MSE News: Childcare voucher tax breaks may be axed

Rince

My hubby and I are just about the threshold for WTC so rely on these vouchers as I have 2 children in nursery and our monthly bill is normally £750 !!! My DH can't claim for them as he's self employeed !

When GB states that there will be free nursery placements for 2 year olds (like there are currently for 3 year olds) what most people don't realise is that it's 5 lots of 2.5 hour sessions, which all of the pre-schools near me have said yes I could use but are only open for the 2.5 hours in the morning and 2.5 hours in the afternoon, so what use is that to someone if they work ? I couldn't work if I had only 2.5 in the morning and 2.5 in the afternoon. Luckily my nursery deduct the value off the bill each month.

But another thing alot of people don't know is that these 5 x 2.5 hours per week, is not for every week of the year, it's only for the school terms.

So when GB states free nursery places for 2 year olds, it's not what it seems, 5 x 2.5 hrs a week for appr 37 weeks of the year. Yes it's a help as it's money off the nursery bill, but most people assume it's a free full day nursery placement when it's not.

Sorry for the rant but childcare costs really get to me. Like other people have said, GB wants people back in work but unless you've got a job with good wages, people can't afford to come back to work.

LizzieS_2

bradshaw_chris wrote: »

Well, I'd say 99% of mums would rather stay with their kids than earn slave wages.

I'll be honest here. I earn more than 95% of the population, so this new policy isn't going to mean my family going hungry. What irks me is that it doesn't make financial sense for a woman with a masters degree and 6 years of experience to go to work, when she wants to. But there's a limit to how much any person would be willing to go to work when they have kids - she wouldn't do it for nowt. The government should be encouraging educated and experienced staff back to work, not the opposite. I'm sure they done the maths and worked out it'll save them money in the short term, but what is the long term effect when we run out of female-orientated workforce.

The same situations arise when tax credits are paying 80% of childcare costs. In many (not all) of these cases the household income is less than that of those using vouchers, so the effects are harder to chose between essential and non-essential expenditure (people on lower incomes may not be able to reduce expenditure to go without that extra £1 or £2 per hour).

The thing is, no-one should ever assume because a benefit is there when they begin their plans for having children that it will always be there - that is dangerous planning.

Many people find even with maximum help with childcare, the net result of a partner working is little or even a loss to their budget. But, it is also a long-term choice - giving up work now because it doesn't pay may in the long-term mean you end up working in a much lower paid job than you did previously.

Philycheesesteak

Please could you sign this if you get time – click on link below.



http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/keepvouchers/

Seriously that man, that one eyed jaw locking freak p!sses me off.

I liked the labour party, but he's taxed pensions so company pensions are failing left right and centre, he has about as much charisma as a shopping trolley in a canal and seems to be single handily destroying this country...

And now this!! Taxing working families, yeah let's all just live off the state shall we Gordon! F Working and raising the taxes you now need cos you've got a 1 trillion pound self made overdraft.

It's like they don't want to be in power, the job is too hard we don't like it any more.

But the Tories are just as bad, want to raise the pension age and have no clue how to get us out of this global banker greed caused mess.

And Liberal democrats, they could make any policy up, everyone gets free sweets on a Tuesday, as much as I like their finance guy they wont get in, 80% if the population doesn't know who Nick Clegg IS!!!


ALL BRITAINS PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION!! Use your democratic right, the one that millions of soldiers faught to give you!

ceivegz

SarahNeedle1872 wrote: »

There's nowt wrong with stacking shelves! It may not be a high paid job, but its a job! And there'd be naff all on the shelves if it weren't for shelf stackers1

There isn't anything wrong with stacking shelves, but our economy would be [even more] shafted if everyone in highly-skilled high earning jobs decided to pack it in to do low skilled jobs.

ceivegz

If anything, vouchers should be made obligatory (some employers still don't bother with the scheme, even when begged to join as in my case) for any company employing more than 5 people. It saves employers money means millions of people can afford to go out to work without worrying about the massive cost of childcare.

Now we're all going to end up paying for childcare for non-working parents who are capable of looking after their own children themselves.

bradshaw_chris

LizzieS wrote: »

The same situations arise when tax credits are paying 80% of childcare costs. In many (not all) of these cases the household income is less than that of those using vouchers, so the effects are harder to chose between essential and non-essential expenditure (people on lower incomes may not be able to reduce expenditure to go without that extra £1 or £2 per hour).

The thing is, no-one should ever assume because a benefit is there when they begin their plans for having children that it will always be there - that is dangerous planning.

Many people find even with maximum help with childcare, the net result of a partner working is little or even a loss to their budget. But, it is also a long-term choice - giving up work now because it doesn't pay may in the long-term mean you end up working in a much lower paid job than you did previously.

I don't generally disagree with what you're saying. But times have changed. The voucher scheme and tax credits were introduced for the exact reason of getting mums back to work. We didn't need these schemes in the past as childcare didn't used to be so expensive, or we often lived near to grandparents. Women have also become more established in the workplace.

Now, it's a big debate as to whether it was better before when mums didn't go to work and we all lived near to our parents. But the fact is, if I'd spent 5 years of my life getting a degree and 6 years in the workplace then I'd be a bit miffed if someone came and devalued my contribution to society in one quick policy change.

flea72

bradshaw_chris wrote: »

I think our maths dissagree. Childcare costs a lot more than that here. And you've not factored in petrol (the nearest jobs would be costing her >£60 a week in petrol).

But let's not quibble. I'll agree with your maths for the sake of argument. So who would go to work for £2/hr?

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

It depends how many children you have.
Round here the going rate is £5 an hour. So with 2 children you'd need to be earning £10 an hour to break even.
Plus you'd need to pay childcare for traveling time, which you wouldn't get paid for.

People who need the money, go out to work for £2/hr. i know i prob take home less than this, after paying for childcare/travel. But that £2/hr equates to an extra £50 a week coming into our house, so it means we can eat and pay our bills. Its a basic choice, earn £5 and pay someone £3 so i can bring home £2, or stay at home and get £0 - i dont know, but i think most people would prefer the £2

What car do you drive, and how out in the sticks do you live, to be needing to pay £60 a week in petrol? i could get from John O'groats to Lands End for that! (ok might need to freewheel from St Austell, but you get the point:p)

£5 is not the going rate, anywhere other than london, and you get better pay, etc. due to the higher cost of living. Tbh, when i said £3/hr i was being generous, as alot of childminders charge below this. And if living in and around the capitol, then travelling costs per mile are way less than in rural areas, so you get even better value for your buck

Perhaps family planning should be an issue, if you can only afford to have one child in paid childcare at a time. i have 7yrs between each of my children, mainly due to this fact

i know you have to factor in travelling time, to cover childcare fees. but lets be honest, the only losers where pay-childcare ratios are concerned are those on low wages, and i doubt any of them would be looking at jobs outside their immediate area, so travelling costs wouldnt be that much of a consideration. You wouldnt live an hour from London, but spend your time travelling in, to work at Tesco Metro, you would work at a store near your house

Flea

barnaby-bear

I think it's a shame that no-one has mentioned some administrative benefits of the voucher scheme.

It's administered in the private sector.
It's directly proportional to the childcare costs.
It's cheap to administer - dirt cheap.
There are no fiddly forms/overpayments/fraudulant claims.

It's flexible - parents can choose provider and hours to suit rahter than being dictated they can go to xxx nursery between yy hours

bradshaw_chris

flea72 wrote: »

People who need the money, go out to work for £2/hr. i know i prob take home less than this, after paying for childcare/travel. But that £2/hr equates to an extra £50 a week coming into our house, so it means we can eat and pay our bills. Its a basic choice, earn £5 and pay someone £3 so i can bring home £2, or stay at home and get £0 - i dont know, but i think most people would prefer the £2

What car do you drive, and how out in the sticks do you live, to be needing to pay £60 a week in petrol? i could get from John O'groats to Lands End for that! (ok might need to freewheel from St Austell, but you get the point:p)

£5 is not the going rate, anywhere other than london, and you get better pay, etc. due to the higher cost of living. Tbh, when i said £3/hr i was being generous, as alot of childminders charge below this. And if living in and around the capitol, then travelling costs per mile are way less than in rural areas, so you get even better value for your buck

Perhaps family planning should be an issue, if you can only afford to have one child in paid childcare at a time. i have 7yrs between each of my children, mainly due to this fact

i know you have to factor in travelling time, to cover childcare fees. but lets be honest, the only losers where pay-childcare ratios are concerned are those on low wages, and i doubt any of them would be looking at jobs outside their immediate area, so travelling costs wouldnt be that much of a consideration. You wouldnt live an hour from London, but spend your time travelling in, to work at Tesco Metro, you would work at a store near your house

Flea

I don't know why we're disagreeing with each other. Neither of us want the scheme scrapped - just for slightly different reasons. You need the money and my partner wants to go back to work (if it made financial sense). I just think we're so frustrated that we'll argue with anyone!

Anyone on here want to give me a good reason why the scheme shouldn't be scrapped - I need to argue with someone!

Smifta

It is blatently obvious that Labour will suffer a crushing defeat in any General election in the next 18 months, so surely its Cameron that should be being lobbied.

Anyway, it is a crazy idea to abolish the childcare voucher tax breaks. The companies that administer these schemes will surely go bust for one thing, as people see no point in them. Surely, the best solution is to limit their use to standard rate tax payers? Also, many childminders that have been recently encouraged into this career and the expense of getting their home up to scratch for the Ofsted inspectors and have to put up with constant official interference, will surely be hit massively by this move.

My wife intends to return to work, but for part time hours. There isnt much work out there and much of it is just above minimum wage. She left her original fairly well paid job after returning from the birth of our first child and being practically victimised and hounded out when returning. They changed her role, but got a way with it due to a loophole because they had imposed redundancies (director going through divorce and temporarily wound business down to avoid big payout).

Luckily this change wouldnt kick in until 2015 (if Labour miraculously won). My wife would not be able to work if this happened any sooner as there would be little or no financial reward for working. I have a reasonably well paid job, but am a standard rate taxpayer and my wife wouldnt work more thean 16 hours, so no WTC for us. It would seem that this current regime wants to penalise the majority of reasonably educated hardworking taxpaying families. We might well escape the worst of this financial hit should it happen as our second son would have started school, but God help anyone with a work ethic that is starting a family in 2015.