Childcare costs- someone talk me through the outrage

(447 Posts)
Suzietwo Sun 31-Mar-13 15:00:54

Is it just me or does it seem a bit grabby of mothers to be getting cross about the change to child care rules?

I thought the rules were being changed to try and encourage people to work. Ie to give them more choice and be option generating aka A. Good. Thing.

But the stay at home mums voice in the media just sounds a bit self important.

Don't misunderstand me, I am entirely on favour of people and families making decisions which suit them. This isn't about that. It's about people being a bit....indulged? Make a choice, stick with it. The more choices which are available the better so if the gvnt can help (a different argument about whether they should) by offering money to assist people go to work, then fab. But don't demand it for making the choice to stay at home.

riskit4abiskit Sun 31-Mar-13 16:45:34

I'm expecting our first and am the chief earner. I am worried about working and still being able to afford childcare for two days a week. (Oh will try to get his days off in week) and work weekends.

Its going to be a nightmare, but others manage so we will too!

I don't care what others do, its up to them and their lifestyle choices. Its human nature to complain about any change, so I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm sure there are plenty of alternative viewpoints argued strongly out there if you look.

BinksToEnlightenment Sun 31-Mar-13 16:52:02

You'll keep more people in work by ensuring they're actually making money through the nursery years. Full time nursery costs 70% of my salary.

gallicgirl Sun 31-Mar-13 16:53:11

But sometimes the SAHP isn't there by choice. My DP has just been made redundant so we can't afford the full time childcare we had when he was working.
I wouldn't expect help for all funding but it would be nice to get some help so 2YO DD could continue in nursery for 1 or 2 days a week and give DP chance to fill in job application forms.
Some parents are full time students or can't work due to disability. That scenario doesn't mean childcare isn't needed. However, they will get no help under this new scheme.

Tee2072 Sun 31-Mar-13 16:54:50

How about the fact that there are no jobs for these people to find? Forget the fact that childcare costs = most people's take home pay.

Suzietwo Sun 31-Mar-13 17:25:44

What's my point? I think the fact that (from what I understand) they are creating a ne benefit. And people who aren't getting it are whinging.
And that seems wrong to me. If you make the choice to stay home then you shouldn't have a benefit which is there to get people back into the workforce.
There is state funding available for 2+ year olds and besides, most of them go to bed at 6-7pm so plenty of time to make job applications then.

But not everyone chooses to stay at home. And there are precious few jobs around, this won't make getting them any easier.

Suzietwo Sun 31-Mar-13 17:31:53

But nobody is suggesting it is there to help you get a job. That's down to you. It's there to enable people (or help them to) to pay for child care so that once they've successfully applied for a job, they can take it.

Wishiwasanheiress Sun 31-Mar-13 17:34:16

No it isn't grabby of us. U want me to be everything, stay at home but keen on returning to work. If I'm at home how do I do that? I'm told on here I must keep my cv up to date, I must volunteer, I must do whatever the twinset pearls brigade deem I must in order to be appreciated. But without actually having any benefit of childcare as I'm supposed to be happy at home doing my wifely duties. If I'm out ensuring I'm continually developing as apparently my home skills aren't transferable to a cv who is looking after my kids? Dh is naturally a 5 day a week. I'm supposed to have tons of family and friends am I willing to step into this breach? Or what if I'm single parent?

I also get shouted at if I wfh. As how can I be working in any capacity with children around? But equally don't u expect childcare just because u don't know what u want!

The attitudes are contradictory and mostly extremely prejudiced. And those are women.

No wonder the men can't get it effing right when our own sex can't agree either.

jellybeans Sun 31-Mar-13 17:36:06

I think it is all the government put downs to be honest. Such as Clegg with his 1950s comments. Just because he is happy using childcare all day every day doesn't mean everyone is. They should be keeping out of private family decisions not trying to influence them only one way!

BruthasTortoise Sun 31-Mar-13 17:37:46

I think if SAHPs need childcare funding to get back into work then fine but there's going to have to be a system in place where they prove they are actively seeking work during the hours their child is in childcare.
Simalrily if a SAHP has disabilities and needs respite care for their children this would need a cover from note from a medical practitioner before the state will cover childcare.
Other than that I can't see why a SAHP who chooses to stay at home and has no medical reason to need childcare would get state funding for childcare. Seems contradictory to me.

Suzietwo Sun 31-Mar-13 17:40:58

I'm sorry, I don't really instant any of that post wishiwasanheiress.

Jelly - would you go so far as to say no funding for childcare then?

Suzietwo Sun 31-Mar-13 17:41:12

Instant? Understand.

hwjm1945 Sun 31-Mar-13 17:43:30

If at home,surely you do not need childcare?

Suzietwo Sun 31-Mar-13 17:43:44

Bit like job seekers, briputhas? hmm

BruthasTortoise Sun 31-Mar-13 17:45:08

Exactly like jobseekers, state funding for childcare while seeking work but only if you're actively seeking work. Not sure what the problem would be with that.

Suzietwo Sun 31-Mar-13 17:47:32

O we REALLY think that everyone on job seekers is actively seeking?

OP my point was that there are very few jobs around. And while childcare is so expensive it is very difficult to find a job that pays enough for it to be financially worth getting a job, assuming that I could.

I don't expect to be paid to stay at home but I do expect childcare costs to be less than a potential salary. Otherwise there's no point me looking is there?

PiHigh Sun 31-Mar-13 17:48:25

I don't have any issue with the general idea that SAHM's don't need the childcare and therefore don't need funding for it BUT there are circumstances where it could be funded in such a way as to help people get back into work. It's all very well saying you can have x% of your childcare bill back but how the feck do you afford it for the full month you work before being paid? (Particularly for those living hand to mouth on benefits)

How do those people get to an interview? I guess they have to beg family/friends to look after their dc. I know I couldn't afford a day of emergency rate childcare for every interview it might take to get a job on top of having to save for that first month's worth of childcare (and I'm lucky because I'm in a position where I could save for that sort of thing).

Also from what I understand it's less of a saving for most people than the current voucher scheme (though accessible to everyone).

I think I'd be less outraged that SAHM's don't get it and more outraged at how ineffective it's likely to be at getting people back into work.

You have to prove that you're applying for jobs if you're on JSA.

BruthasTortoise Sun 31-Mar-13 17:49:54

Suzietwo the system is in place to check that people are actively seeking. If you believe that swathes of people up and down the country are commiting benefit fraud by not actually looking for work well then fine, show me your proof please. I believe most people are honest.

Suzietwo Sun 31-Mar-13 17:52:34

So the general rhought is it should be available for people seeking work but not for those who choose to be sahm?

I don't think that's what's being said by sahm in media though.

marriedinwhiteagain Sun 31-Mar-13 17:53:52

All I know is that 18 years ago, I was entitled to six months maternity leave with very little of it paid at all. There were no child tax credits, nursery vouchers had just been withdrawn and generally people had to save up before they started a family to pay for it.

Where we live there were nursery places for three year olds - 2.5 hours a day; either 9-11.30 or 1-3.30. If you had a autumn baby they were almost four before they were eligible.

With each child I did a half day swap (from about 12 months) with a like minded neighbour so we each had 1/2 day a week of freedom (no family around for either of us). Apart from that we went to church playgroups, the one o'clock club, story time at the library and from about 2.5 our dc had three mornings (2 hour sessions) or three afternoons at a local playgroup in a church hall. I think they cost £15 pw back then.

For the year I went back to work 18 years ago, three days a week, the nursery fees were just over £600 after tax pcm.

There seems to be rather a lot available now compared to 18 years ago when there wasn't even wrap around care.

BruthasTortoise Sun 31-Mar-13 17:54:52

Side note but does anyone know if the childcare portion of CTCs currently available to people on JSA?

marriedinwhiteagain Sun 31-Mar-13 17:56:33

And actually, I think the nursery places and offer of them should attach to the child not to the choices of the mother and having been a sahm and a professional woman - I fully appreciate that sahms need a break from their dc - even if only for 2-3 hour per week. There is huge liberation in going to the loo unaccompanied and the work a sahm puts in shouldn't be underestimated - my easier days way back then were my working days although I gave it all up after a year because I wanted to be with ds full time

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now