or free hours, and had a 16% mortgage. I worked for next to nothing some years. My husband took a year off while I worked, and some years we juggled it between us. It was stressful and difficult, and didn't get much cheaper when they started school, as then there was no flexibility, and a lot of the time they were in different schools (our LEA operated a three-tier system). Yes, we chose to have children, but now they are 'economically active' members of society and at 29 and 31 are helping to balance the demographic - if people like us had chosen not to have them the respective numbers of young and old would be even more precarious than they are.

Are people really suggesting that the choice to have children should bring crippling costs with it, and that these should be borne exclusively by the parents, meaning that only those who earn more than average or whose parents can help out can afford to have them? How do those who do feel that way think that the economy would manage with no young people when the demographic black hole doesn't mean fewer school places are needed, but fewer economically active adults? Should we import them from other countries instead of making it possible for parents to raise the next generation themselves? If so, why?

I had my 3 in the 90s ....I worked nights and weekends for years so me and partner could share childcare and not pay big nursery fees

Very interesting post Doodledog
My DB lives in Denmark and he and his DP have 2 DC who now each have 2 DC.
State subsided childcare means noone has to give up a career to look after children.
However I used to be critical of them.
I was of the opinion that we should be looking after our own pre schoolers. I only relied on occasional childminders but worked in the evening and managed on DH salary. Houses were far cheaper back in the 1970s.
Then my own DC started their families and had huge nursery bills to pay. Two mortgages for 2 DC.
At least they had the opportunity of good nurseries
One DS and DDiL had a workplace nursery which suited them very well.

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?

There are day centres for the elderly which are run with help of volunteers. Would this be possible for nurseries?

When I had my children there wasn’t much organised childcare. Unless you had a career and earned a lot of money you stayed at home or worked, as I did, in the evening.
However we helped each other , I looked after my friends children in the morning. Her husband dropped them off on his way to work. She picked them up after she had had a sleep after her night shift as a nurse. She paid me a small amount.
I don’t think that sort of arrangement is allowed these days?

^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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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^!

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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).

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 .

👍 Doodledog