Childcare costs up to £15000 a year

Doodledog Norah, we are never going to agree on this, which is fine - it is an opinion, not one of those things that can be proved to be right or wrong.

IMO, everyone who is able to is responsible for paying their own way, and the fact that one family member pays a lot of tax is neither here nor there - their tax bill is their obligation, and doesn't cover anybody else's.

Indeed, we'll never agree on this topic. Nice we have no need. IMO married people are a unit/team - money is shared as are obligations.

I see this a different way. The average income of 22-39 year olds seems to be £26-32k. That being said the 2 income family is likely in the 20% tax rate. People choosing to have a sahp are likely to be paying the same 20% to 45% on their total family income - they are paying taxes. It is disingenuous to say a one income family is not paying their fair share of taxes on income earned. Apart from being critical of the choices of others, it's illogical.

Norah, we are never going to agree on this, which is fine - it is an opinion, not one of those things that can be proved to be right or wrong.

IMO, everyone who is able to is responsible for paying their own way, and the fact that one family member pays a lot of tax is neither here nor there - their tax bill is their obligation, and doesn't cover anybody else's. If I earned a million pounds a year, my tax bill would be high, but that would be because I owed a lot to society, and it would be illogical to say that I could buy others out of their responsibilities.

What's the point of having earnings-related taxation if one person can pay for two or more? We might just as well have a poll tax which is the same for everyone and can be paid by a Head Of Household. IMO, the current system of tax being related to earnings is a lot fairer. In fact, I think it could go a lot further and be a lot fairer than it is, but it's just that - my opinion. Disagree by all means, but I'm not being disingenuous. It's just what I happen to think.

As I keep saying, it's not the main point of my argument, which is that childcare should be subsidised with no cut-off for those who earn more than a basic salary. It wouldn't have to be nursery - childcare could be a nanny, or childminder (a granny or a professional), an after-school youth club or combinations of all.

Do people think I should have stayed at home?

Not if that didn't work for you or your family. As a single parent I had to work with my first two but was lucky enough to be able to stay at home for the last one. However, given the choice, I'd have stayed at home more if I could have. Things are different these days but when my free childcare stopped suddenly, I and to leave my work because there was no help from the Government and I didn't earn enough to have care for 2 children, one who was under two. I did limp on for a while but it was with Child Minders, both in their home and in mine. It was an awful experience and so I lived on benefits for a while. I'd sooner be poor than take a risk with my children.
There are lots of benefits with nurseries but very small children can spend a long, long time in them if both parents are working full time and I know that my grandson barely saw his parents from 9 months onwards until the Pandemic when they worked from home. That is when they realised how much they weren't able to do and just how much they didn't see regarding the behaviours of their own child. It was an eye opener and made them realise that they had to have more access to their child rather than getting home from work, exhausted and putting their child to bed. Weekends were spent getting ready for the next working week and doing shopping etc.
I am not criticising anybody who finds they have to work, I just think help should be balanced to allow parents to parent should they want to.

Doodledog

I would support a grant being given to all parents to spend on nursery fees or on boosting their income so they can afford to stay at home if they wish. It could be paid as a tax break, so that all parents of young children pay no income tax for the first five years whether they work or SAH? That would be fair to everyone.

I'd support that ^^ as well. I believe some parents belong at home and if income tax breaks help - fine by me.

Doodledog And yes, there are taxes other than income tax, but they are additional to the ones paid by those who work, and paid out of the remaining family budget (ie the after-tax income of the members of the family who do work). It is not being disingenuous to suggest that those paying taxes should be the ones to benefit from tax breaks. In fact it is far more so to say that someone not paying income tax should get the same childcare tax breaks as those who do pay, based on their paying VAT when they spend the money someone else has paid tax on.

I see this a different way. The average income of 22-39 year olds seems to be £26-32k. That being said the 2 income family is likely in the 20% tax rate. People choosing to have a sahp are likely to be paying the same 20% to 45% on their total family income - they are paying taxes. It is disingenuous to say a one income family is not paying their fair share of taxes on income earned. Apart from being critical of the choices of others, it's illogical.

And learnt to ignore the smugness of others.

ronib

Some single mothers are very resourceful and maybe work out solutions for themselves.

Well, thank goodness I'm one of those resourceful ones!!!

Some single mothers are very resourceful and maybe work out solutions for themselves.

icanhandthemback

This won't be a popular opinion but I can't help thinking we should be helping a parent stay at home rather than providing nursery care. When I look at the explosion of behavioural issues, I do wonder if our kids are benefiting from both parents working, especially when they are doing such long hours. I'm not saying get rid of funded nursery care altogether but maybe have a better balance.

Well, it wouldn't have been popular with me. I waited until I was 37 before I had my first child. I honestly thought I was settled and was financially secure. My second child arrived when I was 42. Little did I know what was around the corner.

I ended up as a single parent of a 6 year old and a 1 year old. I had already worked full-time while they were young because I earned more than ex-husband and we needed both salaries.

I didn't have any family to help me and my ex squirmed out of paying any maintenance. It was all on me!

Do people think I should have stayed at home? It would have been great if the government could have replaced my salary, but I somehow think there would have been an army of whingers, if it had. I received no help with childcare costs.

I wasn't the only parent in the same situation. We needed to work outside the home, not only for immediate needs, but to keep our careers going and to guarantee some kind of pension. I'd love to know how many people would choose a working week of 60+ hours and to do the best possible for their children when they could.

PS. My children somehow ended up as well-balanced adults.

I've been accused of living in a bubble with regards to immigration, but I honestly think there are some GNers who live in a double-glazed bubble regarding childcare.

V3ra

ronib

Another approach to wraparound care might be to consider that each worker in the UK is entitled to 5.6 weeks holiday leave. So if parents are on very tight budgets, they could take holiday leave separately to cover childcare and/or share caring with other families or relatives. 38 weeks school or nursery plus 12 weeks annual leave or 6 if single parent so quite well covered? Of course teachers with children don’t have this problem.

That's exactly what my daughter and her partner are doing. She has a spreadsheet for the year!

We've volunteered to go over for a week in August and have the two children.
I can't offer much more yet as I'm a working childminder myself still.

They've also factored in some important family time together to go away.

So what would you do for single parents without family?

Are you saying that anybody who finds themselves in that situation just would not be able to work?

Doodledog

I would support a grant being given to all parents to spend on nursery fees or on boosting their income so they can afford to stay at home if they wish. It could be paid as a tax break, so that all parents of young children pay no income tax for the first five years whether they work or SAH? That would be fair to everyone.

Or on going for lunch/to the gym/getting their nails done

I would support a grant being given to all parents to spend on nursery fees or on boosting their income so they can afford to stay at home if they wish. It could be paid as a tax break, so that all parents of young children pay no income tax for the first five years whether they work or SAH? That would be fair to everyone.

ronib

Another approach to wraparound care might be to consider that each worker in the UK is entitled to 5.6 weeks holiday leave. So if parents are on very tight budgets, they could take holiday leave separately to cover childcare and/or share caring with other families or relatives. 38 weeks school or nursery plus 12 weeks annual leave or 6 if single parent so quite well covered? Of course teachers with children don’t have this problem.

That's exactly what my daughter and her partner are doing. She has a spreadsheet for the year!

We've volunteered to go over for a week in August and have the two children.
I can't offer much more yet as I'm a working childminder myself still.

They've also factored in some important family time together to go away.

This won't be a popular opinion but I can't help thinking we should be helping a parent stay at home rather than providing nursery care. When I look at the explosion of behavioural issues, I do wonder if our kids are benefiting from both parents working, especially when they are doing such long hours. I'm not saying get rid of funded nursery care altogether but maybe have a better balance.

Norah

ronib

Growstuff so free 15 hours for the non working parent or parents.
No free whole year, wrap around care in any part of the education system!

Free 15 hrs a week exists now, yes.

We all pay taxes in a myriad of ways. Disingenuous to purport otherwise. VAT, council, car, MOT, TV, etc. The list is long. Family including a sahp pay plenty of taxes by way of income tax, NI, and all the other taxes.

Again, I'm not sure what is being argued for here. Are you saying that SAHPs should get free wraparound childcare? Why?

And yes, there are taxes other than income tax, but they are additional to the ones paid by those who work, and paid out of the remaining family budget (ie the after-tax income of the members of the family who do work). It is not being disingenuous to suggest that those paying taxes should be the ones to benefit from tax breaks. In fact it is far more so to say that someone not paying income tax should get the same childcare tax breaks as those who do pay, based on their paying VAT when they spend the money someone else has paid tax on.

The point I am making is that the high cost of childcare should not fall to working parents (usually mothers) who are doing their best to contribute to the economy and to provide for their children. The question of whether free or sponsored provision should also go to those who do not work was raised by another poster, and whilst I agree that it should not, it is not the main thrust of what I am arguing for at all. I have no wish to get involved in a discussion of the tax system on this thread, as it is not about that, but about the prohibitive cost of childcare at a time of high housing costs and general cost of living.

ronib

Another approach to wraparound care might be to consider that each worker in the UK is entitled to 5.6 weeks holiday leave. So if parents are on very tight budgets, they could take holiday leave separately to cover childcare and/or share caring with other families or relatives. 38 weeks school or nursery plus 12 weeks annual leave or 6 if single parent so quite well covered? Of course teachers with children don’t have this problem.

What about single parents? Teachers are sometimes single parents too.

Not everybody has family living close by.

Aren't couples ever entitled to take any leave at the same time, so they can go on holiday as a family?

Another approach to wraparound care might be to consider that each worker in the UK is entitled to 5.6 weeks holiday leave. So if parents are on very tight budgets, they could take holiday leave separately to cover childcare and/or share caring with other families or relatives. 38 weeks school or nursery plus 12 weeks annual leave or 6 if single parent so quite well covered? Of course teachers with children don’t have this problem.

ronib

Growstuff so free 15 hours for the non working parent or parents.
No free whole year, wrap around care in any part of the education system!

Free 15 hrs a week exists now, yes.

We all pay taxes in a myriad of ways. Disingenuous to purport otherwise. VAT, council, car, MOT, TV, etc. The list is long. Family including a sahp pay plenty of taxes by way of income tax, NI, and all the other taxes.

ronib

Growstuff so free 15 hours for the non working parent or parents.
No free whole year, wrap around care in any part of the education system!

I'm not sure what point you are making here.

The thread is about the exorbitant cost of childcare, which doesn't just apply to pre-school children, although it is more expensive for them because of ratios and the number of hours. For many parents, the cost of childcare means that working is not a viable option, and at a time when housing and general living costs are so high this is a double whammy, and it prevents these parents (usually mothers) from keeping their skills up to date and having a good chance of returning to a well-paid job later.

AFAIK, nobody has said that there is free, whole year, wraparound care - that is what should, IMO, be provided, as a tax break for workers.

I fully support the right of anyone to choose not to work, but I do not support their right to expect others to fund that choice. IMO if SAHPs want to the benefits of nursery care for their children they should pay for it. I suppose we need to decide whether we (as a society) should be paying to make a level playing field for parents, so that the choice to have children doesn't have to equate to a choice not to work, or if we should pay for parents to opt out of work as a choice and cover the costs of that choice from the public purse. For many parents there is no choice, and IMO the help should be going to them, and not means-tested so that they are trapped in lower-paid roles for fear of losing childcare funding.

Growstuff so free 15 hours for the non working parent or parents.
No free whole year, wrap around care in any part of the education system!

ronib

Yes okay but the free hours are broadly similar to the free hours available to every infant school child…. Maybe 15 minutes out each day? So in that case schools are not free either as they don’t cover the full hours parents work? But schools are free …….

No, they're not - only if both parents work or if there's only one parent.

Yes okay but the free hours are broadly similar to the free hours available to every infant school child…. Maybe 15 minutes out each day? So in that case schools are not free either as they don’t cover the full hours parents work? But schools are free …….

Thank you for clarifying the current situation V3ra. I knew it had changed since I had any direct experience of using full-time nursery.

The point I was making is that ronib is not correct to claim that nursery school is free for all from the age of 3. It's more complicated than that.

When my children were at nursery, they were there from 8am to 5pm ie 9 hours a day or 45 hours a week. The parents/carers have to make up the shortfall. Not only that, but many parents work during school holidays, so have to pay for that themselves.

Anecdotally, the funding from the government doesn't cover the hours provided by nurseries, so they charge those who pay the top-up fees extra to cover the shortfall.

The fee certainly drops when a child reaches three, but provision is still not free, even for those claiming Universal Credit. Incidentally, anybody familiar with Universal Credit knows that people are only eligible for the 80% rebate in very specific circumstances.

The current situation for a "free nursery" place is that all three and four year olds are entitled to 15 hours of Early Education Funding a week during term time.

(It should be noted that there is usually a week or two discrepancy between the number of funded weeks and the actual school term dates each term, just to further complicate matters for everyone).

If both parents work, or a single parent works, those children are currently entitled to 30 hours of Early Education Funding a week during term time.

If parents need more hours than this, or need care all year round, then they have to pay the extra costs themselves.

This extra payment can be subsidised by paying through the government Tax Free Childcare account if the parent(s) earn less than £100,000 a year.

Parents receiving Universal Credit can claim up to 80% of their extra payments through this.

Funded hours can be used at any Ofsted registered early years setting: a private nursery, a registered childminder, a pre-school, a school nursery, or a combination of these.

ronib

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?

No ronib nursery in the UK isn't free for all 3 year olds. For those in full-time nursery, it's subsidised. Parents have to pay a hefty top-up.